I remember after the Bush win in 2000, the democrats thought they were relegated to histories also-ran bin for a long time. But, then the Republican's screwed things up by changing their ways. I think this time the same thing will happen after the Republicans get the debt under control and the economy back on track. Then, they'll do something stupid and give the liberals another avenue to take over Congress. It seems to be a never ending cycle. But, I hope I am wrong. We need to really stomp the liberals into the gound this time so they never come back. I don't want to see another Reid, Pelosi or Obama with power ever after January.
Kerry lead Bush Numerous times. Clinton was ahead Of Dole by around 12 but Poret was running 3rd party and getting around 10 % in the polls.Final results were Clinton 49 %,Dole 41 % and poret 8 %.If not for Perot Dole would have been polling close to Clinton http://articles.cnn.com/2004-03-08/...y-and-bush-poll-bush-cheney?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS Kerry leads Bush in new poll April 27, 2004 Presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry leads President Bush in the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, although the race appears to be fluid and remains close. The poll, released Monday, found that among likely voters, Kerry was the choice of 52 percent and Bush 44 percent in a two-way matchup, with a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. In a three-way race with Independent candidate Ralph Nader, Kerry had 50 percent, Bush 44 percent and Nader 2 percent.
Gotta agree. It won't be long before Romney insists on putting a Batcave in his La Jolla mansion or reminds everyone how many cadillacs his wife has. Bush said something like "I had to turn my back on Democracy to save the country". I voted for him twice but at that point believed he was a complete idiot even though I liked him personally. The truth is that he did hand Obama a mess but the Obama regime has so overplayed that hand that it has lost its meaning. The country isn't sympathetic to Obama complaining about George Bush anymore and they expected him to do something other than just extrapolate Republican policies regarding the war(s), Guantanamo and TARP. Obama added his own folly with the stimulus bill and Obamacare. Obama is probably an ok guy to play golf with and have a few beers with but I think he has been a disaster as president. I actually feel viceral hatred towards Pelosi and Reid that I do not feel towards Obama. By his own measure (8% unemployment) Obama will probably not get a second term and the hard-core portions of the left (unions, race baiters, homosexuals, immigrants and OWS types) will be very angry with the outcome. Watch what happens when Romney pulls well ahead of Obama. You won't see me or you or Lucrum or other conservatives teasing or baiting the leftists but will likely see us being magnanimous. Not like the classless cheering that the Obama idiots have been doing for 3+ years.
As and incumbent, I also would have thought Obama would have a 5-10 point lead right now. But, when you ignore the economy for two to three years and your idea of fixing a debt problem is to spend more... you are not going to fix the economy. Even Keynes himself suggests you lower taxes and try to grow out of the problem. An update. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows Mitt Romney earning 48% of the vote and President Obama attracting 44% support. Four percent (4%) would vote for a third party candidate, while another three percent (3%) are undecided. Matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). However, Rasmussen Reports does not conduct survey interviews on Mothers Day. The next update of the Presidential Tracking Poll will be released Tuesday morning at 9:30 a.m. Eastern. Romney has now had the lead for eight consecutive days. See tracking history.
Why would you expect that ? Bush wasn't beating Kerry by 5-10 at this point in 04 Clinton was beating Dole by around 12 but that was only because Ross Perot was polling around 10 % Reagan and Mondale was back and forth with Mondale in the lead sometimes
An update.Most polls have Obama winning.The most accurate poll (Intrade )and global betting markets has Obama nearly a 3-1 favorite
More odds in The Presidents favor Incumbent already has the odds in his favor.No US President has loss re election during a time of war.Since TV became the norm for presidential elections the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of the more likable candidate.Obama beating Romney 60-31 in likability http://news.yahoo.com/romney-unlikable-235804293.html Romney, the Unlikable Very few votes are going to be cast on the basis of what Mitt Romney did or didnât do to John Lauber in 1965. So that, per se, isnât Romneyâs problem. But this is: The story lands as another brick on pile of evidence amassing that heâs just a disagreeable human being. A few days ago I wrote about Barack Obamaâs biggest problem, which is that despite all the many areas in which Americans rate him higher than Romney, the one on which they give Romney the edge happens to be pretty important: handling the economy. Now we get to Romneyâs biggest problem. The likability factor. He ainât got it. And he ainât got much of a way to get it. Historical question: When is the last time the clearly less likeable candidate beat the clearly more likeable one for the White House? The answer is, a long time. I put the question to Gallup, which didnât have historical numbers at hand. But doing some noodling around on my own suggests that you have to go back to 1968 to find such a result. In 2004, George W. Bush generally led the likeable category. Pew emailed me some numbersâthey had Bush leading John Kerry on likeability by 47 to 36 percent in September 2004. Interestingly, Kerry caught up and even went ahead after the first debate. But even so, voters judged both very likeableâ70 percent for Kerry, and 65 percent for Bush. In 2000, Bush usually topped Al Gore, but not by massive margins. An October 2000 poll gave Bush an 11-point margin. Pew had a nine-point margin for Bush around the same time. Before then, numbers get a little harder to come by. But crusty old Bob Dole was surely not considered more likeable than Bill Clinton in 1996. The 1992 Clinton-George H.W. Bush matchup was probably close. But just think back over the elections. The âwoodenâ Michael Dukakis in 1988 wasnât exactly radiating intense bonhomie. Ronald Reagan was extremely likeable on a personal level to most people. Jimmy Carter had that big smile in 1976. Et cetera. As I say, I would imagine that itâs 1968, when the surly Dick beat the Happy Warrior, although by just a half million votes out of more than 70 million cast. But even Nixon was probably not clearly less likeable than Humphrey. After all, heâd been the vice president, heâd been on the national stage for nearly 20 years; the man definitely had his backers. Romney, though? This is the biggest washout of modern times, folks. Gallup just this week put the likeability ratings at Obama 60, Romney 31. Itâs not that Obamaâs number is unusually high. Look back at those Kerry-Bush numbers. Americans are an open-hearted lot, at least presumptively, so they want to like the guy whoâs going be the president. But they Do. Not. Like. Mitt. Romney.
The polls which have obama in the lead over sample democrats by 7-11 points. In other words they have to more democrats in the poll to change obama from losing to winning.
There are more democrats in those polls because there are more democrats in the country.In other words if there are more registered democrats then republicans a random poll is likely to have more democrats then republicans http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-22/voters-political-parties/52171688/1 Registered Democrats still dominate the political playing field with more than 42 million voters, compared to 30 million Republicans and 24 million independents
AK the skew is enormous. Stop presenting this bullshit about more dems than repubs. First of all it looks like dems have lost 8 percent of their group. Second...polling science says to be accurate you poll based on recent turnout. Not... how many fake names the democrats shove into a database. ---------------------- from Max E Pad.... ""I try not to get excited about any given poll, but this one shows Romney +7, and between the 2 polls which show Obama with a big lead, both have a 9% skew for democrats......... So one poll says Obama is +8 with a 9 point skew, which means Obama -1% or tie And the Reuters +7 poll is equally egregious, it also shows a 9 point skew.....which means Obama -2%, or tie. The only polls showing Obama leading at this point have a heavy "skew....." here is his follow up in which he shows the research... It is about half way down the survey on the AP poll, and i was wrong, that one is actually a 12 POINT SKEW. Here is the link: http://surveys.ap.org/data/GfK/AP-G...nal_2012eln.pdf The Reuters one is almost at the bottom....and its a 9 point skew....here is the link http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=11610