Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggling?

[longnecker]

In the twilight of President Barack Obama's first term, many polls, including a new Quinnipiac University tri-state survey of likely voters, show that most Americans say they are not better off than they were four years ago. But in those same polls, the president retains his edge over challenger Mitt Romney.
That's not normal, says Quinnipiac University pollster Peter A. Brown.
According to a poll released Wednesday by Quinnipiac University, CBS News and the New York Times, Romney still has not overtaken Obama in the battleground states of Colorado, Virginia and Wisconsin among likely voters. While Virginians are split on whether they're better off than they were four years ago, voters in other states say they're worse off.
What gives?
Two words:"Likability" and "relatability"—areas, according to the data, where Romney continues to struggle.
In those three states, Romney's favorability rating among likely voters hovers around 45 percent. Obama's numbers are slightly better, with favorability ratings of 49 percent in Colorado, 53 percent in Virginia and 52 percent in Wisconsin. (Meanwhile, former President Bill Clinton's favorability rating in all three states remains above 60 percent, which may explain why Obama has been running ads online showing him with Clinton and not Vice President Joe Biden, who's favorability tops out at 42 percent in those states, according to the poll.)
Perhaps even more telling is the poll's question about whether likely voters think Obama or Romney care more "about the needs and problems of people like you." In all three states, Obama leads by at least 10 percentage points. In Wisconsin, he has a 17 percentage-point edge on that question over Romney.
"Most times if voters think things haven't gone well, they say, 'Let's think of somebody else.' But at this point they're not saying that," Brown said. "Clearly they think [Obama] is more in tune with their lives."
The poll does show, however, that Obama has lost ground in two of the three states polls. His five percentage-point lead in Colorado last month has evaporated to a dead heat with Romney and his lead in Wisconsin has trimmed from 51-45 percent to 49-47 percent.
"Obviously, if you're Mr. Obama, you're happier than if you're in Mr. Romney's shoes," Brown said of the poll. But he added a word of caution: The numbers "are not overwhelming."
Meanwhile, the latest Gallup swing state poll shows Obama and Romney are statistically tied.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/v...-election.html

[Beau Stockard]

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/full-broadcast/49080181

Reaching 50%: Back in May, we noticed in our national and state polls that President Obama was at or near 48% in these surveys, which represented a sort of tipping point for an incumbent president. You're very close to that all-important 50%, but still not there. Well, our latest round of national and state polls conducted after the conventions now shows Obama at or near 50%. For instance, our brand-new national NBC/WSJ poll finds him leading Romney 50%-45% among likely voters and his approval rating sitting right at 50% among registered voters (the first time he's reached that point since March). In addition, last week's NBC/WSJ/Marist polls of Florida (49%-44%), Ohio (50%-43%), and Virginia (49%-44%) had him at or near that 50% threshold. There are exceptions, however: A national AP/GfK poll has Obama at 47% among likely voters and Romney at 46%, and USA Today/Gallup has Obama at 48% in the swing states versus Romney at 46%. But there also are other polls showing Obama at or above 50% -- new NYT/CBS/Quinnipiac surveys have him at 51% in Wisconsin, 50% in Virginia, but 48% in Colorado. So Obama's prospects are looking stronger than a month ago. The question is: Can he hold on to this 50% support? If the election were held today, it would probably look a lot like Obama’s job rating in our new poll -- 50% to 48%. ...What’s more, 42% of voters believe the economy will improve in the next 12 months, which is a six-point jump from August and 15-point rise from July. And now get this: Obama is tied with Romney (43% to 43%) on which candidate would be better on the economy. (The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent points out that this is the sixth recent national poll to show Obama and Romney tied on the economy.) In July, Romney held a six-point edge on this question. As NBC/WSJ co-pollster Peter Hart (D) says, “Simply put, it Romney doesn’t win on dealing with the economy, he doesn’t win.” The jump in economic optimism isn’t just being fueled by more Democrats, but also by high single-digit and double-digits shift among self-described indies.

First Thoughts: Reaching 50%

NBCNews.com·1 hour ago *** Did Obama and Romney succeed at their conventions? Here’s another way to read our poll: Did Obama and Romney succeed at their conventions in shoring up…

[Beau Stockard]

duplication miscue

[Beau Stockard]

duplication mistake

[Josef]

I think it's easy to see why Romney is struggling. He's incredibly shady. If the Republicans actually countered Obama with a decent person Obama would be in deep shit.

[Beau Stockard]

I think it's easy to see why Romney is struggling. He's incredibly shady. If the Republicans actually countered Obama with a decent person Obama would be in deep shit.

So, you're saying Josef, Drop Romney/Ryan and go with a Condi Rice/Marco Rubio ticket?

[Chiefbuck]

Most of today's newspapers and morning TV shows featured Romney's comment, obviously in an effort to help the Obama campaign. What happened in many cases was that people became more aware of why Obama continues to have support. While Mitt's comment could have been made in another fashion, remember it was an off the cuff remark made at a campaign fundraising event. Here in Realville we do understand that the Obama agenda will require far more funding to continue the present level of funding. It is unlikely that the US House will suddenly revert to democratic leadership. Should the president be reelected, there will be gridlock. Today I read the Aug 2012 American Legion magazine which featured an article that detailed the proposed military cutbacks. Should you wish to enjoy a good night's sleep, you may not want to read the article.

[longnecker]

Most of today's newspapers and morning TV shows featured Romney's comment, obviously in an effort to help the Obama campaign. What happened in many cases was that people became more aware of why Obama continues to have support. While Mitt's comment could have been made in another fashion, remember it was an off the cuff remark made at a campaign fundraising event. Here in Realville we do understand that the Obama agenda will require far more funding to continue the present level of funding. It is unlikely that the US House will suddenly revert to democratic leadership. Should the president be reelected, there will be gridlock. Today I read the Aug 2012 American Legion magazine which featured an article that detailed the proposed military cutbacks. Should you wish to enjoy a good night's sleep, you may not want to read the article.

I'm working tonight so I would have plenty of time to read the article. I'm having trouble finding your link there. Aren't those cuts being forced by action or lack there of by a bipartisan committee on which the Republican VP was a leader .

[Beau Stockard]

Chiefbuck,

Most of today's newspapers and morning TV shows featured Romney's comment, obviously in an effort to help the Obama campaign

How does that explain the numerous attacks from mainstream Conservatives on Mitt Romney's latest blunder? And did you see what conservative (Republican ) columnist David Brooks had to say about this?

Brooks: Romney doesn't understand American culture - San Jose ...

www.mercurynews.com/.../brooks-romney-doesnt-understand-ameri...Cached
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
1 day ago – In 1980, about 30 percent of Americans received some form of government benefits. Today, as Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise ...

David Brooks is just one of many conservative voices that are criticizing Romney. People who "don't pay taxes" fall into two groups. There's the high income people ,like Romney himself, who succeed in ducking taxes. Several thousand millionaires and billionaires PAID NO TAXES AT ALL; I would accept the fact that we can call these people "moochers". Then there's the lower end of the scale ,people who make too little to pay income tax(though they pay payroll taxes at a rate that is higher than the rate Romney paid); people on Social Security who worked all their lives and paid into Social Security are now being paid from it in amounts proportionate to what they paid in; people who are unemployed , who don't pay income taxes,because they have no income. The conservative myth is that there's this vast body of unemployed people who don't want to work. For every person who you can find like that, there are HUNDREDS of unemployed people who would be happy to have a job, and the income and self-respect that come with it. The states with the highest percentage of people who don't pay taxes vote RepublicanThey also tend to be states where science isn't taught very well;where "creationism" is presented as if it was a valid scientific theory; where climate change is not spoken of or taught as a liberal hoax. (See a connection? Poorly educated,under- or unemployed , Republican) David Brooks:

The people who receive the disproportionate share of government spending are not big-government lovers. They are Republicans. They are senior citizens. They are white men with high school degrees. Far from living in the thrall of liberalism, the people who receive these benefits are more hostile to government than the average American.

[Grin]

I'm working tonight so I would have plenty of time to read the article. I'm having trouble finding your link there. Aren't those cuts being forced by action or lack there of by a bipartisan committee on which the Republican VP was a leader .

No need to bother L.N. the good Chief will tell you all about it, after you've had a good nights sleep.
oh, there it is, http://www.legion.org/magazine/21174...budget-deficit

[Chiefbuck]

Grin, The link that you provided is for the September magazine and the article isn't the one that I referred to. Look in the August 2012 magazine for 'Unintended Consequences'.

[Chiefbuck]

Folks, Try this in order to get to the American Legion magazine article that I mentioned. I'm having a computer glitch with the send link password system so I typed in the link. As you might guess, I'm not even remotely computer literate. Fortunately my oldest son is a genuine computer guru.

http://www.legion.org/magazine/21135...d-consequences

[Jessica]

This old Reganism pops up every election cycle, but it's always been a puzzling question to me for two reasons.

First of all, I didn't see in the article (and I may have missed it) what parameters they're using to have people come to their conclusion. Are you paying more or less in taxes? Are you unemployed or underemployed or have you found work in the last four years? Did you lose your home? Did you buy a home? What set of circumstances lead you to being better or worse than four years ago?

Secondly, that question never seems to be tied directly to government actions or lack of actions. Am I better off than I was four years ago? Yeah. But that's because of things that I did personally - finished grad school, got a more fulfilling job, budgeted and saved money, paid down debts, renovated my house to increase its value. Obama didn't do those things for me, I did.

I think this kind of question tends to give either too much or too little credit to the government in charge during a four year period. If I had a home that I purchased under the Bush administration that had a balloon payment mortgage that I couldn't afford, and I lost it during the Obama administration and I now live in a motel I would probably say that I'm not better off than I was four year ago. On the flip side, if I lost my job while Bush was president, but took out student loans and got a degree and got a job while Obama was president, I might say that I am better off than I was four years ago. But, neither one of those things is an indicator of how either president governed the nation. They're indicators of my decisions and how they affected my life.

[Chiefbuck]

Jessica, Consider if you will the big picture. Since national security is the number one priority because without it, nothing else matters. From that point on, it's food, shelter, clothing etc. And then personal choices come into play. Overall, with quantitative easing figured in, we are all losing value rather than money. We will notice that the cost of goods has increased while the value of our homes have decreased. Experts have estimated that our actual worth, including our savings has decreased about 30%. If that is factual, which I have no way of knowing, things have gotten worse. Unemployment, even with the convoluted reporting system that is used has increased. Hope however in many cases has vanished and folks are using other available ways like disability and early retirement to get by.

[Beau Stockard]

Chiefbuck,

Consider if you will the big picture. Since national security is the number one priority because without it, nothing else matters

Are we safer today then we were just prior to the 9/ 11 attacks in 2001? Short answer: Yes, based on the fact that there have been ZERO successful terrorist attacks on domestic U.S. soil since Barack Obama was elected in November,2008. So, we need to honestly say that under President Obama ,we won the war on terror. It's over and we need to get on with more pressing problems that the country faces ; we should be addressing our deepening social and ecological deficits along with our financial deficits, for example. @Chiefbuck,

Experts have estimated that our actual worth, including our savings has decreased about 30%.

'Experts' also tell us that those 'losses ' in savings , home values, etc. have been caused by the 2007-08 Great Recession. ' Quantitative easing' only means that the Fed is lowering interest rates to encourage more borrowing, although some market analysts like Jim Cranmer believe the Fed 's actions are unnecessary because investors are already flocking to buying U S. treasury bonds as security on investments in productivity. What Cranmer says is the Congress needs to be taking actions now to encourage a speedier economic recovery, more Stimulus for one thing- it worked to halt the recession and unemployment rise, provided banks with money to continue loaning out to small businesses, students, home owners , etc., and money to cash-strapped state and local governments to continue providing essential social services, police, fire, emergency service, public schools, libraries, road,street and mass transit infrastructural repairs, etc. and it worked towards more nation-building , more employer confidence, better energy efficiency, and more job creation.

[Jessica]

Jessica, Consider if you will the big picture. Since national security is the number one priority because without it, nothing else matters. From that point on, it's food, shelter, clothing etc. And then personal choices come into play. Overall, with quantitative easing figured in, we are all losing value rather than money. We will notice that the cost of goods has increased while the value of our homes have decreased. Experts have estimated that our actual worth, including our savings has decreased about 30%. If that is factual, which I have no way of knowing, things have gotten worse. Unemployment, even with the convoluted reporting system that is used has increased. Hope however in many cases has vanished and folks are using other available ways like disability and early retirement to get by.

Chief - while everything you've said can be used in a big picture snapshot of whether or not we're better off today - however, are those the parameters that these poll takers use every 4 years when they call around to ask us that question? Is the average American being asked that question and seriously stopping to think "Well, the cost of goods and services has increased and our individual worth is...?"

I don't know, but I think that's giving too much credit to the average poll participant.

The purpose of my statement wasn't to argue whether we are better off or not - personally I am, while I realize that many others are not. The true *reason* we aren't better off is certainly up for debate, and I'm almost certain that you and I would disagree where the downward spiral started and what has successfully been mitigated, etc. That's the type of conversation I'm not really interested in engaging in.

My interest is really in how useful or factual polls like this are, and how much personal responsibility people take in their position in life as opposed to how much they either blame or praise the government.

[Jessica]

Chiefbuck, Are we safer today then we were just prior to the 9/ 11 attacks in 2001? Short answer: Yes, based on the fact that there have been ZERO successful terrorist attacks on domestic U.S. soil since Barack Obama was elected in November,2008. So, we need to honestly say that under President Obama ,we won the war on terror. It's over and we need to get on with more pressing problems that the country faces

I would certainly disagree that the war on terror is "over" or that we "won." The war on terror won't ever be over - it will have different faces, names, tactics, and targets, but there isn't a way to definitively state a victory because we've removed some senior leaders of one single terrorist group.

Are we safer? I don't know. Maybe? It *feels* safer, but it felt really safe on September 10, 2001. We're surely not safe outside of our borders, as our embassies continue to be attacked.

I agree that there were certain aspects of the Bush administration's pre-9/11 intelligence priorities that seem to have been a little lax. We don't have to look past the briefs that were declassified in 2004 to see that. And I also think that many of the Bush administration's actions in response to terrorism, or in the name of it, put us more at risk for future attacks in terms of setting a poor precedent for involvement in the Middle East.

But, the fact that there have been no successful terrorist attacks since 2008 overlooks the fact that there have been no successful terrorist attacks on US soil since around 10:30 a.m. on September 11, 2001. It also overlooks that fact that part of that is sheer luck. Remember the Nigerian underwear bomber on Christmas Day in 2009? The only reason he didn't blow himself, and a plane full of other travelers, into the stratosphere over Detroit was because his device malfunctioned and burnt his nether regions instead. Dude had no passport and a crotch-full of explosive powder sewn into his tighty-whities, and he got on an international flight. Total systemic failure.

[Tracy]

So, you're saying Josef, Drop Romney/Ryan and go with a Condi Rice/Marco Rubio ticket?

or drop the Obama/Biden ticket and go with a Clinton/Clinton ticket and there would be NO CONTEST

[Beau Stockard]

or drop the Obama/Biden ticket and go with a Clinton/Clinton ticket and there would be NO CONTEST

[Beau Stockard]

Jessica,

Are we safer? I don't know. Maybe? It *feels* safer, but it felt really safe on September 10, 2001. We're surely not safe outside of our borders, as our embassies continue to be attacked.

Consider this: The 9/11 attacks of 2001 did change everything for America and the World-- a terrorist organization had achieved global reach by the successfull planned attack on the World Trade Towers. Bin Laden and al-Qaida had succeeded in their main objective to embroil the U S in an interminable war in Iraq that eventually broke up the Coalition, set our European allies eventually at odds with the Bush Administration extended military objectives , and enraged Arab world opinion of the U S as a monolithic agressor nation bent on the destruction of the Islamic peoples.

The Obama Administration began to reverse that trend of deep animosity and distrust between Arabs and Americans, by showing great self-restraint on Iraq(ending all US military operations there as of 2009) and Afghanistan (recognizing Taliban legitimacy at the negotiating table; and understanding the conflict in Afghanistan was connected to the deeper underlying conflict between Pakistan (the Taliban are their client) and India. Even in the Libyan civil war, Obama was given high praise for limiting our involvement , and relying on Libya's parliament , its main European and U N allies and the Arab League to oust Quadhafi by force and build a new Constitution for and by the Libyan people-- Did you notice the huge crowds in the streets of Benghazi that condemned the killing of our Ambassador and embassy personnel? The Libyan rioters were the minority and were not representative of the entire Islamic world. In Egypt , the rioters were more a protest over the new Morsi Presidency that's still struggling to consolidate political support and curb Egyptian military intrusion in the electoral process there. Further, the Obama Administration's firm stand on IAEA policy to keep separate peaceful nuclear energy development from weapons-making potential , but willingness to pursue negotiations with Iran and accept ,in principle, their rights as a member of the IAEA will do more to reach a mutually -acceptable solution and gain greater respect and prestige for the US in the entire Middle East.