Obama is Vulnerable

Although it's not being reported as such, Rasmussen reports a very worrisome number for the Democrats and President Obama:
If the 2012 presidential election were held today, President Obama and possible Republican nominee Mitt Romney would be all tied up at 45% each, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

The president, seeking a second four-year term, beats another potential GOP rival, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, by six points – 48% to 42%.

In both match-ups, seven percent (7%) like some other candidate, with three percent (3%) undecided.
Palin is second only to Romney as the presidential candidate Republican voters say right now that they’ll vote for in 2012 state GOP primaries. But she’s also one of two candidates they least hope wins the party’s nomination.
Now, in the media I've seen, everyone's making this a Romney vs. Palin story but to any political consultant the number that really jumps out is Obama's.

When political folks are deciding whether to pour money into a race to unseat an incumbent one of the main things they do is, of course, poll. And it's not that they're expecting to see a close race because no challenger even exists at that point. What political consultants are looking for is the magic 50% number to re-elect.

The math is that if an incumbent has less than a 50% re-elect number, they're vulnerable. And then the powers-that-be decide who they can get to run that can raise money or can self-finance.

And Obama tops out vs. Palin at 48%. And he's a tad lower vs. Romney at 45%.

To Republicans, this number means that Obama can be beaten. And the money people may very well come out to play.

To Democrats, it's far more worrisome. Many Democrats have won seats in traditionally red districts the last two cycles and they know that they're vulnerable themselves. So they have to moderate their votes to appeal to moderates and some right wingers in order to stay in power. But Obama is pushing them hard to the left to support cap and trade as well as his health care plan. Those legislators seeing polls like this start thinking that if Obama is vulnerable they can't follow his lead.

Obama's strength comes from high poll numbers. If, as this poll seems to indicate is happening, his numbers drop many legislators may just ignore Obama and focus on pleasing their constituents. So polls like this have a very real effect on Obama's legislation right now. But you're not going to see much of that reported by the Ordinary Ministers of the media.

Update: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air seems to agree.

Comments

  1. It's encouraging news, but at the same time I'm mildly disturbed that we're talking about poll numbers for an election that is three years off. Man, these election cycles are getting too long.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Let's do it weekly. Until we get someone else in. And then we'll go back to the four year system, right?

    But I seriously believe that his poll numbers right now do effect his ability to push moderates around.

    ReplyDelete
  3. But I seriously believe that his poll numbers right now do effect his ability to push moderates around.

    That I would definitely agree with. It also shows that if you live by the polls, you die by the polls. Politicians like Obama who base so much of their success on their personal popularity are rendered impotent as soon as those poll numbers weaken.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Watch what happens now at 16th & Penns. NW! The campaign for 2012 begins for them with Rahm rewording all their pet projects. I.E. Healthcare now becomes "Insurance Reform" Stimulus becomes "Job Recovery" and so it goes...

    ReplyDelete
  5. What's disturbing is that people are still actually considering a Pagan/Mormon for the highest office. Obama is more than likely at best a deist and at worst an atheist, and this country is suffering every second for it. If we were as a nation to put a Mormon, whose church taught the Catholic church is the whore of Babylon, people of dark skin color bear the "mark of Cain" and thus unworthy of full membership into their church (lucky them), that allows for abortion "when necessary" and is essentially run at the whim of the "elders" who bend to any external pressures.

    You are seriously backing the WRONG horse here.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Too soon, way too soon, to start rubbing hands together.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's sad to see people getting excited over Palin and Romney. I look at them and say, "Is this really the best we can come up with?" I think we are really being dumbed-down and our expectations being set so low that we as conservative-leaning voters will simply be expected to accept whoever we get chosen for us. I for one don't feel the Republican party is hearing my voice or opinion at this point. Palin may share many of my views. But "I'll support anything as long as I get elected" Romney? Give me a break.

    ReplyDelete
  8. BIG NEWS!!! If the election were today, Obama would win against Palin and most likely against Romney! Neither the Democrats NOR the Republicans represent pro-life voters. The Democrats want us to pay for abortions while the Republicans pay lip service to pro-lifers to keep our votes coming in while they do nothing but fight to lower their own taxes! Meanwhile, unborn babies continue to be aborted eight years after Clinton and eight years after George Bush! At least his Republican father gave us the pro-life Justice Souter. It's time for Catholics in the Democratic Party to put pressure on their party to adopt a pro-life platform. If not, it's time for all of us to vote both parties out of office.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm not a huge fan of Romney, myself, though he seemed the least objectionable of the main-runner batch.

    I kinda liked Fred, but that didn't happen.

    Far as folks worrying about what the Mormon Church thinks of Catholics-- um, hello, I've had main-stream protestants inform me that, as a Catholic, I'm "not Christian." And try finding a classic Baptist group that *isn't* sympathetic to the "Whore of Babylon" idea.

    I like Palin, she strikes me as being the kind of pol that my mom would be, if she'd gone for mayor and up instead of running 4-H.

    I'd be happy with most anyone that will get the @#$# out of stuff gov't shouldn't be involved in....

    ReplyDelete
  10. Romney may be Mormon, but unlike Obama, Mccain, or even Blessed Palin of Alaska, he has more business experience than the rest combined. That is a good trait, for an economy that's tanking and heading into socialism.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's not abortion. It's the economy, stupid. That's why I love Mit Romney. I just want to see my financial portfolios gain value again. I could care less about the unborn and uninsured.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I know more than a few conservatives who WILL NOT vote for Romney. They just don't trust him.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Is it really so much to ask for that the GOP find someone that isn't a gamble or insult to "leave us alone" conservatives?

    I mean, McCain? Really? My husband was going to vote Dem just to avoid him, until they managed to find someone even worse....

    ReplyDelete
  14. Um...hello??? usually = "I'm a vapid idiot who doesn't know how to express myself outside of nauseating popular culture."

    ReplyDelete
  15. I do not trust Mit Romney and would never vote for him. If the Republican Party really wants to self-destruct by alienating principle-centered pro-lifers (not another political lip-service politician like Romney), Romney will be the nail in the coffin.

    ReplyDelete
  16. JAMES INHOFE FOR PRESIDENT!!

    This grass-roots effort needs to start soon! I've listened to this man and he is THE BEST politician in the country...articulate, smart, honest, 2nd amendment supporter, and 100% PRO-LIFE (according to the NRLC): http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/James_Inhofe_Abortion.htm.

    He's a midwesterner and doesn't parse his words.

    I think he's the guy that can save his party...and America! Forget the Yankee and unfortunately, Mrs. Palin is too much fodder for the media.

    INHOFE! You heard it here first!!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Um...hello??? usually = "I'm a vapid idiot who doesn't know how to express myself outside of nauseating popular culture."

    Ok, let's grant that the use was embarrasing. The point however is solid. Most non-Catholic denominations either have or have had opinions about the Catholic Church that would curl the hair of the average Catholic. Romney may be a lackluster option for a number of reasons, but "He's Mormon!" isn't in itself sufficient to disqualify him.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Romney was always pro-choice until he realized that he could never be the Republican nominee as a pro-choicer so then, and only then, did he decide to tell us that he changed his mind and is now pro-life. Political expediency is all that is. We do not and should not give our allegiance to any political party or candidate until the pro-life message is taken seriously by elected officials. In the meantime, Catholics must continue to pray for a conversion of hearts and educate the public of the horrors of abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm from MA, I am a "conservative" RC and I would certainly vote for Mitt Romeny: those of you who say he was always pro-choice do not get MA politics. Regardless of the very large number of Catholic politicians in MA (and why don't you throw stones in that direction?)the state politicians and many voters are very pro-abortion, pro-SSM, pro stem cell research. What Romney said when he was running for governor was that abortion was not a priority for his administration, the economy was. True ehough and more or less the only was he could have gotten elelcted in MA. While in office he was the only significant, articulate political leader opposed to SSM and opposed to stem cell research in the state (John Rogers,call your office!) Plenty of my libertarian Republican friends in MA castigate him for being too conservative. And then he had the nerve to leave office to run for president? Would that John Kerry had done the same thing.
    I realize that CMR is not where I can expect to find pragmtists--but try to be a little realistic. The main issue for the bulk of the electorate in 2012 is likely to be the economy, and Romney is a good choice to understand those issues. Now carry on ranting...
    BTW: to get to your main point, Matt: yes, those numbers do provide support for moderate Dems to oppose Mr. O.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Politically smug partisans. Delicious!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Cathy - don't be so naive and arrogant. Just because we don't agree with your choice doesn't mean we don't "understand MA politics". We just don't like it. If you are willing to sell your soul then that's your issue.

    And I don't think ANYONE here is championing or overlooking pro-abortion Catholic politicians in MA or anywhere. It simply isn't the topic of coversation on this particular post (but if you read this blog regularly, they are pointed out often).

    ReplyDelete
  22. If you are willing to sell your soul then that's your issue.

    *cough* Might want to watch the arrogance, if that's so important to you.....

    ReplyDelete
  23. As I said--Mitt Romeny is not the enemy in a national election. And goodness, I've never read comments from political partisans on this blog before!
    At least I put my name on my entry, btw.
    And, yes, I'll say it again: there is no other state in the union where it is harder to be a Republican. State party registration: 11%

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thank you for posting and commenting. I am overjoyed to see the political vulnerability of Obama especially since his recent coronation when he appeared to be immortal. It's only July, and the emperor is starting to lose some of his clothes. Let's be patient with Republican candidates and not rip each other apart. Otherwise, it amounts to shilling for President BHO.
    I have no issue with Mormons in public office. I know Mormons personally and they are fine people...maybe a bit strange...but good and decent folk.

    ReplyDelete
  28. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  29. *grin* Politely said, Mr. Hetman.

    I do like the "live and let live" style of religion in officials-- assuming folks are honest about what they believe, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  30. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  31. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I think all anti-Romney bloggers should be deleted. Only Mit Romney bloggers should be allowed. Go Romney!!!GO!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  33. To the Anonymous who commented after me:

    Let us put it this way: with the economy in the tank, abortion becomes cost-efficient for a large swath of people. All that we can really hope for from a President is he reinstates abortion restrictions, which we are likely to see from Mitt. Likewise, he'll be guided towards pro-life judges by his staff (though, I would prefer he appoint judges who go off precedent and American case law), and perhaps send legislation to Congress. No President will magically eliminate abortion or stem-cell research from the land, and even if he does, the next guy is likely to change that.

    All that said, I don't trust Palin to handle the economy. I mean, http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/07/palin-speech-edit-200907?currentPage=1

    I think Romney has a much better chance of both beating Obama and getting things back on a more capitalistic track.

    That being said, Obama's poll numbers are encouraging.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Interestingly enough, every "Facebook" poll I take shows an overwhelming number of people opposing most, if not all, of Obama's plans (and his Presidency). And this is his "base."

    ReplyDelete
  35. I think all anti-Romney bloggers should be deleted. Only Mit Romney bloggers should be allowed. Go Romney!!!GO!!!!

    I'm by no means pro-Romney and don't think anti-Romney posts should be banned. I just request that they not have foundations in anti-Catholic conspiracy fantasies.

    ReplyDelete
  36. OBAMA AVOIDS BIBLE VERSES !

    Here are some Bible verses that Pres. Obama avoids:
    Proverbs 19:10 (NIV): "It is not fitting for a fool to live in luxury - how much worse for a slave to rule over princes!"
    Also Proverbs 30:22 (NIV) which says that the earth cannot bear up under "a servant who becomes king."
    And Ecclesiastes 5:2-3 (KJV) advises: "let thy words be few...a fool's voice is known by multitude of words."
    Although Obama is not descended from slaves, he may feel that he's destined to become a black-slavery avenger.
    Or maybe an enslaver of all free citizens!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Go to my blog and view the Romney video there - http://backpew.blogspot.com/2009/07/mitt-romney-i-believe-abortion-should.html - then start thinking: Huckabee in 2012.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment