BAIN ATTACK FAIL: OBAMA STRUGGLING IN SWING STATES!
JoeBtfsplk
2012/07/10 13:16:22
|
|
|||||
|
4 votes
|
|
57% | |||
|
3 votes
|
|
43% | |||
This morning, USA Today/Gallup released their latest survey of 12 battleground states. The poll, conducted at the end of June, found Obama and Romney essentially tied in the swing states, with Obama pulling 47% to 45% for Romney. Nationally, Obama leads Romney among all registered voters, 48-44. The paper tried to use today's poll to argue that Obama's attacks on Bain Capitol were hurting Romney. But, the results suggest almost the opposite.
USAToday/Gallup doesn't make internal poll details readily available. Its hard for us to know whether the sample of battleground states is properly weighted or if the partisan screen on the poll is realistic. However, this poll is an ongoing series, allowing us to compare the poll's findings across time. Even if the sample is biased, it is consistently biased over the series, providing us with a meaningful comparison. The battleground poll released in April, after Romney had effectively secured the GOP nomination, found Obama with a sizable lead in the swing states; 51% to Romney's 42%.
So, in the last two months, Obama's "effective" barrage of negative ads on Bain Capital have resulted in his numbers falling 4 points and Romney's climbing 3 points.
More success like that and Obama will confirm his legacy as this century's first Jimmy Carter.
Keep in mind, since the April poll, the Obama campaign has spent almost $50 million on TV ads, against Romney's $17 million. As my colleague, Joel Pollak, notes this morning, over three-fourths of Obama's ad spending has been on negative ads, chiefly attacks on Romney and his time at Bain Capital. Virtually all of these ads have been run in battleground states.
If the attacks were so effective, why has Obama lost ground in the swing states since the start of the barrage and why does he have a slightly larger lead in states where the ads haven't run?
Indeed, USA Today notes that the Bain attack ads have generally only been effective in bringing Democrats back into the Obama fold:
To be sure, Obama's ads have done more to win back Democrats than to win over independents or Republicans: Thirteen percent of Democrats say their minds have been changed by ads, compared with 9% of independents and 3% of Republicans.
The paper also notes that, while virtually all the swing state voters recall the ads, only around 8% of registered voters say they have had any impact on their voting intentions. Obama has enjoyed an almost 3-1 advertising advantage, an edge he is unlikely to enjoy for the rest of the campaign, and not only has the needle not moved, it has arguably moved against him.
It seems the attacks have only worked with the media and the DC GOP mandarins whose favorite parlor game is to wring their hands over others' campaign decisions.
Several weeks ago, I wrote that Obama has a real problem in Pennsylvania. The lefty twitter-sphere had a grand time making fun of me for this. And yet, last week, where did Obama take his campaign bus? Western Pennsylvania.
You don't spend time campaign in states you are confident of winning.
But, I missed something important about Obama's swing through PA and Northern Ohio that Michael Barone noted. The areas where Obama campaigned are bastions of the blue-collar vote in these states. Walter Mondale beat Reagan in the areas where Obama campaigned. If the Obama campaign is worried about a traditionally democrat area, how are they going to make inroads with the critical independent voters?
How would the media report if Romney were campaigning in traditionally Republican areas?
Obama is in serious trouble in the swing states.
Don't believe what a campaign says, believe what it does.
When an incumbent president, who just four years ago had won GOP states, now has to shore up support within his own party just four months before an election, you know things aren't working according to plan.
USAToday/Gallup doesn't make internal poll details readily available. Its hard for us to know whether the sample of battleground states is properly weighted or if the partisan screen on the poll is realistic. However, this poll is an ongoing series, allowing us to compare the poll's findings across time. Even if the sample is biased, it is consistently biased over the series, providing us with a meaningful comparison. The battleground poll released in April, after Romney had effectively secured the GOP nomination, found Obama with a sizable lead in the swing states; 51% to Romney's 42%.
So, in the last two months, Obama's "effective" barrage of negative ads on Bain Capital have resulted in his numbers falling 4 points and Romney's climbing 3 points.
More success like that and Obama will confirm his legacy as this century's first Jimmy Carter.
Keep in mind, since the April poll, the Obama campaign has spent almost $50 million on TV ads, against Romney's $17 million. As my colleague, Joel Pollak, notes this morning, over three-fourths of Obama's ad spending has been on negative ads, chiefly attacks on Romney and his time at Bain Capital. Virtually all of these ads have been run in battleground states.
If the attacks were so effective, why has Obama lost ground in the swing states since the start of the barrage and why does he have a slightly larger lead in states where the ads haven't run?
Indeed, USA Today notes that the Bain attack ads have generally only been effective in bringing Democrats back into the Obama fold:
To be sure, Obama's ads have done more to win back Democrats than to win over independents or Republicans: Thirteen percent of Democrats say their minds have been changed by ads, compared with 9% of independents and 3% of Republicans.
The paper also notes that, while virtually all the swing state voters recall the ads, only around 8% of registered voters say they have had any impact on their voting intentions. Obama has enjoyed an almost 3-1 advertising advantage, an edge he is unlikely to enjoy for the rest of the campaign, and not only has the needle not moved, it has arguably moved against him.
It seems the attacks have only worked with the media and the DC GOP mandarins whose favorite parlor game is to wring their hands over others' campaign decisions.
Several weeks ago, I wrote that Obama has a real problem in Pennsylvania. The lefty twitter-sphere had a grand time making fun of me for this. And yet, last week, where did Obama take his campaign bus? Western Pennsylvania.
You don't spend time campaign in states you are confident of winning.
But, I missed something important about Obama's swing through PA and Northern Ohio that Michael Barone noted. The areas where Obama campaigned are bastions of the blue-collar vote in these states. Walter Mondale beat Reagan in the areas where Obama campaigned. If the Obama campaign is worried about a traditionally democrat area, how are they going to make inroads with the critical independent voters?
How would the media report if Romney were campaigning in traditionally Republican areas?
Obama is in serious trouble in the swing states.
Don't believe what a campaign says, believe what it does.
When an incumbent president, who just four years ago had won GOP states, now has to shore up support within his own party just four months before an election, you know things aren't working according to plan.
It looks to me that he is tucking his tail and running. Ron Paul would never have done that. #ijs
http://www.pennavepost.com/jo...
I guess the Bain excuses for outsourcing, destroying jobs, destroying companies and whole communities while rewarding themselves handsomly for failing are working.
The Bain excuse is hilarious! They always say the same thing, "Welll that was only a handful of companies most we helped, that was not the normal turn of events..."
Oh yeah that makes it all better! That's like saying, "Oh I only raped your mom a handful of times... Most days we had a good time I took her out to dinner.... rape was not the norm..."
I can't believe you morons will vote for this guy.
Subject: HR 4646 Surprise, Surprise, Surprise !!!
ON JANUARY 1, 2013, THE US GOVERNMENT WILL BE REQUIRING EVERYONE TO HAVE DIRECT DEPOSIT FOR SS CHECKS.
WONDER WHY?
Subject: HR 4646
Be sure to read entire explanation
Watch for this AFTER the November elections; remember this BEFORE you VOTE, in case you think Obama is looking out for your best interest.
A 1% tax on all bank transactions is what HR 4646 calls for.
Do you receive a paycheck, or a retirement check from Social Security or a pension fund and have it direct deposit??
Well guess what ... It looks as if Obama wants to tax it 1% !!!
This bill was put forth by Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA).
YES, that is 1% tax on all bank transactions - HR 4646, every time it goes in and every time money goes out.
Ask your congressperson to vote NO.
FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!
1% tax on all bank transactions ~ HR 4646 - ANOTHER NEW OBAMA TAX SLIPPED IN WHILE WE WERE ASLEEP. Checked this on snopes, it's true! Check it out yourself ~ HR 4646.
President Obama's finance team is recommending a one percent (1%) transaction fee (TAX). Obama's plan is to sneak it in after the November elections to keep it under the radar.
This is a 1% tax on all transactions at any financial institution - banks, credit unio...
Subject: HR 4646 Surprise, Surprise, Surprise !!!
ON JANUARY 1, 2013, THE US GOVERNMENT WILL BE REQUIRING EVERYONE TO HAVE DIRECT DEPOSIT FOR SS CHECKS.
WONDER WHY?
Subject: HR 4646
Be sure to read entire explanation
Watch for this AFTER the November elections; remember this BEFORE you VOTE, in case you think Obama is looking out for your best interest.
A 1% tax on all bank transactions is what HR 4646 calls for.
Do you receive a paycheck, or a retirement check from Social Security or a pension fund and have it direct deposit??
Well guess what ... It looks as if Obama wants to tax it 1% !!!
This bill was put forth by Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA).
YES, that is 1% tax on all bank transactions - HR 4646, every time it goes in and every time money goes out.
Ask your congressperson to vote NO.
FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!
1% tax on all bank transactions ~ HR 4646 - ANOTHER NEW OBAMA TAX SLIPPED IN WHILE WE WERE ASLEEP. Checked this on snopes, it's true! Check it out yourself ~ HR 4646.
President Obama's finance team is recommending a one percent (1%) transaction fee (TAX). Obama's plan is to sneak it in after the November elections to keep it under the radar.
This is a 1% tax on all transactions at any financial institution - banks, credit unions, savings and loans, etc. Any deposit you make, or even a transfer within your own bank from one account to another, will have a 1% tax charged.
If your paycheck or your Social Security or whatever is direct deposit, it will get a 1% tax charged for the transaction.
If your paycheck is $1000, then you will pay Obama $10 just for the privilege of depositing your paycheck in your bank. Even if you hand carry your paycheck or any check in to your bank for a deposit, 1% tax will be charged.
You receive a $5,000 stock dividend from your broker, Obama takes $50 just to allow you to deposit that check in the bank.
If you take $1,000 cash to deposit at your bank, 1% tax will be charged.
Mind you, this is from the man who promised that, if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax.
Keep your eyes and ears open, you will be amazed at what you learn about this guy's under-the-table moves to increase the number of ways you are taxed.
Oh, and by the way, if you receive a refund from the IRS next year and you have it direct deposited or you walk in to deposit that check, you guessed it. You will pay a 1% charge of that money just for putting it in your bank.
Remember, any money, cash, check or whatever, no matter where it came from, you will pay a 1% fee if you put it in the bank.
Some will say, oh well, it's just 1%. Are you kidding me? It's a 1% tax increase across the board. Remember, once the tax is there, they can also raise it at will. And if anyone protests, they will just say, "Oh,that's not really a tax, it's a user fee"!
Think this is no big deal? Go back and look at the transactions you made from last year's banking statements. Then add the total of all those transactions and deduct 1%. Still think it's no big deal?
THAT'S AN URBAN LEGEND!
http://urbanlegends.about.com...
There was a tax proposed once with no co-sponsors and will never be voted on even (not by Obama or anyone in his adminstration) where SOME transactions would be taxed, but even in that proposal individual accounts and payroll would be exempt. So your SS is safe.
Hahahah dumbass. Next time you get one of these "Oooh scary" spam emails do yourself a favor and google "(whatever it's called) debunked." That way you don't look like an idiot for repeating it. Then vote for Obama.
Besides, the barrage of ads haven't even hit yet that have been crafted out of 4 years of video using the usurpers own words against him and educating America about who he really is.
There's a chance they wont ever be aired as the SuperPACs are biding their time and sitting on nearly $2 Billion of air-time $$$$. The heat is getting turned up leading into the Convention in September and 0bozo will be reduced to rubble.
This clown WILL be properly vetted this time around regardless of how hard the media and powers that be in DC & Chitcago attempt to suppress the truth
By the way, I guess you missed this part:
"At this point, Obama is the clear winner in the ad wars. Among swing-state voters who say the ads have changed their minds about a candidate, rather than just confirmed what they already thought, 76% now support the president, vs. 16% favoring Romney."
America wont be as concerned with how much money Romney made or what the particulars are as they will with who this Clown really is that has installed domestic terrorists in the highest levels of our government.
Then why won't he just release them? No answer dumbass? McCain saw Romney's returns.... then picked Sarah Palin for his running mate.
We all get to see 12 years of Obama's returns, 'cause Obama's not a scumbag like Robme.
On the other hand, here we are 4 years later and STILL don't. have any verifiable proof that 0bozo is eligible to even be on the ballot or that he's even a U.S. citizen.
So what if "by law he doesn't have to." By law he doesn't have to do a lot of things but we get to see 12 years of Obama's tax returns but not Robme's ? Why? What's he hiding?
His citizenship was never in question before because he presented himself as a U.S. citizen, had his bogus Social Security number and forged documents to hide his true identity.
All we want is for him to allow the various agencies to release those documents that show how he applied for college, the transcripts, his legal status, how tuition was paid for, etc etc etc.
We want an explanation to how he's using a Connecticut Social Secuity number when he has NEVER lived in the state.
We want to know WHY his Selective Service registration has a 2-digit entry for the year when the other millions on file all have a 4-digit date stamp.
A few phone calls would clear this up within 24 hours yet he's sent attorneys 100+ times to have any inquiries thrown out of court on technicalities so that evidence cannot be reviewed.
The burden of proof and proper vetting process lies on the shoulders of those who nominate the candidate and attest that they are legally eligible to hold the office according to the Constitution.
Pelosi didn't do that in 2008 and simple had the Constitutional eligibility clause r...
His citizenship was never in question before because he presented himself as a U.S. citizen, had his bogus Social Security number and forged documents to hide his true identity.
All we want is for him to allow the various agencies to release those documents that show how he applied for college, the transcripts, his legal status, how tuition was paid for, etc etc etc.
We want an explanation to how he's using a Connecticut Social Secuity number when he has NEVER lived in the state.
We want to know WHY his Selective Service registration has a 2-digit entry for the year when the other millions on file all have a 4-digit date stamp.
A few phone calls would clear this up within 24 hours yet he's sent attorneys 100+ times to have any inquiries thrown out of court on technicalities so that evidence cannot be reviewed.
The burden of proof and proper vetting process lies on the shoulders of those who nominate the candidate and attest that they are legally eligible to hold the office according to the Constitution.
Pelosi didn't do that in 2008 and simple had the Constitutional eligibility clause removed from the notarized Official certificate of Nomination she signed.
WHY she had to do that is what we want to know. WHY was the clause that has appeared for decades removed from the 2008 nomination form?
I couldn't care less about Romney's tax returns because if anything on them was illegal, the IRS would have had the DOJ indicte him for Tax evasion long ago.
http://www.politico.com/news/...
0bozo has been the true outsourcer of jobs and taxpayers expense.
http://obamanomicsoutsourced....
Tracing Obama's Overseas Investments
Electric Cars
Obama handed over billions of dollars in loan guarantees and stimulus awards pursuant to his goal of putting one-million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. Much of that money ended up leaving our shores. A $2.4 billion stimulus program to support battery production sent nearly half of its money to foreign firms, including two South Korean companies that used their awards to hire foreign nationals in Michigan to do work that Americans easily could have done. In the end, despite all the money Obama handed out, electric vehicle sales have lagged and The Washington Post deemed his goal of one million electric cars "overly optimistic."
Wind Farms
Obama's stimulus included over $8.5 billion in grants for wind farms that flowed overseas, despite Congressional criticism from both sides of the aisle. In total, over half of the money went to either foreign developers or foreign wind turbine manufacturers, creating thousands of jobs overseas with money that was supposed to create jobs within the United States. Even worse, hundreds of millions of dollars went to wind fa...
0bozo has been the true outsourcer of jobs and taxpayers expense.
http://obamanomicsoutsourced....
Tracing Obama's Overseas Investments
Electric Cars
Obama handed over billions of dollars in loan guarantees and stimulus awards pursuant to his goal of putting one-million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. Much of that money ended up leaving our shores. A $2.4 billion stimulus program to support battery production sent nearly half of its money to foreign firms, including two South Korean companies that used their awards to hire foreign nationals in Michigan to do work that Americans easily could have done. In the end, despite all the money Obama handed out, electric vehicle sales have lagged and The Washington Post deemed his goal of one million electric cars "overly optimistic."
Wind Farms
Obama's stimulus included over $8.5 billion in grants for wind farms that flowed overseas, despite Congressional criticism from both sides of the aisle. In total, over half of the money went to either foreign developers or foreign wind turbine manufacturers, creating thousands of jobs overseas with money that was supposed to create jobs within the United States. Even worse, hundreds of millions of dollars went to wind farms that began construction before the stimulus was passed. The end result of all this spending: the wind energy industry lost 10,000 jobs last year.
Manufacturing TaxCredits
As Obama was doling out over $2.3 billion in clean energy manufacturing tax credits that were supposed to create jobs in America, $880 million went to foreign firms. Worse still, some of those same recipients are now closing up shop and shipping jobs overseas.
Loan Guarantees
Remember Solyndra? The problems with Obama's loan guarantee program don't end there. The largest recipient of Obama's program to jumpstart green energy projects was the Spanish Company Abengoa, which took in $2.7 billion in loan guarantees for three of its projects. Other projects importing foreign-made solar panels are, much in the same way as Fisker Automotive, choosing to make their products overseas.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinio...
Polls can be picked and chosen...lets get the results of many and see where it stands...
http://www.realclearpolitics....
Not lookin' so bad for the POTUS regardless of how the RWers try to spin it.
Don't ya love the bright underlined font? Attempt at indoctrination or helping the illiterate?
ON JANUARY 1, 2013, THE US GOVERNMENT WILL BE REQUIRING EVERYONE TO HAVE DIRECT DEPOSIT FOR SS CHECKS.
WONDER WHY?
Subject: HR 4646
Be sure to read entire explanation
Watch for this AFTER the November elections; remember this BEFORE you VOTE, in case you think Obama is looking out for your best interest.
A 1% tax on all bank transactions is what HR 4646 calls for.
Do you receive a paycheck, or a retirement check from Social Security or a pension fund and have it direct deposit??
Well guess what ... It looks as if Obama wants to tax it 1% !!!
This bill was put forth by Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA).
YES, that is 1% tax on all bank transactions - HR 4646, every time it goes in and every time money goes out.
Ask your congressperson to vote NO.
FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!
1% tax on all bank transactions ~ HR 4646 - ANOTHER NEW OBAMA TAX SLIPPED IN WHILE WE WERE ASLEEP. Checked this on snopes, it's true! Check it out yourself ~ HR 4646.
President Obama's finance team is recommending a one percent (1%) transaction fee (TAX). Obama's plan is to sneak it in after the November elections to keep it under the radar.
This is a 1% tax on all transactions at any financial institution - banks, credit unions, savings and loans, etc. Any deposit you make, o...
ON JANUARY 1, 2013, THE US GOVERNMENT WILL BE REQUIRING EVERYONE TO HAVE DIRECT DEPOSIT FOR SS CHECKS.
WONDER WHY?
Subject: HR 4646
Be sure to read entire explanation
Watch for this AFTER the November elections; remember this BEFORE you VOTE, in case you think Obama is looking out for your best interest.
A 1% tax on all bank transactions is what HR 4646 calls for.
Do you receive a paycheck, or a retirement check from Social Security or a pension fund and have it direct deposit??
Well guess what ... It looks as if Obama wants to tax it 1% !!!
This bill was put forth by Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA).
YES, that is 1% tax on all bank transactions - HR 4646, every time it goes in and every time money goes out.
Ask your congressperson to vote NO.
FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!
1% tax on all bank transactions ~ HR 4646 - ANOTHER NEW OBAMA TAX SLIPPED IN WHILE WE WERE ASLEEP. Checked this on snopes, it's true! Check it out yourself ~ HR 4646.
President Obama's finance team is recommending a one percent (1%) transaction fee (TAX). Obama's plan is to sneak it in after the November elections to keep it under the radar.
This is a 1% tax on all transactions at any financial institution - banks, credit unions, savings and loans, etc. Any deposit you make, or even a transfer within your own bank from one account to another, will have a 1% tax charged.
If your paycheck or your Social Security or whatever is direct deposit, it will get a 1% tax charged for the transaction.
If your paycheck is $1000, then you will pay Obama $10 just for the privilege of depositing your paycheck in your bank. Even if you hand carry your paycheck or any check in to your bank for a deposit, 1% tax will be charged.
You receive a $5,000 stock dividend from your broker, Obama takes $50 just to allow you to deposit that check in the bank.
If you take $1,000 cash to deposit at your bank, 1% tax will be charged.
Mind you, this is from the man who promised that, if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax.
Keep your eyes and ears open, you will be amazed at what you learn about this guy's under-the-table moves to increase the number of ways you are taxed.
Oh, and by the way, if you receive a refund from the IRS next year and you have it direct deposited or you walk in to deposit that check, you guessed it. You will pay a 1% charge of that money just for putting it in your bank.
Remember, any money, cash, check or whatever, no matter where it came from, you will pay a 1% fee if you put it in the bank.
Some will say, oh well, it's just 1%. Are you kidding me? It's a 1% tax increase across the board. Remember, once the tax is there, they can also raise it at will. And if anyone protests, they will just say, "Oh,that's not really a tax, it's a user fee"!
Think this is no big deal? Go back and look at the transactions you made from last year's banking statements. Then add the total of all those transactions and deduct 1%. Still think it's no big deal?