E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIn a warning sign for Mitt Romney that the long GOP primary fight may be hurting his image with the general electorate, the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds that independent voters have sharply soured on the Republican frontrunner in the last month.
In fact, Romney’s negative ratings with independents have jumped 13 points since December.
Last month, Romney’s favorable/unfavorable split with independents was 21 percent to 29 percent. In November, 22 percent of indies viewed him in a negative light compared to 21 percent who gave him a thumbs up in the NBC/WSJ poll.
But in the latest poll, released last week, Romney’s positive score was essentially unchanged at 22%. His negative score, however, jumped to 42 percent with independents, his highest recorded negative rating in the poll with the crucial voting bloc.
The cause could be the race's recent tough rhetoric and widely-viewed debates since the early voting contests began in Iowa and New Hampshire at the beginning of this year. The GOP race has come into sharper focus for a wider electorate, curious about the candidates – and wondering who will emerge to face President Barack Obama in an election year in which the country’s economic situation is uncertain.
Since the last poll was conducted, Romney won, then lost Iowa narrowly; he won decidedly in New Hampshire then lost decisively in South Carolina; and there have been eight nationally televised debates, including two in the run up to this contentious GOP primary fight in Florida.
Romney seems on track to win by a solid margin in Florida tomorrow, but as Marist polling Director Lee Miringoff said, "If Romney locks up the nomination any time soon, he's going to have to pivot quickly to win back independents."
Leave a Comment:
As an Independent myself, I have to say that the only one of the GOP candidates that seems sincere and honest is Ron Paul and he is NOT electable and his ideas are way to radical to be able to actually get anything done if he were elected because of his radical ideas. Romney or Gingrich is NOT trustworthy and they are only saying and playing their platform to the audience of the day. Santorum is playing to the Right Wing Conservatives like the Tea party because he wants those votes only because he wants a chance to be president, he is the kind of guy that wanted to be president as a kid.
As an Independent I do not trust any of the candidates, I am totally turned off by Congress and I am not sure if the current administration can get anything done with the dysfunction in Washington. I would hope for someone a little more conservative but not so far right that they cannot work with the left to move America forward and help restore the middle class, the people that actually DO control the economy.
It is not that I do not know what I want it is a lack of options at this point and I refuse to vote against someone just for the opportunity to vote against someone, that is the stupidest waste of a constitutional right to vote that I have ever heard of. All this "Anyone but Obama" is just ignorant BS and is a dangerous way to elect the leader of the most powerful country in the world.
When does a "pivot" back to the center become a "flip-flop"?
Which Mitt Romney are we voting for? #1 or #2?
'The TARP program... was nevertheless necessary to keep banks from collapsing in a cascade of failures.' [1]
'When government is... bailing out banks... we have every good reason to be alarmed.' [2]
'I like health care mandates. The mandates work.' [1]
'I think health care mandates are unconstitutional on the 10th Amendment front.' [2]
'I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose.' [1]
'I never really called myself pro-choice.' [2]
'I believe the tax on capital gains should be zero.' [1]
'Capital gains taxes are a tax cut for fat cats.' [2]
'Roe v. Wade has gone too far.' [1]
'I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.' [2]
'I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.' [1]
'Ronald Reagan is... my hero.' [2]
'When I first heard of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, I thought it sounded awfully silly.' [1]
''Don't Ask, Don't Tell has worked well.' [2]
'If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing health care, then that will be a model for the nation.' [1]
'What works in one state may not be the answer for another.' [2]
'In Massachusetts...the costs of health care will be reduced.' [1]
'We were unable to deal with... health care costs in Massachusetts.' [2]
'I've been a hunter pretty much all my life.' [1]
'Any description of my being a hunter is an overstatement of capability.' [2]
'I'm going to take burdens off the back of the auto industry.' [1]
'Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.' [2]
'I would like to have campaign spending limits.' [1]
'The American people should be free to advocate for their candidates and their positions without limitations.' [2]
'I supported the assault weapon ban.' [1]
'I don't support any gun control legislation.' [2]
'Based on the numbers of American Muslims... I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified.' [1]
'A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.' [2]
'I'm not in favor of privatizing Social Security or making cuts.' [1]
'Social Security's the easiest to privatize and that's because you can give people a personal account.' [2]
'I don't line up with the NRA.' [1]
'I'm a member of the [NRA].' [2]
'The all-Democrat stimulus that was passed in early 2009 will accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery...' [1]
'The all-Democrat stimulus passed in early 2009 has been a failure.' [2]
'I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.' [1]
'I did not see it with my own eyes.' [2]
'It does take a village to raise a child.' [1]
'It takes a family to raise a child.' [2]
'I'm a strong believer in stating your position and not wavering.' [1]
'I changed my position.' [2]
Do we really need a "businessman" in the white house to give more tax breaks to the wealthy and the corporations? That is exactly what would happen.
logig,
Don't you think someone with the ability to bring back jobs and reduce unemployment, would be better than a Community Organizer, who's biggest priority's are stroking his huge ego and reelection? He loves to hear himself talk, but he doesn't say anything. We currently have no one minding the store, while this guy is out stumping, pushing class warfare, dividing and creating hate. What a leader! As an Independant, I would vote for a doorknob, before I would vote to reelect Obama.
Not unlike Obama who gives tax payor money to HIS wealthy and corporations like solyndra.
logig_al
the answer is no, him being a business person is just his angle to say he has a better idea and could do it better. I know of a lot of business people that I would not trust to run a race.
Dave D-1046643
middle class Americans create jobs not politicians not tax cuts not deregulation, if the dysfunction in Washington would settle down and we get money out of our politics people would have more trust and be willing to start spending money again which is the single biggest economic driver in America, not GOP or DEMS and all their talk. They cannot create jobs they can only stop their partisan ideology and begin to get stuff done finally. We will improve the economy and create jobs not them
"Middle class Americans create jobs"? Factory's and Plant's create jobs Robert and when whey are in operation, people work, make money and buy products. When Factory's, Plant's and production left our shores, so did our future. Regulations/restrictions have killed what this Nation has always done best, invent, create and develop. If we don't eliminate some of these dopey, protectionary rules and change our ways, we're cooked.
Dave D-1046643..........
YOU said above:
YOU said in a previous comment:
You are NOT an independent. What you ARE is a prevaricating purveyor of disinformation.
Furthermore, anyone (i.e. YOU) who feels their revelation of their association with a particular political party is an ADMISSION is probably someone who has MADE A MISTAKE in that choice. Still and inexplicably, you choose to perpetuate that folly.
Such a treacherous gimmick is reprehensible. Yet, you behave like so many of your GOPeaParty brethren. So, your (attempted) deception is hardly surprising. You have about as much credibility in your comments as Newt Gingrich has in divorce court (ZERO). Reform yourself.
TRUE INDEPENDENTS: Take note of this. Do not be deceived.
Dave D-1046643
The answer is YUP! Until middle class people start spending money "Plants and factories" do not expand because of a lack of demand, they lay off because of that lack of demand. Yeah, the beginning of the cycle for the economy coming back will be people spending money, then demand goes up then "factories and plants" hire people and grow and more people spend money, see how it works yet?
It is going to take something to start the cycle but jobs just simply do not get created if there is no profit to be made. Politicians claim that they can create jobs but the truth is only the lucky politicians that happen to be in office when the economy turns around gets to claim the victory when the truth is all they did was be there and get credit for something they did not do, not through tax cuts not through deregulation, nothing. I could see an infrastructure bill that jump starts everything making a difference, it has worked twice in the past it can again.
BTW Dave D-1046643........
You said:
Most American workers are employed by (small) businesses with four (4) or less employees. The owners of those small businesses are nearly unanimously MIDDLE CLASS. See-> http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html
Therefore (in case your logic is no better than your veracity), most American jobs are provided by MIDDLE CLASS Americans.
Your weltanschauung is either delusional, Machiavellian, or both.
Ian
Where do these small business entreprenuers who create jobs get their money? Some of them are shoe stringers who bootstrap a business together but the really successful ones find investment capital so that they can grow and expand. That doesn't come from the government, it comes from the 1% that Obama wants to destroy.
Boyd-4008127......
We (democrats, including President Obama) DO NOT want to destroy wealth. We want to level the playing field which has been, for decades, skewed by the political machinations of the wealthy corporate elite. The mention of K Street is all that is necessary to evoke an understanding of this. We all know how the game is played.
At any given time, there is a finite sum of wealth. When an (un)certain (dis)proportion of that wealth is controlled (and misused) by a relatively small clan, our system is unbalanced and doomed to under-perform (especially for the least wealthy majority).
This is easy to understand because we have seen this situation (and its consequences) occur at many times and in several places. One of the most glaring examples is medieval Europe when feudalism prevailed. This was a time known as "The Dark Ages". The predominant (feudal) economic system (of that time) and the economic, scientific, and philosophical stagnation that was co-morbid were not merely coincidental. In fact, they were inextricably related. The hallmark of that time was a concentration of wealth and property in a scant immoral, privileged, but misguided few.
We MUST revise the tax and other laws, regulations, and rules so that wealth is more equitably (re)redistributed. That is because our nation's wealth has already (for the past 4 or 5 decades) been REdistributed FROM the poor and middle classes TO the wealthy. That MUST BE UNDONE.
Excessive concentration of wealth is a clear and present danger to our democracy as well as our economy.
When middle class Americans have more disposable income, they will spend more. When they spend more, demand is created. When demand is created, more workers (jobs) are needed. More profits will occur for business owners. More taxes will be collected by governments. EVERYONE will benefit.
This might be called "PERColate UP Economics". Unlike "trickle down economics", it is founded in common sense and IT WILL WORK. THAT is what we envision for an economy that is "built to last".
Exactly Right Robert. It is the middle class that props up america and american business. The problem for Obama is that the middle class can't exist without investment from the 1% to create jobs. Government can't create a middle class, only private industry can. Look at the USSR, there was no middle class there, look at China prior to them allowing one percenters to invest in their country and create jobs, look at Europe where the policies that Obama wants to duplicate have virutally destroyed the middle class and are in the process of creating universal poverty the same way that central govermnent control did it to the USSR and to China.
Bureaucrats can't even manage the post office, yet Obama is trying to tell you they can manage healthcare, the auto industry, and tell you what type of light bulbs to buy. It is ridiculous. There is no way this country or the middle class in this country will survive another 4 years of Obama and his socialist policy. He thinks he can do the same thing that has been done in Greece, Italy and Spain, but somehow when he does it it will have different results. Doing the same thing and expecting different results is not the definition of intelligent behavior, it is the definition of insanity. What amazes me is that so many of you will buy the lie that the government can solve your problems, hopefully there aren't enough people who aren't capable of seeing what is happening to Europe to elect Obama again. ANYBODY but Obama in 2012.
Boyd-4008127........
The 1% don't put their many millions in their mattresses. They put them in banks, commodities, government securities, stocks, etc., and etc..
(Large) corporations (aka private industry) in the United States are misguided by many misconceptions. Chief among these is sole devotion to the 3 year planning horizon bottom line. They are short sighted.
This misguided behavior WILL NOT be reformed by corporate America any more than the use of steroids will be overcome within the professional athlete community. Both are driven by competitive pressures to act in ways that produces short term benefits at the risk of long term ruin. Outside agency is necessary.
Governments MUST and SHOULD have a role in revising this behavior. That is because, in the United States, government is guided by people from all (not just a few) segments (of our nation). You might mistrust and criticize our representative democracy. But, it is the best (system of governance) anyone has yet devised. It is CERTAINLY better (for our nation) than the dictatorial model upon which most corporate governances are based.
Thus, as noted above, laws, regulations, and rules need substantial revision so that private capital is channeled more effectively into entrepreneurial pursuits. The obstructions to this are purely political.
This is not a move toward a planned economy. Our economy is already planned. It is planned (by special (wealthy) interests) so that those with wealth maintain and build upon that wealth to the disadvantage of all others. This is, in actuality, a move away from such artificial (special) misappropriations of our economic energies.
But, whatever the course forward, our guiding principle must be that there is a tipping point beyond which excessive concentration of wealth is unhealthy and even disastrous for our economy and our democracy. We all know this intuitively.
Mostly our reluctance to face this fact is based upon a lack of self confidence. So, we hope to rely upon so-called "laissez faire free enterprise" as though it is some sort of god to be worshiped and consulted for guidance. The natural reality is that free enterprise is merely a tool. As such, if left unguided, it can do great damage. We must guide it. That includes the disposition of capital. This WILL happen. The only question is whether it will happen as an orderly process or within a state of chaos.
BTW----"what is happening to Europe" is not monolithic. For example, the UK and other countries are following a plan much as your side now prescribes (and, mostly, followed for the 8 years leading up until the "meltdown"). So far, this course has not led to economic recovery. On the contrary, those nations (i.e. UK) are now entering a second dip. Furthermore, it is leading to social chaos.