Romney takes two point lead in national poll

Mitt Romney has surged into the lead in the presidential election on the back of his strong debate performance.

Mitt Romney's commanding performance in Wednesday night's first presidential debate has started to yield results.

The Republican candidate has raised $12million in online donations over the last couple of days, and has also received a two point boost in the respected Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

The poll shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 49% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 47%.

Daily Mail

I'm not surprised by this. Romney really was the stronger debater. Sharper, more energetic and just coming over as smarter.

Can Romney hold onto this lead or will Obama do better in later polls? What is amazing is that despite a concerted campaign by most of the left wing media, Romney is now in the lead.

reply to post by ollncasino


I think from now til then, Obama has some tricks up his sleeves. Romney may of embarrassed him on television, but I'm sure Obama will have a strategy to make that loss disappear. Keep feeding the sheeple what they want and they will follow.

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by ollncasino

 

I think from now til then, Obama has some tricks up his sleeves. Romney may of embarrassed him on television, but I'm sure Obama will have a strategy to make that loss disappear. Keep feeding the sheeple what they want and they will follow.

Perhaps you are right.

Personally however, I would be happier with a man in the White House with business experience over a part time law lecturer who is a career politician.

What exactly is it Obama is bringing to the presidency? It certainly isn't business acumen.

Isn't the business of America business?

Romney seems pretty good after that debate. I can see why he went up in polls.

reply to post by ollncasino

What exactly is it Obama is bringing to the presidency?

It certainly isn't business acumen. Isn't the business of America business?

Well it is apparent that we are going broke, and we aren't conducting business properly, so you are correct we do need someone who is business savvy to get us back in business before we go out of business...Unfortunately Romney does fit that bill, and Obama doesn't...

reply to post by ollncasino


2% is hardly a "Surge".

Furthermore, what was the margin for error of that poll. Every Legitimate, scientifically conducted poll I've ever seen has stated it's margin of error; usually in the neighborhood of 2 - 4%.

Which would make this a "dead heat" for Romney, at best.



And let us remember, Governments are NOT businesses; nor can, or should they be run as such.

The focus of business is Profit.

The focus of (properly run) Government is its PEOPLE.

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
reply to post by ollncasino

 

2% is hardly a "Surge".

Well it is when it was 48% Romney to 50% Obama..pretty big swing.

Originally posted by Bhadhidar


The focus of business is Profit.

The focus of (properly run) Government is its PEOPLE.

But the true focus of business is efficiency in providing the best product at the lowest cost. I can see this working in either case whether your end goals are supporting the People or making a profit.

reply to post by ollncasino


It's all intentional.
Obama tightens up the race with a weak performance and it keeps Dem voters on their toes. If Dems are afraid that Romney has a chance, then more of them will show up and vote. Plus it helps keep up the illusion (what's the point if you know the outcome, and if you know the outcome less voters will show). Next few debates Obama will steadily do better and by the end he will rule the debate.

All a show guys.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Few, if any busineses are run as representative democracies/republics; the basic business plan runs toward (hopefully, for the sake of its employees) a "benevolent" authoritarianism.

Efficiency, however you wish to define the term, is thus mostly a matter of "top down" direction/edict.

"What the boss says, Goes", in effect.



Unless we wish to give up even more of our right to have a hand in the direction and decisions made by our government, we cannot, and should not ever, expect our Government to run with anything even closely approaching the effeciency of even the most democratic, "employee-owned" Bussiness.

The differences exist for a reason; and the differences keep the business functioning, and the government from becoming a Totalitarian State.


No business should ever be allowed to achieve the Power of a State.

And No State should ever be allowed the Power a Business wields over its Employees.

Rasmussen already had Romney at a +2 before the debate on their poll from 9/14 - 9/16. So if you look at it that way, Romney recieved no bump at all from the debate.

Also, Gallup has Obama at a +3 for the same exact time period that Rasmussen had him.


It's no secret that Rasmussen polls always lean towards the Conservatives, his polling methodolgy is extremely un-scientific.


www.realclearpolitics.com...

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
No business should ever be allowed to achieve the Power of a State.

And No State should ever be allowed the Power a Business wields over its Employees.

I'm not saying the Government should become a business, but to suggest the waste of the tax dollar, in poor spending or dumped into our ever growing government, is effecting our bottom line as it would in any business too...The bottom line is our tax dollars and it just seems that the Government's fix is MORE TAXES...where in a business they just can't charge a higher price to fix poor practices in spending and overhead.

Originally posted by HostileApostle
Rasmussen already had Romney at a +2 before the debate on their poll from 9/14 - 9/16. So if you look at it that way, Romney recieved no bump at all from the debate.

Also, Gallup has Obama at a +3 for the same exact time period that Rasmussen had him.


It's no secret that Rasmussen polls always lean towards the Conservatives, his polling methodolgy is extremely un-scientific.

I don't think the fallout of the debate will show until this next week in polls, but many are suggesting that these polls are sampling in the direction that the pollsters favor.

Also it really is all about Ohio and Florida. Who wins those two will win the election so everything else is moot.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Rasmussen's polling started one day after the election, when it was fresh in everyones mind (notice people have already stopped talking about it as much?) and it went through yesterday.

That is when he would have recieved his largest bump, not weeks later. Rasmussen's poll didn't move a bit from his previous poll.

But keep on hoping.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Except that it doesn't make any sense. Prior to the debate, it appeared that Obama had the race well in hand. It makes no sense to give Romney a big opening, especially when early voting is already underway in some states. And there's no guarantee that those voters will bother tuning into to see the next two debates, as Romney undoubtedly won at least some of them over this week. The point is, with a month to go, Romney has seized the momentum in the race and quite possibly a slim lead. I don't see any good spin that the Obama campaign can put on it.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
No business should ever be allowed to achieve the Power of a State.

And No State should ever be allowed the Power a Business wields over its Employees.

I'm not saying the Government should become a business, but to suggest the waste of the tax dollar, in poor spending or dumped into our ever growing government, is effecting our bottom line as it would in any business too...The bottom line is our tax dollars and it just seems that the Government's fix is MORE TAXES...where in a business they just can't charge a higher price to fix poor practices in spending and overhead.

edit on 7-10-2012 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)

Actually, businesses Do tend to cover their inefficiencies and overhead with higher prices charged to the consumer.

One of the reasons gasoline prices , at the pump, have shot up so high in recent days.

And of course, one would always expect t be chargd more for a hand-made-to-order item (low efficiency, high-overhead), than for a mass-produced (high-effeciency-of-scale production, lower ovehead-per-unit) mass-produced item: think Rolls-Royce vs. Chevy, or Vera Wang original vs. Wal-mart knock-off.


And yes, the Government's fix, often its only available fix, IS higher taxes to pay for more/expanded services.


Governments (good ones, that is) serve their People. When the number of those people to be served rises, governments must either raise the funds needed to pay for the increased demend for services, or cut-back those services: either by ration or elimination of the service.

Rationing plans have always been met with protests from the public of unfair apportionment (even if none exists) and attempts to circumvent the rationing plan (black markets), which ususally lead to the very types of unfair apportionment the public decried in the first palce.

This has, oft-times in the past caused the total collapse of governments, incurring chaos and mass loss of innocent lives.

Hardly "Serving the People", as is the purpose of the government.


And we've seen how the elimination of services, for economic good-stewardship, has lead to many of the very same outcomes: cries of inequality, favoritism, cronyism, black-marketeering, crime, and violence.


All forms of government work best on paper. It's only when you add "real people" to the mix do things start going to Hell.

From what I've seen, Romney did a good job in the debate (putting the honesty of any candidate). Regardless, I still don't believe he'll win the elections. That debate may have gained Romney momentum, but he still has not sold himself to the American people. Exactly what has he demonstrated he'll offer over Obama, aside from the same old Republican talking points? I'm being serious here, I look at him, and I don't see him as a viable alternative at all. I'm still yet to come across enthusiastic Romney supporters. When you have supporters that only really consist of anti-Obama's, and not "pro-Romney's", then there's a big problem with your campaign.

I don't see Romney winning the elections, he's a just a message boy for what's coming in 2016.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

I don't see Romney winning the elections, he's a just a message boy for what's coming in 2016.

Seeing your previous posts, you were a huge Obama supporter. I'm not surprised of what you just posted. The reality is how can the U.S. become great once again?....Honestly I hate both, but WTF. What choices do I have? As an individual it's either Romney or Obama...You people wanted these clowns, so you deal with the drama....


F it,I just won't vote....

reply to post by vor78


Oh yes it absolutely does.

If all the Dems and everyone thinks that the race is already over and that Obama is waay ahead the GOP will be out in force trying to give Romney every vote, and the Dems might slack off thinking it's in the bag. It serves Obama to tighten up the race. Since this debate I have watched all of my democrat facebook friends come alive. It served it's purpose. They won't take a win for granted now. It was the first debate, he will do better and better and pull back ahead in the next few debates. In the last ones he will look top of his game. Don't be played.

Just trust me and watch. Next debate Obama is more on his game, looks better. Third debate he will own it. Romney doesn't have a real chance without a huge upset.. like literally in the streets.

Me personally.. I am voting for Gary Johnson.

reply to post by KonquestAbySS


You have a choice. Vote Gary Johnson. He is on 47 state ballots, he mathematically, could win. Also I think we will be seeing big numbers voting for third party caniddates this year.

The person you were replying to was right though. They picked their weak candidate and ran him this year. Next election the GOP will pull out the big guns since there will be a new Dem candidate. They will likely bring in Jeb Bush.