IA-Pres: Obama bounces upward in new PPP poll

[ccharles000]

Public Policy Polling (PDF) (5/27-30, Iowa voters, 4/15-17 (PDF) in parens, 1/7-9 (PDF) in brackets):

Barack Obama (D): 49 (45) <47>
Mitt Romney (R): 40 (41) <41>
Undecided: 12 (14) <12>

Barack Obama (D): 55 (53) <53>
Sarah Palin (R): 35 (36) <37>
Undecided: 9 (11) <10>

Barack Obama (D): 54 (50) <51>
Newt Gingrich (R): 33 (39) <38>
Undecided: 13 (11) <11>

Barack Obama (D): 49
Tim Pawlenty (R): 37
Undecided: 14

Barack Obama (D): 50
Herman Cain (R): 32
Undecided: 18
(MoE: ±2.6%)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/03/981741/-IA-Pres:-Obama-bounces-upward-in-new-PPP-poll?via=blog_542760

[bluestateguy]

1. The GOOP nominee will have a bitch of a time beating Obama in Iowa

All these Republicans who want to get rid of ethanol subsidies will not play well.

[aaaaaa5a]

2. I saw another poll that was done about 2 weeks ago.

It had the Presidents approval rating at 49% in Ohio.

Despite the "gloom and doom" from the press, the President is really doing well in almost all of the battleground states


If Obama holds the "traditional blue" states, he needs just 2 pick ups. If he were to win the states of Colorado and New Hampshire, that would give him the Presidency. Even losing North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Florida and Ohio wouldn't give the White House to the GOP.



Right now at least, things are looking good.

[liberalpragmatist]

7. If he wins reelection, it'll probably be by a bigger margin than '08

I realize that may seem unlikely right now, but one thing people often miss is that with just one exception, every president that won a second term increased their electoral vote count. That exception was Woodrow Wilson in 1916, who's an odd case since his initial victory came in a three-way race. (And even Wilson saw his popular vote count and percentage increase in 1916.)

I know people will argue that 2008 was a unique perfect storm, but in 1983, nobody thought Reagan would win by a bigger margin than in 1980. Most people would have said that the terrible economy of 1980, Carter's massive unpopularity, labor's discontent with Carter, and John Anderson's third party bid all gave Reagan a bigger win than he could have ever expected in 1984. Or take Clinton. People said in 1995 and early 1996 that in 1992 Clinton was fresh and relatively uncontroversial, that Bush was unpopular after 12 years of Republican presidential rule, and that Ross Perot's candidacy allowed Clinton to win a lot more states than he otherwise would have. No way he'd beat those numbers in 1996. Yet he did.

If Obama's approval rating is 52-53%, he should easily win by the same margin as before. Even if he falls back, it'll likely be by only a small amount (maybe 1 or 2 fewer states - maybe he won't carry Indiana again, for example.) And it's more likely than people think that he could win with something like 54% of the vote while adding a couple states to his total (Arizona, maybe Montana, possibly MO, though that state seems to be trending away from the Dems).

[aaaaaa5a]

13. Good post.

It is amazing how history wrongly remembers Reagan as this unbeatable political force.

As bad as the 1980 election was, there are a lot of people (to this day) that believe that had Carter not faced a primary challenge from Kennedy, or had a 3rd party candidate out flank him to the left, he probably would have beat Reagan. Likewise during most of Reagan's first term he spent considerable time in the mid 30s to low 40s in approval rating. In fact even Obama's worst approval numbers as President are significantly higher than the worst numbers Reagan saw.


I will further add that on election day 1984, Reagan's gallup approval rating was 58%. Just 2 days ago, Obama was at 53%. Go ahead and look it up!


The fact of the matter is that right now, with the exception of Indiana, Obama is in very good position to win EVERY OTHER state he won in 2008. And he FACTUALLY is in a better position now to win in Arizona and Montana than he was in the wave election year of 2008.

[liberalpragmatist]

14. Even in Indiana, he might be competitive

Although there's been some buzz he won't contest the state again, he's traveled to the state a lot (there just a month ago, for example), which indicates that at least some political advisors think it's in play. Part of the problem is Indiana bans robo-callers, so there are almost no polls about his popularity.

[The Unawriter]

15. What about Florida?

He won in '08, but could be massively AIPACked there in '12.

[Pirate Smile]

3. Article from DMR: "Survey: Iowa voters favor Obama over Romney, all other Republicans"

Survey: Iowa voters favor Obama over Romney, all other Republicans

In Iowa, Democratic President Barack Obama would beat Republican Mitt Romney by 9 points and would handily defeat the rest of the GOP field, a new survey shows.

Romney, the current national frontrunner, does the best of a lineup of five Republicans, but Iowa voters prefer Obama, 49 percent to 40 percent, according to a Public Policy Polling survey released today.

That margin is nearly the same as Obama’s 10-point victory in Iowa in 2008 against Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain, pollster Tom Jensen pointed out in a news release.

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/06/03/survey-iowa-voters-favor-obama-over-romney-all-other-republicans/

[marlakay]

4. Considering the economy

we are lucky that they have really no one worth running against him.

[aaaaaa5a]

5. I think there are some people (like myself)

that still blame Bush for this mess. At the time when Obama took office, the country was losing 700,000 jobs per month! Obama was starting from a real deep rut, unseen since the Great Depression. I believe he has already created more jobs in under 3 years than Bush did in 8.


Think about it. May is considered a bad month because only 54,000 jobs were created. That trumps -700,000 jobs any day!



Plus, what are the Republican solutions?

If I hear tax cuts one more time I'm going to puke!


I believe there are a lot people who agree with me.

That's why Obama's poll numbers are rising. People are seeing whats on the other side, and are saying we are better off with what we currently have.

[JAnthony]

9. Bush and the rest of the Republicans and idiots in Bush's government

who got us all into this worldwide economic downturn.

No one was minding the store for 8 yrs and the results were chaos.

Obama at least brought us a path to slow and steady recovery, with bumps along the road that some people think are more cliffs to fall off...

[marlakay]

11. I hope you are not thinking i am saying

Its obama's fault! I was just saying with the economy bad that BUSH did....we are lucky they have no one even sort of a problem to worry about.

People are so jumpy here this past year and read into things so negatively.

I might not like that obama isnt as tough as i would like but i support him and plan to vote for him. Shit i worked for him last time. I only got involved with politics the last 10 years because of how Bush and his cronies have screwed up our nation!

[JAnthony]

17. NO, I didn't think that. Our best bet is for Sarah Palin and Donald to run

as a third party... as she threatened to do today on Fox.

I hope she does... otherwise, the shitty economy and people like Romney and Trump look like threats to progressives like Obama and us. I agree with you, Obama hasn't lived up to the spine we thought we voted for....but he knows what he is doing 99% of the time, even if we don't

[Vanje]

10. Considering the economy....

..."we" are not lucky at all.

"We" are disgusted.
"We" are downcast.
"We" are suffering.

[marlakay]

12. I am learning i have to watch every freakin

Word i say here. I just lost my job so i know how crappy it is.

[Hippo_Tron]

16. I don't think voters have such bad short term memory that they don't remember Bush

Reagan got re-elected when the economy was still sluggish and IMO part of that was due to the fact that the economy started going bad under Carter. If the economy had been bad under Nixon/Ford and Carter had visibly inherited the mess (he did in fact inherit the underlying problems, but there was no downturn until he was in office), Reagan may never have won. Under HW Bush, the GOP had been in office for 12 years so it was clear that the Democrats could not be blamed for a sluggish economy.

I don't think Obama's road to re-election will be easy, but I do think enough people realize that voting for a Republican is voting to go back to Bush, that he can win.

[JTFrog]

6. K&R!

[JAnthony]

8. If only we could just have the Iowa Caucus and forget about the rest

of the insanity an election year brings.

All the conventions and primaries...useless parades of stupidity in front of the world.

Do it like England or Canada...8 weeks max.