Should the "early" polls worry the GOP?

[sg0508]

Maybe they will serve as overall message as to how much of a joke many Americans and the media believe this entire field to be.  I know plenty of people who voted for McCain in 2008 here in Long Island who will supporting Obama no matter what in 2012 as they look at the rest of the field and are just scared.

Even the normal toss-ups don't appear to be very competitive and usually a year prior, any generic challenger typically polls well against the incumbent.

Scary to say the least

[Thomas D]

I don't think any of the general election polls should worry anyone at this point. In January of 1992 President Bush had a 20 point lead over Governor Clinton.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

The more moderate GOP vote like that on Long Island may be relegated to that part of the country.  New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, etc.  What I think many independents and Republican-leaning independents don't understand is that Perry and Bachmann are the center of the GOP, not the outliers. 

The GOP candidates may appear to be a joke to those in the North East and the New York Metro.  However in the south these people are cherished.  All it would take is a slightly lower Democratic turnout with a slightly higher Republican turn out and a small shift of the independent vote towards the Republicans and then the Democrats can say bye-bye to Florida, Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia.  Then only four electoral votes are needed and they could be Nevada or Iowa or New Hampshire. 

Dukakis had an 18 percentage point lead at the end of July in 1988

[King]

Thomas D, Bush 43 had good approval ratings with that lead. Obama is teetering at rock bottom this quarter, going into the 30s in a lot polls, and is still up big against Perry and Bachmann--who don't have name recognition problems, either.

[Vosem]

No. Romney leads Obama, Paul ties him. The Perry and Bachmann deficits are far from insurmountable.

[Wonkish1]

The more moderate GOP vote like that on Long Island may be relegated to that part of the country.  New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, etc.  What I think many independents and Republican-leaning independents don't understand is that Perry and Bachmann are the center of the GOP, not the outliers.  

The GOP candidates may appear to be a joke to those in the North East and the New York Metro.  However in the south these people are cherished.  All it would take is a slightly lower Democratic turnout with a slightly higher Republican turn out and a small shift of the independent vote towards the Republicans and then the Democrats can say bye-bye to Florida, Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia.  Then only four electoral votes are needed and they could be Nevada or Iowa or New Hampshire.  

Dukakis had an 18 percentage point lead at the end of July in 1988

I'll give some credit to TXMichael here. He's at least right on the bottom half.
Emphasis on turnout.

Look no offense to OP, but Long Island independents aren't deciding this election. Its going to be decided by in Ohio and Virginia by a fork lift operator, who goes to church twice a month, drinks beer, and likes to hunt. Its going to be decided in Florida by a newly retired 64 year old who is worried about his 401k running out to early. Its going to be decided in Nevada by a combination of a dealer at a casino and an unemployed construction worker.

Get the picture. A lot of people on here are not your typical swing voter.

[Wonkish1]

No. Romney leads Obama, Paul ties him. The Perry and Bachmann deficits are far from insurmountable.

The Bachmann deficits are getting close to insurmountable in my opinion.

[Mehmentum]

Thomas D, Bush 43 had good approval ratings with that lead. Obama is teetering at rock bottom this quarter, going into the 30s in a lot polls, and is still up big against Perry and Bachmann--who don't have name recognition problems, either.

This.  Yes Romney ties or narrowly trails Obama in most polls, but considering maost of these polls have Obama in the upper 30s and lower 40 in approval, this is a terrible performance for them. If the economy were halfway decent, this election would be a blowout of epic proportions.

With the economy as it is, I'll be happy with the single digit leads this field will let us have.

[DrScholl]

Of course they should, conditions dictate that they should have a lead right now. Obama's approval is low, but the GOP candidates have even lower numbers. The person with the better approval almost always wins, so if whoever the nominee is has to get their own numbers up to actually have a chance at winning.

[Meeker]

Obama's saving grace this election is that voters dislike the Republican candidates as much as they dislike him.

If there were a Republican candidate who voters actually liked, Obama would be finished.

[Devils30]

The GOP will never win those states mentioned but a poor Perry performance in NY, NJ will give the Dems a good shot to pick up a half dozen house seats there lost in 2010.

[Wonkish1]

The GOP will never win those states mentioned but a poor Perry performance in NY, NJ will give the Dems a good shot to pick up a half dozen house seats there lost in 2010.

Half Dozen?? Really?? In New York and New Jersey?

Maybe you should check your math. The only thing you could be happy about in NY if Obama performed well is not losing more seats because there are a few R+3 or more districts there that should go GOP in a normal year.

Remember for the Dems its Cali and Illinois

[Penelope]

The GOP will never win those states mentioned but a poor Perry performance in NY, NJ will give the Dems a good shot to pick up a half dozen house seats there lost in 2010.

Half Dozen?? Really?? In New York and New Jersey?

Maybe you should check your math. The only thing you could be happy about in NY if Obama performed well is not losing more seats because there are a few R+3 or more districts there that should go GOP in a normal year.

Remember for the Dems its Cali and Illinois

DEMOCRATS? WINNING SIX HOUSE SEATS IN NEW YORK? NEW JERSEY?

PURE NONSENSE!

[Minnesota Mike]

No. Romney leads Obama, Paul ties him. The Perry and Bachmann deficits are far from insurmountable.

The Real Clear Politics average has Obama and Romney tied (Obama +0.9), Obama up 3.3 on Paul, up 5.5 on Perry and up 10.6 in Bachmann.

[Devils30]

There are several upstate House seats that conceivably could go Dem (NY-19,20,24,25) and NJ 03, 07. We can't judge though until the new maps for these states are released.

[sg0508]

Look at some of the state polls being posted already and it's startling. While it's true that some polls are like 40-25% (and thus a huge % is not decided), that is very discourating for the Republicans, especially in the key states that seem to turn every election now.

[courts]

Are you kidding me? Romney is in statistical dead heat with Obama! And Perry and Paul trail him by only about 4-5 points after coming out against Social Security. And that's with the election more than a year away and an economy that's... well you know. This is one of those many threads that make me want to throw my laptop out the window in frustration at some of you people.

[Averroës Nix]

For the reasons specified in the original post? No. Romney or Perry are both prepared for a national campaign against Obama, and if (as we have every reason to suspect) the economy does not improve, either would be competitive.

That said, if Republicans should be worried about any polling at this point, it's Romney's and Perry's net favorability among independents. On this count, Perry is still largely an unknown (though the latest Quinnipiac poll showed him doing very poorly among the 45% of indies who did recognize his name), and Romney doesn't do much better than Obama.

[sg0508]

Are you kidding me? Romney is in statistical dead heat with Obama! And Perry and Paul trail him by only about 4-5 points after coming out against Social Security. And that's with the election more than a year away and an economy that's... well you know. This is one of those many threads that make me want to throw my laptop out the window in frustration at some of you people.

THE STATEWIDE POLLS YOU SCHMUCK.  Why don't you throw yourself out the window and save us the trouble.

[Mr.Phips]

Thomas D, Bush 43 had good approval ratings with that lead. Obama is teetering at rock bottom this quarter, going into the 30s in a lot polls, and is still up big against Perry and Bachmann--who don't have name recognition problems, either.

Bush 41 was down to around 44% approval by January 1992. 

[President von Cat]

I can't help but feel that the title of this thread should be about early polls worrying Democrats.

[courts]

Are you kidding me? Romney is in statistical dead heat with Obama! And Perry and Paul trail him by only about 4-5 points after coming out against Social Security. And that's with the election more than a year away and an economy that's... well you know. This is one of those many threads that make me want to throw my laptop out the window in frustration at some of you people.

THE STATEWIDE POLLS YOU SCHMUCK.  Why don't you throw yourself out the window and save us the trouble.

That was obviously only a reply to the original post. With that said, it wasn't that more than a couple months ago that reputable sources like PPP were showing Romney dominating in states like Florida (not sure if that's still the case but TBH I don't really care).. And Perry is still doing fairly well I think even with poor name recognition and after having been called out by the media for attacking various sacred cows. If the national dynamic is this way now, your party has plenty of time to pour funds into ad blitzes and get Rush and co. to turn out TRUE CONSERVATIVES.

[Averroës Nix]

Absolutely irrelevant. Those polls are meaningless. Presidential campaigns hardly ever matter, and they are driven by the economy. Barring an economic miracle within the next year, Obama is toast, no matter who the GOP nominates. Why don't people on this forum get this concept? It's getting really tiring repeating myself.

If the election was held today, he would lose in a landslide. It will be close-ish if unemployment is around 8.5%, but anything above that he can kiss a second term goodbye, and 9%+ (as it is now) there's 0% chance he wins. It's really not that hard to understand.

"Meaningless" takes things too far. I'm willing to accept that no Republican could have won in, say, 2008, or that no Democrat could have won in, for instance, 1972. But you would need to make a very persuasive argument to convince me that campaigns and candidates don't matter in years like 2000 or 2004. History shows that they do matter on the margins, and totally dismissing them is way too deterministic.

Obama's personal favorability ratings are very high given economic conditions, Congress has a record-low approval rating, and the GOP candidates are not popular among independents - these aren't things that you can just handwave while saying that the economy will determine the results.

[DrScholl]

Has anyone actually won an election against an incumbent with lower approval numbers than the incumbent? The main thing to look at in polls is the approval numbers, ties and single digit deficits don't result in wins when your approval is below who you are running against. The entire field is under water in terms of approvals.

[Wonkish1]

Has anyone actually won an election against an incumbent with lower approval numbers than the incumbent? The main thing to look at in polls is the approval numbers, ties and single digit deficits don't result in wins when your approval is below who you are running against. The entire field is under water in terms of approvals.

Maybe this thread should be posting approvals/favorabilities instead of retarded head to heads then, eh?