Today's installment of campaign-related news items that won't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:
* A new Reuters/Ipsos poll shows President Obama leading Mitt Romney at the national level by seven, 49% to 42%.
* In keeping with the recent trend, the Obama campaign released another video this morning on women's health and reproductive rights. This one features actress Elizabeth Banks.
* In Colorado, one of the nation's most closely-watched swing states, PPP shows Obama leading Romney by six, 49% to 43%, while Quinnipiac/New York Times/CBS shows Romney ahead by five, 50% to 45%. One of those is wrong.
* Speaking of battleground states, the same Quinnipiac/New York Times/CBS poll shows Obama leading in Virginia by four points, 49% to 45%, and ahead in Wisconsin by six points, 51% to 45%.
* And in still more swing-state news, Public Policy Polling raised some eyebrows yesterday with the release of a poll showing Obama in the lead in North Carolina, 49% to 46%.
* Americans for Prosperity, the far-right operation financed by the Koch brothers, is launching a $25 million campaign running attack ads tying President Obama to the national debt. The ads will air for three weeks in Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
* In Virginia's very competitive U.S. Senate race, Quinnipiac's new poll shows Tim Kaine (D) narrowly leading George Allen (R), 48% to 46%.
* And President Obama will make an unusually-long trip to Iowa next week, launching a three-day bus tour through the Midwestern swing state.
Leave a Comment:
The Colorado sample was 38% elderly! Not going to happen!
We in Co are out and about and active..we do nto take unsolicited calls and most use wireless..They need to revise the sample ..Colorado would nto vote for the willard person by such a margin!
Here in Boulder we're obviously not going to be voting Romney, but I do expect it to be close statewide. If Willard does pull it out here, it will be by the slimmest of margins, but I'll be very surprised if the President doesn't win here again this year.
On a side note, I saw my very first Romney bumper sticker the other day on a mini-van with a fish magnet and the stick family in the back window. You can't drive around the block here without seeing Obama stickers on cars.
Does the right really want to talk about the debt? Need we remind them of Reagan's contribution?How GHW's? Maybe GW's? Perhaps we should also talk about the obstructionists in congress stopping Obama at every point?
Bad enough we put up with their lies about Obama's welfare spending or his immigration policy or his ...
Gawd how can the republicans gather so many idiots under one roof!
Of course the right wants to talk about the debt. Obama's total debt for four years is bigger than Bush's total for eight.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/
Ah look Poopy242 is back to mark the fire hydrant again.
Question - since President Bush did not put the 2 unpaid tax cuts and 2 unpaid wars on the books during his administration and President Obama put on books under his administration, doesn't that have an impact on the National Debt and would in not push numbers up under President Obama rather than President Bush?
Gawd how can the republicans gather so many idiots under one roof!
See Shooter242 and multiply..
You think shooter actually knows how they get him to be so dumb? I think it is all because the right winged talk machine thrives on getting them so emotional that they lose the ability to think.
Shooter: A more telling measure of debt is the debt to GDP ratio. Clinton left office in 2001, a year not served but for which he was responsible fiscally, when the ratio was a near-record low of 1.3. Bush2 left office in 2009 in which year the ratio became 13.4. In 2010 it was 11.4, which is an improvement during Obama and a deterioration during Bush2.
The Cock(less) Brothers are all whiny and squealing like piggies this week because they're shown as far right morons in the new movie "Campaign" that comes out Friday. It helps that the film makers have said any resemblance between their two on-screen idiots and the two off-screen idiots is entirely intentional.
I wonder how much these two tenth-wits would have achieved in their lives had they had to actually work for their money? I think like Willard, they'd be in the cardboard boxes down on the corner under the freeway overpass.
I think they should be, at least for a day, to get a feel for that which they obviously so despise.
The Obama campaign MUST keep running ads targeting women and Latinos. I believe those are the two groups who will matter most to his re-election prospects. Keep those ads coming!
News outlets and the Obama campaign have to attack the lies - hard.
I agree except I also truly believe that the people who buy into these lies already know the truth or at least know the lies are lies. They do not have anything else to use so they simply go with -"but so and so said..." I think this gives them an out if they actually get what they asked for by again simply saying "but so and so said..Thus I was duped!"
Unfortunately you are right Paul.
From the typically dis-associative thinking of politicians, all responsibilities, including responsibility for statements made, are deniable and renders self-knowledge irrelevant but for perhaps the psychology.
If people believe Everything they hear on TV etc. is lies or near lies, then it is only the economy that matters. If bad, the President is to blame. After all, the press says the Democrat's 'control' the Senate.
There are reports on the net that Mr. Romney accepted amnesty in 2009 for fraudulently hiding money in Swiss banks (remember the UBS tax evader list?). Sen. McCain may not have seen Mr. Romney's 2009 return and the 2009 return may show Mr. Romney paying the amnesty taxes? If this is true, it sounds like Mr. Edwards running for President. Also, Mr. Romney does not yet have the nomination. Say Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels for President? Mr. Romney's refusal and diversions makes such a situation seem plausible. Are there any known facts? Thoughts...?
That whole thing is BS. There are "reports on the net" about anything crazy you can think of. Why not simply say that he wouldn't make a good president and vote that way?
You are correct; it may well be BS; but, Mr. Romney's behavior and the timing make the possibility seem credible. If true, it reaches to a level far above issues of policy or personality. If he is elected and the information (if true; yes big if) comes out, the harm to the country could be enormous.
You keep saying if true to something that has no basis in reality whatsoever.
Forgive me you sound like a birther.
The two biggest winners for Obama are the war on women and Romney's prospective budget. He should keep those up.
mitt tell the truth
Mitt Romney and his Presidential campaign talk of this
magical Direction to recovery that his presidency and policies will bring the United States
back to an economic recovery and world prominence. Well I believe that Abraham
Lincoln said it the best. That you can foul some of the people some of the time
but you can not foul all of the people all of the time Mr. Romney take note.