New Poll: Obama Beats Perry and Romney

Public Policy Polling released a new poll today. President Obama would beat Mitt Romney by 4 points and Rick Perry by 11 points.

The president’s more solid standing in the Perry and Romney horseraces comes from consolidating his party support. He was losing 13% of Democrats to each candidate in August, but only 11% to Romney and 9% to Perry now. Obama has meanwhile upped his own crossover support, from 5% to 9% of Republicans versus Romney and 10% to 11% against Perry. The president leads Perry by ten points with independents, but Romney tops Obama by two with them.

One reason for Obama's increase over Perry: Perry's position on social security, which is likely to cost him swing voters.

Only 10% would support eliminating Social Security, while 82% would not. Only 20% agree with Perry that the program is a “Ponzi scheme,” and 70% do not. Even Republicans disagree on that, 39-49.

PPP describes itself this way:

PPP is a Democratic polling company, but polling expert Nate Silver of the New York Times found that its surveys in 2010 actually exhibited a slight bias toward Republican candidates.

< Texecutions: Rick Perry's Willful Blindness to Injustice | Never Underestimate The Vacuity Of DC Political Analysis >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I guess Presidential speeches do matter (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 02:46:16 PM EST

    I know you're in a more optimistic mood, (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 03:18:21 PM EST
    but I think the days of Obama being able to substitute speeches for good policy, governance and leadership are pretty much over.  

    Yes, he gets a bounce - shoot, there were people here who were swayed last week just because his tone was feisty, as if tone actually means something - but I think he - and his campaign team - are kidding themselves if they think speeches are going to win the day for him this time around.


    Ah, but Anne (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Towanda on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 03:44:23 PM EST
    'tis not speeches alone that won him the presidency.

    The poll cannot measure the potential impact of the speech combined with free food on a world tour -- plus disposable styrofoam pillars when he came home!

    Methinks you can trust that his campaign staff is, even now, pondering freebies and stage props, too.


    Do you think the calls have gone out (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 03:55:50 PM EST
    to Industrial Light and Magic, to Spielberg and James Cameron?

    Did we even realize in 2008 the irony of Greek pillars, given what has happened to the Greek economy?  Maybe that they were made of styrofoam should have foreshadowed the austerity Obama would soon decide we needed here in America...

    I cannot tell you how much I am dreading the official campaign season; as it is, all I seem to want to do when I see any of these politicians is mutter "you are such a blankety-blanking liar."

    I don't know why I would want to, or how I would be able to, sit through a debate between Obama and the Republican nominee, at least not without copious amounts of alcohol or medication.


    We're done with good policy until 2013 (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 03:22:12 PM EST
    At least where Congress's involvement is at all required.

    And in November 2012, the jobs speech (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Towanda on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 03:26:27 PM EST
    and its bounce that makes such a big bonanza of a difference will have been more than a year before.

    And in November 2012, if predictions hold, there will be more jobless Americans than a year before.

    That's how much a poll taken now matters.



    Well, we do have the Super Congress, (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 03:38:49 PM EST
    and the trigger provisions that will have to be dealt with before the end of the year, so I wouldn't say we're exactly done with Congress.  Good policy is definitely not in the cards, but I think expecting a return to it - or finally even seeing any at all - by 2013 is largely magical thinking, in my opinion.

    Obama's still pushing for huge spending cuts, and even inserted in his AJA a provision that, if the SuperCongress can come up with enough spending cuts, the revenue increases proposed in the AJA are nullified.  Sure, speechify about raising taxes on the rich to placate your party, but work to (1) make it unnecessary and (2) make sure the pain only falls on those who have taken about as much pain as they can.

    Of course, the revenue increases are likely going to get nullified anyway, because the bill's not going to pass.  And for all Obama's talk about this-is-it-pass-it-all, he's already saying that if they could pass some of it, he'd sign those parts and work to get the rest of it later.  Golly, I wonder which parts he'd "settle" for and which he'd work on "later..."

    No, I think Congress is a factor for at least the rest of the year, if not longer.


    HA HA HA HA! (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 03:55:46 PM EST
    You think we're going to get good policy in 2013??

    Oh goodness - that's a funny one!


    Tone does mean something (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 03:43:01 PM EST
    If it didn't, pols would just issue press releases, and no one here would be complaining when Obama's tone is too emotionless, condescending, professorial, etc.

    Obviously it is not all that matters, but it is meaningful.


    Imagine that (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 03:08:19 PM EST
    He is likely to be the luckiest phucker in US presidential electoral history...if he keeps it up, and if he finally understands that he has to MEAN it.  In both senses of the word.

    An incumbent (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 03:42:07 PM EST
    president is leading two dodos.


    Like the guy said to his friend while hiking and (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 03:46:32 PM EST
    encountering a bear on the path. "I don't have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun you".

    Recent times have been so helpful (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Towanda on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 04:52:49 PM EST
    to me, as in past, I never could fathom how this country could have elected Millard Fillmore, Warren Harding, et al.

    I now have seen the light -- but from some very dim bulbs.


    Yep (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 03:55:02 PM EST
    He should be leading them.  

    But then again, so should Larry the Cable Guy.


    And (none / 0) (#22)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 04:41:16 PM EST
    so should Larry Fine.

    nyuk, nyuk, nyuk (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Peter G on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 07:12:23 PM EST
    For more, look here.  Or visit the place of his birth, in Philadelphia, for a drink.

    The Potential Bad News for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by BDB on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 06:08:30 PM EST
    is that he's under 50% against Romney.  Barely, but it's not a good sign for an incumbent.  

    Of course, it's all bad news as far as I'm concerned because it means we're going to end up with either Obama, Romney or Perry, who actually agree on far more than any of them - or their supporters - will admit.

    You know (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 06:28:12 PM EST
    I read Romney's economic plan or read the highlights and it sounded just like something that would come straight out of Obama's mouth.

    Ds are just sneakier than Rs... (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by lambert on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 10:13:42 PM EST
    ... and more dishonest.

    Perry is honest about outright wishing to destroy Social Security.

    Obama is more indirect, sets up the Catfood Commission, outsources the staffing to Pete Peterson, sets up the Joint Select Committee on Human Sacrifice, and all the rest of it.

    Both parties are owned by the looting class, and both have the goals of their owners.

    No suprise (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 02:32:05 PM EST
    here. Just an anecdotal survey among my friends in a deep red district says that Perry creeps them out. Not wild about Obama or Romney either but Romney doesn't have that creepy fundamentalist aura to him like Perry does.

    Perry is creepy and stupid as (none / 0) (#2)
    by observed on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 02:39:21 PM EST
    a rock, to boot.
    I could see Romney beating Obama, but not Perry.
    Huntsman might be strong opposition, but I don't see how he gets the nomination.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 02:43:24 PM EST
    one of my friends was really impressed with Huntsman but had never heard of him before. She said he looked like the only sane one in the crazy house.

    Harry Reid has seen this movie before (none / 0) (#4)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 02:43:34 PM EST
    The GOP may nominate a total loon.

    Bush was Perry (none / 0) (#9)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 03:22:46 PM EST
    with slightly better brand name recognition.

    Yup (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 03:34:02 PM EST
    And I think the more people see of Perry, the more that realization will dawn on them. I think Perry in the abstract seemed like an acceptable alternative to Obama. Perry on your TV is another story.

    Know thy enemy (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 04:35:37 PM EST
    Perry was once a Democrat, supporting Al Gore as a campaign manager in the '80s, supporting Hillarycare in the '90s.  

    I would guess that his public pronouncements and panderings are today as meaningless, as a Republican, as are Obama's as a Democrat.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 03:41:20 PM EST
    the more the general public sees him the less they like him. Good grief, his numbers are the same as Newt who has extremely high negatives. His idiocy doesn't seem to sway the GOP primary voters though but they are the same people that think George W. Bush was a success.

    Except that (none / 0) (#28)
    by sj on Wed Sep 14, 2011 at 09:03:59 AM EST
    O's position on Social Security isn't much better.  It must be destroyed to be saved so that maybe you'll live long enough to collect some.