« | »

Gallup: Obama Loses To Generic Republican

From Gallup:

2012 Voter Preferences for Obama, "Republican" Remain Close

Forty-four percent prefer the Republican; 39%, Obama

by Jeffrey M. Jones
June 16, 2011

PRINCETON, NJ — Forty-four percent of registered voters say they are more likely to vote for "the Republican Party’s candidate" and 39% for Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election, according to Gallup’s June update. The current five-percentage-point edge for the generic Republican is not a statistically significant lead, and neither side has held a meaningful lead at any point thus far in 2011.

Apparently, such leads are only "significant" when the party affiliations are reversed. By the way, note that even in this article Gallup couldn’t quite bring it self to say that the GOP was ahead of Mr. Obama.

These results are based on a June 9-12 Gallup poll. The competitiveness of the race is underscored by the fact that Obama’s re-election prospects on this measure did not appear much better in May, when his approval rating rose to the 50% level. Now that the rally in support for Obama is essentially over, the president appears to be in a slightly weaker position but still very competitive with his as-yet-unnamed opponent

Presidential preferences long before an election can give an indication of the current political environment, but their relationship to the eventual election outcome shows how much that environment can change in the months leading up to the election. If the election were held today, Obama would appear to be in a tough fight for re-election with a fairly close division in registered-voter preferences between the president and a generic Republican.

Regardless of whom Republicans nominate, if national conditions improve, as was the case from 1983 to 1984 and 1995 to 1996, Obama could win re-election easily. If they do not, as occurred between 1979 and 1980, or get worse, as happened from 1991 to 1992, he could be vulnerable to defeat by whomever the Republicans nominate.

Luckily, for the Republicans, there is little chance that Mr. Obama will do anything to improve the economy. Which is too bad for the country, at least in the short run.

But perhaps it will turn out for the best in the long run, if it ensures his eventual defeat.

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, June 17th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

13 Responses to “Gallup: Obama Loses To Generic Republican”

  1. untrainable says:

    Quick, we’ve got to find this guy. What’s his name? Mr. Generic? Doesn’t he make cheap knockoff prescription drugs? And though he is plain, and not very memorable, he could still get elected on name recognition alone. He’d be a great president. We could call him the “Indescribable Man”

    Think… Private Charles Lamb, or Cpt. Tuttle.

  2. Liberals Demise says:

    Generic = Cheap knock off

  3. Chase says:

    CPT Tuttle (ROTFL) now there is a guy we need in office! A hero, but who walks quietly, gets seemingly lots done (leaving the economy alone), and never shows up for press conferences!

    Cheers! Untrainable!

  4. Tater Salad says:

    With statements like this from Barack Obama, the real problem with him is exposed. He is a “Community Organizer”, not a President with any type of business background. This is very scary for America. Why did/has all of his cabinet advisors on the economy quit? This statment tells the story. America, you are “reaping” the awards of “Hope & Change” and they are not good. Enjoy! Technology advancement is what brought America to the forefront economically. Evidently Obama doesn’t even want the cottin gin and its technological advancement. I wonder how he’d like to pick cotton then? Or his children?

    http://wizbangblog.com/conten

    http://www.ihatethemedia.com/

    ……..and the typical Barack Obama supporter: http://weaselzippers.us/2011/

  5. oldpuppydixie says:

    But unfortunately, we don’t HAVE a “generic” candidate. The nominee will probably be a limp-wristed, spineless RINO who will meekly endorse Hussein as McCain did!

    • preparing4theworst says:

      Heeyyy, I am due to retire in July ’12 and will need something to do to get me out of the house (or so my wife says), I can be generic, mad-as-hell-not going-to-take-it-anymore-anti pc-securethesouthernborder candidate. Where Reagan was a cowboy, I can actually be a gunslinger (I am from the REAL west) and I can get accurate, up to date information right here….VOTE “MAD AS HELL” and help get rid of “professional politicians”!!!

    • tranquil.night says:

      Quoth Levin: “You can’t get any more generic Republican than Romney.”

      But your points are essentially one in the same.

      Every time it seems the Tea Party wants to extend the olive branch to the establishment, they take it as an opportunity to co-opt the momentum and declare Conservatism irrelevant again except for the generic populist lines of late of “Obama is failing, we need to cut spending, cut spending.”

      They’re just salivating for the moment they can onslaught the national narrative with the impression that Mittoast has this thing wrapped up so he can start tacking back to the center and cruise through the nomination and election on his platform of worthless machine politic platitudes serious Presidentialism. They’re absolutely convinced (after 2010) that the Tea Party is going to lose to a weak incumbent. This makes them morons, and/or corrupt bastards with loyalties to their own cronyism.

      I think the MBM and establishment apparatchiks only threw Bachmann a bone to again try and make Sarah look fringier by comparison as well, adding to the chokehold narrative they still have going that she shouldn’t/won’t/isn’t getting in.

      Levin was right to sound a little nervous though. Michele handled her questions awesome, the fault wasn’t her – it was the questions, and how they absolutely had nothing to do with what the immediate problems facing the nation and what priorities of her administration would be. Mittoast is playing hardball and currently he’s got the media wind at his back, so he can afford to show his naked moderatism with the one hand while getting more people into his camp with the well orchestrated/managed fiscal populist campaign. It’s to be expected that he’s going to pull majority support in much of the Northeast because the zombie infestation is cross-party, but it’s not good enough to concede that point. We have to defend our agenda; the principles behind the Ryan Plan (and why means testing and raising the age are unpreferable, kick-the-can on the backs of taxpayers, options), the end of corporate welfare for ethanol, how the EPA is slaying business based solely on a moral crusade that is a hoax, etc.

      Otherwise we’re going to have a Party leader who once again is reacting to a national discourse that is narratives and templates set forth by the Liberal’s Media.

    • canary says:

      I think Mitt Romney is a generic Obama.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      I believe tn has struck paydirt here. If history is any indicator of how arrogant elites think, we will definitely be stuck with whomever the RINO’s think is “his turn” and whomever will toe the party line, reaching across the aisle, watered down socialism that we’ve some to expect. Every great society in history has done it and cronyism usurps good sense every time. It will be the nail in the coffin that closes the lid on our fate and we will have to endure several decades of a craptacular line-of-thinking that includes GAIA-saving, CO2 punishing, liberal-appeasing, money-laundering BS that Europe is just now starting to recognize as ineffective and destructive.

      Let’s face it, those people who expect government to provide equal outcomes now eclipse those who favor self-sufficiency and individualism. Belonging to a group is far more important than doing what is right. The WWII generation is leaving us and they were the last ones who, en masse, struck up more small businesses, showed the US what honor and decency were and who wouldn’t tolerate the crap that we have now. In order to turn this whole thing around is going to take generations of lost money, time and effort seeking utopia. In an evolutionary sense as regards societies, I think it’s inevitable. It’s not my desire but I feel it cannot be avoided.

      The reason is arrogance and the ridiculous belief that they can do socialism better. The two concepts always go hand-in-hand. Just look at the polls and ask some left-wing unemployed bastard how Hambone’s doing and he will go into his parallel-universe mind and reply, “He’s doing an excellent job!”

      “But, aren’t you unemployed?”

      “Yes, yes I am but that won’t last much longer once his policies take hold and I’d be in lot worse shape if it wasn’t for his unemployment benefits keeping me and my family afloat.”

      Yes, it’s that bad. They actually believe that because they are being “rescued” by an omnipotent government, (which, by the way they feel is government’s job) that all people should see things that way and have even more faith that a command and control economy is the answer with “healthcare for all” etc, etc. etc.

      I am reminded of the phrase that was popular in Germany in the 1930’s: “Deutschland Uber Alles” and for the average lefty, they believe that national pride centers on the government being the benevolent giver of life and granter of all wishes and saver of the unable.” That’s why they hate the U.S. in its current state but we now have to go through our self-centered, nazi phase to show just how bad things can get in order to eliminate it for a long time. But it’s the only thing that the socialists will accept in order to have pride in this nation.

      You’ll note that national pride for a socialist has nothing to do with the actual nation, per se, unless it’s blaming it for the bogeyman of “imperialism”. It has everything to do with their own needs, “punishing the rich” and a warped version of shadenfreude. (—n. delight in another’s misfortune) until they realize that such delight only goes so far and their own lot in life hasn’t improved even when all the money is redistributed and the government tells them how to do everything.

      I’m afraid they cannot understand that “what is” from the 1980’s is far more acceptable than the grass-is-greener wish of “what could be” and you cannot sway them from that ideal. False hope is worse than the real thing as it is unattainable on the scale that the over-imposing government tries to provide.

      Socialists think that a government is a parent, rewarding the good boys and girls and punishing the bad but even worse, providing equal outcomes to all. Just like Keynesian economics, it is a flawed concept and has always failed whenever and wherever it’s tried.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      I had a long-ish post that somehow didn’t show up on the board but basically, I agree with tn. The weak-kneed republican party, playing us all for saps is watered down socialism vs. all out socialism. The only difference is the speed with which they want to do it.

  6. preparing4theworst says:

    PS- I don’t bow to anybody…..irritates the living hell out of my bosses…

  7. Not so fast says:

    HEY I have a great name for a generic ballot, can you spell S A R A H P A L I N?

  8. artboyusa says:

    “Generic Republicans” are and have been our biggest handicap and will be again in 2012 unless and until Chris Christie gets in the race. If that doesn’t happen our choice is between “generic Republican” or “ambitious, glaring female dwarf whose husband’s job is ‘fixing’ gays” – which, somehow, doesn’t energize me one little bit…


« Front Page | To Top
« | »