Feb 08 2010
Obama In Serious Trouble For 2012
I am always amazed out how far some people will go into denial to avoid facing the obvious. Obama’s poll numbers are tanking with the liberal Democrats as their combined failures start to stack up. They are heading for a huge fall blowout, but it is by no means the end of Democrat misery.
I was looking at the latest Marist poll where he is losing independents by 2-1 and ran across this strange tidbit at the very end:
And, In a VERY Hypothetical Matchup …
Looking at a three-way 2012 presidential contest between President Obama, former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Obama receives 44% of the vote, Republican Palin garners 29%, and Independent Bloomberg nets 15%.
A Bloomberg candidacy helps Mr. Obama’s cause. Although Palin receives majority support — 57% — from the GOP, Bloomberg snatches 20% of the vote within the party. Among Democrats, Bloomberg only receives 4%. Democrats are firmly behind Obama with 84% tossing their support to him. Looking at Independents, 31% back Obama, and 27% support Palin. 24% report they would cast their ballot for Bloomberg.
Emphasis mine. I was left scratching my head for a while on this one. Why run a three way race with NY City Mayor Bloomberg as the ‘independent’ (or was he meant to be the GOP candidate??). There will not be a 3 way race in 2012.
So why this poll question? Then it dawned on me – what we have here is 44% for Obama and 44% for anyone but Obama. As every political junkie knows incumbents polling below 50% are seen as in serious trouble, and those polling near 40% are already history.
My guess is the two person test questions must have been pretty bad for our young, first term president, so they went with this whacky 3-way question to ‘hide the decline’!
It’s idiotic to think that Bloomberg would ever run. No one gives a flip for him outside of NYC – and even he’s not vain enough to throw away a billion dollars on a race he knows he’ll lose. You’re right, so why put him into that poll?
Meanwhile, in other news, John Murtha appears to be a victim of government run healthcare. He had what should have been very routine gall bladder surgery last week at Bethesda Naval Hospital, but:
“Two persons said it appeared Murtha’s intestine had been cut inadvertently during the gall bladder removal.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32375.html#ixzz0eypNC7Cp
When the question is asked at the Inquest, “Why did the patient die?” it’s never a good thing when the answer is “Oopsy.”
Sadly, there are large numbers there of voters who are looking for the next fad. They have written off both Obama and Palin.
Wow, just saw on news that Murtha died. My sympathy to his family.
It’s hard to believe the story about nicking his intestines during surgery as they usually don’t remove gall bladders with a ‘knife’ or scapel but with suction, as in laparoscopic, which is minimally invasive it’ll be interesting to see what the truth is.
It was laparoscopic.
Guess John siphoned off too much from Bethesda Naval Hospital
Apparently a nick can happen with laparoscopic surgery, he probably died of an infection they couldn’t contain. I won’t speak ill of the dead, my condolences to Murtha’s family.
That is indeed an odd poll. I can’t imagine Bloomberg running and can’t recall any other polls that mention him running in 2012. I think you are onto something AJ.
I was surprised ro hear Murtha had laproscopy surgery with an infected gall bladder. I understood that when gall bladders are in bad shape the doctors have to operate the old way because of the danger of the gall bladder bursting. I had my gall bladder operation the old way 28 years ago but maybe things have changed since then. However, my mother had hers done thelaproscopy way ten years ago and the doctor said he would never have done it that way it he had know how bad it was.
Sorry he died. My sympathy to his family. He was a crook and a liar but one should never wish death to one’s political enemies. I just wanted him to be defeated by his district and fade into the sunset. The way he treated our marines was disgraceful and I have heard many stories about his corruption with the Navy. Also, I’ll bet he and Pelosi were friends. Two peas out of the same pod
My guess is the two person test questions must have been pretty bad for our young, first term president, so they went with this whacky 3-way question to ‘hide the decline’!.
I suspect you’ve nailed it.
You only pull this crap when you have no other options; to already be out of options, this early in the game, is not an encouraging sign for The Won.
–
AJ:
Spot on. As usual.
I think you are right also, AJ.
It is also so that liberal media/bloggers can take that three way poll and run headlines like this:
Poll: Obama handily defeats Palin in 2012
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/193763.asp
redteam:
I thought the same thing about Murtha and his surgery. Kind of odd I thought.
I saw a poll the other day that put Obama within a point or two of Palin, Romney or Huck..all of them were competitive when it was a two way. I don’t know if any of them will actually run, but I think Obama is vulnerable, for sure.
It is extremely early to start fortune telling over the next presidential election.
However, as a Saints fan of 40 years, yes 40 long years, I am convinced that now they have won the superbowl, the world will now end. Just kidding, but it’s hard to believe still.
Bloomberg would be a horrible choice, you might as well have Obama.
[…] Earlier this week I noted a strange poll question by Marist regarding a 2012 matchup between Obama, Palin and NY’s Bloomberg. Initially I thought it was a bizarre matchup, until I realized Obama was in deep trouble because 44% would support him and 44% would vote against him. In the world of political incumbents these mid 40% poll numbers are just above DOA at the next round of polls. Under 50 is bad, approach 40 and it is over (which is why so many Dem Senate seats are now turning to lean GOP because incumbents like Reid and Lincoln are stuck at 40 or less). […]