NBC/WSJ poll: Primary season takes ‘corrosive’ toll on GOP
a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that the combative and heavily scrutinized primary season so far has damaged the party and its candidates.
Four in 10 of all adults say the GOP nominating process has given them a less favorable impression of the Republican Party, versus just slightly more than one in 10 with a more favorable opinion.
Additionally, when asked to describe the GOP nominating battle in a word or phrase, nearly 70 percent of respondents – including six in 10 independents and even more than half of Republicans – answered with a negative comment.
The damage from the Republican primary season – in addition to a rising job-approval rating for President Obama and more optimism about the U.S. economy – has given Democrats an early advantage for November’s general election.
Indeed, the president’s job-approval rating now stands at 50 percent; Obama leads Romney in a hypothetical general-election match up by six points; and Democrats hold a five-point edge on the generic congressional ballot.
Here's my INDY take on this.........IF Christie had been the R's selection (how WISE he was for declining) then MY vote would have gone to the R's. As it stands today,my vote goes to the D's. unless Christie runs with Mitt. (NOT going to happen this
election cycle,according to Christie)......the R's field of candidates are disappointing,at best, and O (again I will state) is REQUIRED to "bring it"from here, forward to the election. IF he can..........he has the 'golden ring" again.JMO
Even Reps are disappointed with the selection, and I agree with homeagain. I think Christie would have won in a landslide. That notwithstanding, Obama has been horrible, and another 4 yrs would likely drive us over the cliff. If Romney is the nominee, and brings on a strong VP candidate (I can't imagine Christie being on the VP ticket....he would overshadow the Pres!), such as Rubio, he has a good chance of winning. Obama has nothing to run on, but if the reps get a weak VP, he will have 4 more years without a doubt.
Too bad future generations aren't here to see all the great things we are spending their $$ on!!
Dems speculated the same thing after the bitter Hilary/Obama primaries, but the people were able to rally to push Barrack over the top. Besides, so often, it isn't who you are voting for, but who you are voting against. Anybody but Obama.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Even Reps are disappointed with the selection, and I agree with homeagain. I think Christie would have won in a landslide. That notwithstanding, Obama has been horrible, and another 4 yrs would likely drive us over the cliff. If Romney is the nominee, and brings on a strong VP candidate (I can't imagine Christie being on the VP ticket....he would overshadow the Pres!), such as Rubio, he has a good chance of winning. Obama has nothing to run on, but if the reps get a weak VP, he will have 4 more years without a doubt.[/quote
Actually 90% of people vote for the President and few let the choice of VP influence it. And I think Christie didn't run because his record in NJ is more liberal than Romney's.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
FredHayek wrote: Actually 90% of people vote for the President and few let the choice of VP influence it. And I think Christie didn't run because his record in NJ is more liberal than Romney's.
I would agree....but that 10% who look at a good VP will be the tipping point. Plus, if Romney is the guy, having a conservative on the ticket would get those who are thinking this is another McCain or Dole nomination will be motivated to still vote, and not sit out.
Too bad future generations aren't here to see all the great things we are spending their $$ on!!
People have a shorter memory about the people vs. the fake party platforms, in the end, I think the platform is what is voted on, again, the fake one. LJ you win no matter who wins the election, they all pretty much favor more govt influence on everything, for good or bad, because a vote for govt influence is a vote for more power to those in office. Since the goal is not a better society, but more money and control in the hands of govt, we all loose and they win, no matter who wins the election.
Perhaps if both Romney and Obama picked each other as running mates it would make a little more sense.
I've won anyway. The GOP candidates have screwed themselves going further and further to the cliff to satisfy the Religious Reich, and the whole drive to cram their moralistic agenda down the throats of the general public has shown them to be so bat-sh*t-crazy that they scare the public to death. Santorum is nuts, and everybody is trying to get to the right of him.
What I pray for?...Is that after they've lost, they'll turn around and say, "It was because we didn't go far enough." And the next time around they try to go even further.
What is it about Christie and Rubio that's appealing to conservatives? I've looked into both these guys and can't figure out why you'd think they'd make strong running mates. In fact, I think either of them would significantly hurt conservative chances.
Keep with your "anyone but Obama" mantra. Anyone…except Huntsman, or Bachmann, or Paul, or Perry, or Palin, or Santorum, Gingrich, or especially Romney! Anyone but Obama shouldn't be SO hard.
