If you poll 80% republicans, you get those kind of results.

And he has lots of company.

I have no doubt that Obama is up to the task. He has the intelligence, the honesty and the ability to bring his campaign out of the slump that it is in.

His debate performance caused this and I am sure that he is hell bent on making this right. If anyone can bring this around, it is Obama.

Romney is still a complete ass with horrible ideas and an elitist with a narcissistic, trickle-down, failed political agenda. He simply put on the best performance. People will come around, and Obama will rally back.

They will blow this one poll out of proportion and whine and hyperventilate, which will itself then become the story (exhibit a: Sullivan's panic is the lead on Drudge right now) giving more oxygen to the Pew Poll and furthering the media's new narrative of Romney surging.

Self fullfilling prophecy.

Cause I think a lot o them will be staying home election day.

Can you imagine him in the Battle Of The Blitz?

why bother going out on the trail?
Why not 'pull a Romney' and take days off at the lake?
Why not bail on the debates?

I still say Obama is playing chess when the rest of us
stress over tiddlywinks...
He plays the long game... and most of us don't have a clue.
I remember several times in the '08 race I was convinced he'd
blown it...
and he always rose to the occasion and even higher.
Don't count him out...

And skewing. And nonsense.

Amazing how non-media folks here get it, yet Sullivan's clueless. Along with most of the media.

Just sayin'.

On election day.

to breathe into.

think of it as the media throwing some red meat to the wing nuts; it's a clever way for the media to counter the charges, "the polls are fixed."

Because wild flip-flops make sense in their reality.

Stiff upper lip and all...

Frankly he's embarrassing...

because the days/weeks before the debate I remember all the posters who confidently said 'the election is in the bag' & 'Obama will easily beat Romney' even though Romney had demonstrated that he could debate pretty well in the primaries & Obama had demonstrated in '08 that he was a shaky at debate--especially in the primaries. Then we have the people who are freaking out about every poll without understanding that we have 30 days left and three more debates. They need to get a grip.

But I'll say this, Obama can't lose another debate to Romney. Some people are looking for a reason to vote against Obama and if they feel Obama isn't even going to try then they may decide to go for the other guy.

seeing if any other polls come out looking anything like Pew. My fear that is eating at me is that we could be underestimating how
devastating that debate was with 67 mil watching. My theory is that there is a group who say they will vote for Obama (or said they were) that WERE very leery of Romney. They don't know all the facts we know, but knew enough. Then, he marches out there, all kind and all, and hammers Obama at all his weak points and does it in very "normal guy" kind of way. And Obama just looked down. No rebuttal. No -- look what we have done - stock market up, jobs created, manufacturing up, etc. etc. And I think these sqwishy Obama people said, well, he doesn't know what to do to fix it, and this other guys doesn't seem as bad as I thought.

I am not saying what they thought was right, by any means, but I can see why they might think that.

One just needs to remember how he handled the Clinton situation to know that Sullivan loves drama. Can't resist it.

He's such a freaking drama queen

77% of those polled only watched of part the debate but it's Obama's poor performance not the post mortem spin. With "friends" like this Romney just might make the pearl-clutchers right.

paid him maybe up to 500 million dollars payable in December 2012 for a bunch of years work

to run for president and win the nomination in 2012

to do silly things and then attempt to make it closer in Oct.

but of course, not to win

clearing the field for 2016 and Jeb Bush/Rob Portman to come along after the tea party is totally repudiated like Ryan has been tossed overboard by Herr Mitt.

and Mr. Businessman will put the newly acquired 500million in another Cayman Island and Swiss bank account and go onto his next Venture.

BTW-who said Andrew Sullivan was a liberal democrat...
actually-he is- (from wiki)
Andrew Michael Sullivan (born 10 August 1963) is a British author, editor, political commentator and blogger. He describes himself as a political conservative,[2] though he has been increasingly at odds with the modern Republican Party on many issues.[3] His focus is U.S. politics but frequently writes about culture and society

commentary. I follow him on twitter and read the links to his daily takes. And I think he makes some good points even in this case. He has been very disappointed and discouraged since the debate, and he appears to be using the pew poll as a reason to vent a little. But I agree he's going too far here. If the President does reasonably well in the next two debates then I think his chances of reelection will still be pretty good. But there's no doubt (whether justified or not) that his performance in the first debate was damaging. But at least it took place a month out from the election (rather than just a week or two before) so he still has time to regroup.

I'm not sure why he got such a positive rep here in the first place.

Agree with him or not, Andrew Sullivan has one of the finest minds arounds.

And I often do disagree with him. When we question another intelligence,
because we do not like what s/he has said, it reflects more on our intellectual
capabilities than on his/hers.

From his race baiting days, to his Iraq war cheerleading, to his embrace of various neoliberal tropes, he consistently demonstrates a lack of critical thinking skills.

I prefer clear thinkers to this petulant baby. Just because someone is on the left does not make them intelligent, especially when I have been a liberal since 16 and it took this guy until he was well into adulthood to give up the right wing koolaid. He also has been drawn to Ron Paul for some strange reason.

He's historically consistent, at any rate.

But his unquestioning support for the race science of The Bell Curve, even as late as last year, put him on my list of unfriendlies.

http://gawker.com/5863453

In a world where the first presidential debate "swings" these numbers, it tells me a different story. And this is even with Jennifer Granholm echoing the fear in "The War Room" tonight.

It seemed like only a few weeks ago as we approached the "debates", such as they are, that they were to have had a weak influence. But, what I'm seeing here is a different strategy in the world of Rovian and Koch Brothers advertising, Inc. All of a sudden, it's mattering an awful lot. Why?

"Kick ass" in the economy and deficit? What constitutes understanding the subject matter or calling out a liar? If it means that Obama stops looking down at the notes he writes at the podium, and begins to heat up to meet the utter ignorance and rich boy robot rants and outright lies with a one-two punch during the next debate, how much of a swing is THAT supposed to produce?

If women are evenly divided after this, then they are way more stupid than I see them. I'm one, so I can be as critical as I damn well want about our gender. I personally don't think we are that fucking stupid.

I'm not likely to froth up, but boy, is the advertising making everyone run for cover now. Whew!

to say, TTE, "I predicted this corruption" and "I told you so and so about Obama the liar" and who don't give a darn if the Tea Partying Reich is right in there with them adding to all of the noise that they are making.

I expect further experiments in extortion coming from those wearing a variety of political labels and adopting an ideological stance that amounts to, TTE, "It's best for the whole system to crash and destroy itself from its own corruption, so we can start over, so don't vote."

...So, fuck them and the Supreme Corporation.

I wasn't here the night of the debate. I watched it with friends at a local bar. We saw a much more even match than SOME here at DU saw. I understand the President's reasons for not giving Romney an intro into "fixing" the crap he's been saying from day one. I wouldn't want him doing that with 67 million viewers either. It IS best not to talk about what your opponent wants to talk about. Obama was more successful at that than Rongny was. I hope he lands some good hard fast "punches" the next time, but he did not do poorly this last time and people who are trying to claim he is a sell-out are either bad people or they are wrong, which is just as bad.

legal marriage and other equal rights.

...and act stragically. Sullivan is not helping Obama win.

And I've never trusted Sullivan. Cheerleading for GWBUSH, cheerleading for wars (2), getting a crush on Bush/Cheeeeeny, thinking they'd maybe finally like him just cuz he has money. Hell no.

Screw him. No credibility, IMO.

None.

Not a shred.

Pew is pure fiction. And don't forget, Sullivan is still a repug so his rantings shouldn't impress anyone here.

totally capable of misrepresenting the numbers?

These numbers did not deteriorate overnight as Sullivan has represented happened. Furthermore, Sullivan is just too bright not to realize that what Romney did during that debate was political performance art. Romney walked out onto that stage wearing the suit of a populist candidate, an outfit we have never seen displayed in all of the months of his campaign. During the literal presentation, he broke the rules and spewed positions that defied the literal stances he had assumed up until the literal moment the debate started.

And those of us who have been paying attention during this campaign recognized a snow job when we saw one. There has been no movement on our part as a result of that demonstration. Some of us take the position that Obama too was stunned at the "new" Mitt Romney and made a strategic decision on the spot to not take a fight he could not win on that stage, but to stick to his determined plan to air his position on the issues in front of the viewing audience. He knew the next day the fact checkers would take the air out of the Romney balloon, some thing he, Obama, could not do in two minutes allotted for each issue. So he took care of the business he considered important, seizing the opportunity to perhaps influence some Republicans to vote for him, knowing the lies would receive the appropriate rebuttal in the ensuing days.

I do not know why Sullivan is panic stricken; I have a lot of respect for the man. He needs to clear the air in his personal space and take a realistic look at what truly happened that night, not crumble under the weight of what Romney's campaign team and supporters say happened that night.

Sam

professional debate prep people who "had him ready (and he was ready for rebuttal)" BUT, his "inner circle" had the last word and they told him to lay low.

So, sounds like the inner circle blew it.

Wish he had more savvy people (brilliant electoral vote crunchers they are, savvy they are not)

Wonder who writes his stump stuff? Whoever it is comes up with the best comebacks. Hope they are involved in prepping him for the next one.

I was not going to watch the debates but at the last minute changed my mind. I found Romney's performance simply stunning. He suddenly appeared as a populist candidate, changing his position on issues he had supported for the last 18 months. I totally could not believe it. Many commentators have said no one could have predicted it. I personally think I saw it, but I still cannot believe it. It was the most egregious about-face on so many issues in one single hour that I have ever witnessed. And I have been paying attention for decades.

With the constraint of two-minute responses theoretically in place, Obama I believe knew immediately he could not both refute the credibility of the new, improved position point and make his position known to the viewing audience. He knew the fact-checkers would take care of the former problem, so he used his time wisely to present his position on issues to that part of an audience he seldom had an opportunity to address: Republicans. I personally think it was an extremely smart move.

Sam

Pew is NOT a right-leaning pollster. It's considered highly competent and nonpartisan, and to date its numbers this cycle have tended to favor Obama. Did anyone here EVER say that Pew was a right-leaning pollster until this particular result came out?

Sullivan is being an emotionally incontinent child, as usual. I don't remotely think that the Pew poll means Obama is in trouble. But stop assuming that every poll that doesn't look good for Obama is "skewed" or biased; that's the freeper way. We're really better off in a reality-based frame of mind.

Way too many conservatives and southerners. No latinos. Etc.

Pew Public Opinion polls are funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts:

http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_category.aspx?id=288

Who exactly founded the Pew Charitable Trusts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pew_Charitable_Trusts

"Although today the Pew Charitable Trusts is non-partisan and non-ideological, Joseph Pew and his heirs were themselves politically conservative. The mission of the J. Howard Pew Freedom Trust was to "acquaint the American people with the evils of bureaucracy and the values of a free market and to inform our people of the struggle, persecution, hardship, sacrifice and death by which freedom of the individual was won." Joseph N. Pew, Jr. called Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal "a gigantic scheme to raze U.S. businesses to a dead level and debase the citizenry into a mass of ballot-casting serfs."[2]

Most of the early beneficiaries were such conservative organizations as the John Birch Society, the American Liberty League, and the American Enterprise Institute,[3][4] although other beneficiaries included a cancer research institute, a museum, higher education, the American Red Cross, and historically black colleges. For many years, the Trusts tended to fund charities and conservative causes in Philadelphia.

In 2004, the Pew Trusts applied to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to change its status from private foundation to non-profit organization. Since the Pew's change to a charitable foundation, it can now raise funds freely and devote up to 5% of its budget to lobbying the public sector."

Pew historically has been regarded as a right-leaning organization, so that is exactly why I do not regard it as non-partisan pollster. Again, historically, some of the most right-leaning positions on issues sprang from PEW.

More importantly, Pew has conservative poll numbers compared to the pollster I most have confidence in, so that too lends to my inclination to think this very conservative organization is trying to influence public opinion on the standing of their preferred candidate.

Sam

PS Please do not cuss at me in the future since I personally find that offensive in a political discussion. If you do, I will not respond.

I speak from a history of listening to PEW position points on issues, and that entity issues extremely right-wing talking points. That is my listening experience to the PEW positions. My response does not in any way come from a bias, it comes from simply listening to PEW and disagreeing.

Talk to you later.

Sam

the very same issues we have been discussing here on DU -- the problems with the sampling (the over-representation of republicans in the poll) and so on -- obvious problems with the poll itself. Honestly, short of some enormous gesture or major event (and I really do not think Obama's performance at the debate qualifies), politicians don't see these kinds of swings in the span of a few days. It seems as though there is an enormous amount of hype pumping these numbers and the "Romney surge" narrative.

If the poll had been conducted appropriately (without the oversampling of Republican voters) it would have showed a bump for Romney, but a much more reasonable bump, not a twelve point swing in a matter of days in response to a lukewarm debate performance (it is not as though Obama fell down on the stage babbling or even made a major gaffe). Other polls are showing a more reasonable bump. A reversal of that major-earthquake size (and given that Sullivan has a history in politics it is very disappointing that he doesn't stop to think that this is extraordinary, and deserves investigation, not just histrionics) needs to be evaluated carefully and taken with the usual grain of salt.

At this stage of the game, with so many people invested in Obama and depending on him, there was simply no excuse for last week. He didn't even seem like he belonged on the stage; Romney looked like the only viable candidate up there. That's unheard of for an incumbent President. Hell, his own campaign was admitting that he lost as soon as the debate was over, which just doesn't happen. It's why there's a "spin room" in the first place. The guy couldn't even muster a decent closing statement, despite having four years to write one. I know that if I was sitting on the fence, or was politically ignorant and just tuning into the election, I'd sure as hell be telling pollsters right now that I was voting for Romney.

The Pew poll may be an outlier, but, at best, the race is now neck-and-neck with Democrats profoundly demoralized, which means Romney wins by voter suppression.

The thought of Romney & the tea party picking the next 4 Supreme Court justices literally raises my blood pressure.

People are using this poll to bash Obama. It's really sad when you do the actual math.

Bill and Hill have done everything humanly possible to help Barack Obama's reelection efforts. Hillary would do more if she wasn't constrained by the rules of her office.


Andrew Sullivan has always been a weak and vacillating little man. Where's the stiff upper lip our British friends pride themselves about.

The Clintons have done more for me than Sullivan ever did or will.

i kept waiting to see him say I was being sarcastic or something . but he was actually serious