"Poll: ugly campaign polarizing candidates favorability" by CNN's Dan Merica

[applegrove]

Poll: ugly campaign polarizing candidates favorability

by CNN's Dan Merica

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/24/poll-ugly-campaign-polarizing-candidates-favorability/

"SNIP.................................

Washington (CNN) - A new poll released Tuesday indicates that as the 2012 presidential race has grown uglier, the favorability ratings of President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have decreased.

In the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 32% of respondents said their view of Obama was “very negative,” a number that is up six points since the same question was asked in April.

Romney suffered an equally large hit, with 24% of respondents indicating they had a “very negative” view of the former Massachusetts governor. Eighteen percent had the same response in April.

But the poll also indicates a polarization on both sides of the favorability spectrum, with more responding that they have a “very positive” view of both Romney and Obama.

....................................SNIP"

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

2. I've noticed this trend as well. It's hurting Obama

in terms of likability, trustworthiness, and character.

On the other hand, Obama has no choice. He has to go down this road because he will be significantly outspent. The Robme camp will get incredibly nasty and Obama has to respond swiftly. Obama must also go on the offensive! He has no choice!!

The saddest thing about it is that Obama's ads are based in truth not on lies and deceit!!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. Staying "above the fray" has not always worked out so well for President Obama IMHO

in terms of being able to fight back against the GOP. However, there's a huge difference, as you point out, between "swiftboating' somebody- like the Republicans did to Kerry in 2004 and attacking somebody with truth- to point out that what somebody else is saying is a lie, particularly when they're basing their candidacy on it. President Obama has to cause some erosion for Romney on his *strengths* now. Then he can move on to more positive things. By the time of the DNC, his attacks on Bain, etc. will cease and he will be able to re-focus on more positive things. The DNC and the debates will (likely) help him regain some of his favorability ratings.

[Jennicut]

6. Obama learned from Kerry that you have to strike first.

Obama's ads are not swiftboating ads anyway, they are truthful. Obama knows he has to define Romney quickly. He has been positive for 4 years.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

7. Right

Obama's Bain attacks seem to be working to define Romney negatively. Of course, he and his wife are, ironically, doing an even BETTER job at it!

[ailsagirl]

13. Amen

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

15. See my reply, #14.

[ailsagirl]

4. Rmoney's ads are ugly-- racist and lying

Obama's ads, on the other hand, tell the truth without resorting to mud-slinging, lies, or distortions. It ticks me off when people say Obama uses negative ads-- I mean, he's describing a real idiot who has nothing positive on his record whatsoever-- how could they not be? Nothing below-the-belt-- just the truth.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

14. Agreed. But how can we get the average American who is either not paying attention or is easily

influenced by what he/she sees, to see the truth? Especially if pro-Robme ads outnumber pro-Obama ads by a 3 to 1, 4 to 1, even 10 to 1 ratio?

[ailsagirl]

16. Faith

I'm not being flippant--I do think that people have "pretty much" made up their minds. It's hard to imagine that, given the terrible economy, people are not paying attention. And, let's face it, there's a cloud of controversy swirling around Rmoney--especially now that he's in the UK!!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

17. Faith matched with deeds! We simply need to get

people to the polls and make sure their vote counts!

We vote. We win.

[ailsagirl]

18. YES-S-S! n/t

[ailsagirl]

5. Obama should address this issue in a campaign speech

He does not DO negative ads, unless by negative ads they mean listing the opponent's gaffes, lies, and denials. Every one of his ads is true and there are no harsh words or hysterical accusations. Just facts. IMO, that's NOT negative campaigning. Also, Obama does talk about what he has done and what he intends to do-- Nitt hasn't a clue so he keeps hitting Obama below-the-belt.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. Reminds me of Harry Truman's famous line

about telling the truth about Republicans and them feeling like it's hell!

[Beacool]

9. Politicians slinging mud?

What a surprise!!!

Obama should run on his record and Romney should run on his. Let the voters decide who they want in November. Do people actually listen to these ads? I for one, change the channel. I find them annoying.

[ailsagirl]

12. If someone were publicly spewing lies about me...

you bet I'd want to set the record straight. Obama's ads are factual and therefore they tell voters what's really going on. Romney's ads are completely misleading--utter drivel with a myriad of lies and distortions.
People do listen.

[WeekendWarrior]

10. Complete and Utter Bullshit

I am convinced that news organizations and the pollsters they hop in bed with are merely giving us the drama and conflict we need to tune into their shows and read their papers, so they can tell their advertisers how popular they are.

I don't believe a damn thing I read. I trust my gut. And my gut says, as it did last election, that Obama will win this in a landslide no matter what some polster or news pundit or hand-wringing progressive tries to tell me.

EDITED TO ADD: I also think Obama should go as negative as he possibly can against Romney. Fuck that asshole. It doesn't take much to point out what a supercilious schmuck he is.

[Cosmocat]

11. 32% ... is that all?

That is about the portion of republicans/libertarians who listen to AM radio, read conservative blogs and watch Fox News.

Of course they have a very negative view of Obama - in their world he is an america hating socialist.

This crape just keeps repeating and repeating.

Rs go into full BS, slander mode, the other person has to fight back, and the media does it job of portraying it as "they both are going negative!"

The Rs spent two entire decades blowing off on Hillary Clinton because they knew she would be the presumptive D candidate a decade or two later before she ever even got to the White House with Bill Clinton. YEARS, and YEARS and YEARS of their insane crape, and by the early 2000s the media followed the R meme of calling her POLARIZING. Like it wasn't the Rs acting like lunatics, it was somehow that she was polarizing.

Obama is 1,000 times more laid back about their crape than I ever possibly could be. There is no human ALIVE who could have the crape they throw at him come at him, and him still be cool as a cucumber. But, they do what they do throw mud 24/7 while at the same time, 24/7 manufacturing outrage over whatever BS they pull out of thin air.

The Rs/Romney know they don't have a chance to win unless it turns into a complete mud fight, and they find a way throw the mud both ways.