Election 2012

Latest Pew Poll: Mitt Romney Leads Barack Obama 49 to 45 Percent


A Pew Research Center poll fielded October 4-7 after the first presidential debate finds Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney leading President Barack Obama 49 percent to 45 percent among likely voters. Just several weeks ago, Pew found Obama leading 51 to 43 percent.

Similar to what CNN found in a flash poll fielded immediately after the first presidential debate, Pew finds 66 percent of registered voters thought Romney did a better job. Eighty-nine percent of Republicans agree, as do 72 percent of Independents, compared to 39 percent of Democrats.

October marks the first month that Romney voters have grown equally enthusiastic with their candidate as Obama voters. Obama has consistently enjoyed upwards of 60 percent of his voters "strongly" in support of his candidacy. In July only 34 percent of Romney voters were enthusiastic, but this number has grown to 67 percent by October.

Pew finds Obama continues to lead Romney on connecting with ordinary Americans 59 to 30 percent, but by a margin of 47 to 40 Romney leads Obama on having new ideas. Similarly, 54 percent of Americans say Obama does not know how to turn the economy around, while 44 percent disagree. At the same time 62 percent of registered voters think Romney is "promising more than he can deliver."

Romney's debate performance managed to tip the scales in his favor on the issue of taxation and jobs. Leading into the first debate, voters thought Obama would better handle taxes 48 to 42 percent. However, after the debate voters favor Romney 47 to 43 on the issue of taxes. Romney also pulled ahead on "improving the job situation" by a margin of 49 to 41. Although Romney considerably narrowed the gap, Obama continues to lead on "dealing with Medicare," "dealing with health care," and "making wise decisions about foreign policy."

Romney's favorability has also pulled even with Obama, with 50 percent of registered voters having a favorable opinion of Romney and 49 percent with a favorable opinion of Obama.

For full Pew Research Center poll results, click here.

NEXT: Entrepreneurial Scots Culture Eroded by State Dependency

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yesterday was the anniversary of the American victory at Saratoga, which turned the tide of the Revolution.

    Let us hope the date 10/7/2012 marks a similar event.

    1. Did Gary Johnson suddenly get above the 15% threshold yesterday and qualify for the debates?

      Oh, you mean one anti-free market, pro-war establishment candidate swapped positions with the other anti-free market pro-war establishment candidate. I’m going to go get my party hat and confetti.

      1. George Washington wasn’t exactly a bleeding heart libertarian either. We celebrate progress, not perfection.

        1. Romney and Obama are both regressions. If forced to choose, I’d rather Obama narrowly win and the Republicans decidedly take Congress than return to one-party Team Red rule.

          1. Chances are the Republicans will not take the Senate.

          2. I’d rather Team R wins in a landslide taking both presidency and congress with a veto-proof majority. Then realizing the error of their ways all convert to libertarianism and proceed to overturn every socialist policy since FDR.

            And I’d like fries with that.

            1. What are you drinking/smoking/butt chugging?

              1. Oh, sorry, no one told me when playing the I’d rather game, it had to be realistic.

                …Tanqueray and tonic.

                1. Butt chugging.

        2. The difference between you and me is I don’t celebrate progress in the wrong direction, just because it might be a little slower than the other guy. Romney is more of the same, not someone who will turn things around for the better

          1. And you and Randian and other probably thought I’d be the Team Red tard!

            That being said, if Obama and hopefully Warren get shellacked, maybe the Dems will be shocked into sanity, at least on fiscal if not civil liberties stuff.

            1. You may be a warmongerer Cyto, but I will give you credit for not being a Team Red shill like Tulpa. Which is ironic, cause foreign policy is the one area where he doesn’t generally make excuses for Team Red and the establishment in general

              1. I bet Tulpa’s vote for Romney in PA matters exactly as much as mine in KY for Johnson.

                Like he really thinks PA will be within 1 vote either way. Moran.

                1. If there is any truth to this poll, it just might. http://www.politicspa.com/susquehanna…..-45/42205/

                2. Like he really thinks PA will be within 1 vote either way. Moran.

                  And amazingly, even if each person makes only 1 car-buying decision, car manufacturers still aim to please their customers.

                  What a bunch of morans thinking their buying decision influences what the manufacturers do.

              2. Ironic I know! Makes me smile every-time I think about it.

              3. Here we go with the “shill” lies. I’ve criticized Romney and the GOP of the 00s as much as anyone here, bub.

                For someone who talks about “principles” so much, you sure have no trouble lying about people who aren’t on TEAM NO TEAM.

                1. This is in reply to calidissident.

              4. And that you would side with someone who does not shrink from incinerating innocent women and children to achieve his foreign policy goals, against someone who doesn’t choose to vote the way you prefer, speaks volumes. Just like Corning this morning, who compared shrike favorably to me because shrike is voting for Johnson.

                You tell me who the fucking partisan shills are.

                1. And that you would side with someone who does not shrink from incinerating innocent women and children to achieve his foreign policy goals, against someone who doesn’t choose to vote the way you prefer, speaks volumes.

                  You’re MNGing.

                  You tell me who the fucking partisan shills are.

                  You, John…

                  If you didn’t know you were going to get shit for your ridiculous first comment then you’re pretty dumb.

            2. ^^this is correct

              I’d love a market solution where the Ds see no one is buying their product, retreat and come back to market with something not bat-shit crazy. Im open to that with the Rs too, but we’ll be $21t in the hole down that path.

              Where is the Ds tea party?

              1. The trouble is that the Ds have no “product”. Oh, they have product, but they have no particular plan, they just produce product. They market whatever compromise works with their multitude of interests. They’re a coalition which is unstable around the edges but holds together enough to govern.

                The Rs are largely like that too, but not entirely, the way the Ds are. The Rs who aren’t like that are organized against the Ds, mostly; that’s their plan. It may be somewhat vague, but because the vector of the Ds sums to socialism, the vector of the Rs sums to anti-socialism.

          2. Slowing progress in the wrong direction is progress in the right direction. The speed of wrong-direction progress is part of the state of the system, and it’s getting better when it slows, so progress is going in the right direction.

            1. No it isn’t. It’s still progress in the wrong direction.

              When the dude from Saw slows down the whirring blade coming at your neck, that doesn’t mean you’re saved from impending death. It means they’re prolonging the inevitable for their own sick enjoyment.

              1. Yeah, and when a doctor treats you it doesn’t make you immortal either, but it may postpone death. Bad thing?

          3. Who knows. Mitt seems like a man without a center, like GWB. If Congress pulled the right way, he would go with them. BHO would dig in his heels.

          4. OK, Calidissident, then how do you expect progress to come about? Do you foresee someone’s jerking the steering wheel around suddenly y reversing course? Isn’t it more likely that someone will put on the brakes a little before anyone even considers that seriously?

        3. George Washington was a cock fighting, India hemp-growing badass. Bleeding Heart libertarians are pole-smoking, consequentialist statists.

          1. You forgot slave-owning.

            You’re welcome.

            1. And protestor-murdering.

        4. Obama must lose (ie., Romney must win) not because Romney is good or even less bad than Obama but because of this principle:

          All shitty incumbents must lose. It sends a message. If/when Romney is a shitty incumbent, he must lose too. There is far too much incumbent advantage and incumbent perpetuation in this country.

    2. Gag.

      Tulpa, you’ve really gone full Team Red retard this election.

      I loath Barack Obama’s policies, but I’m not deluding myself into thinking that a Romney will will in turn the tide of history in a libertarian direction. It will, at best, stop the progressives from wrecking the last shreds of liberty left in America.

      This isn’t Saratoga, more like Antietam, at best.

      1. I’m grasping at straws for something to hope for, I admit. Though at most of the great turning points for the better in history no one recognized them as such.

      2. This isn’t Saratoga, more like Antietam, at best.


        A bloody mess that stopped the Japanese advance.

        1. Let’s not bring up my personal sex life, OK?

  2. I’m guessing that the question regarding “Dealing with health care” was read as “Giving away free medical care”.

    1. but the majority of people dislike Obamacare? WTF?

      1. Yeah, but I’m guessing the biggest part of the majority that dislikes Obamacare does so because they’ve figured out it isn’t free.

  3. So is Tony still waiting for the ‘non-Republican’ poll results?

    1. I thought that was Rasmussen. And I actually agree with that.

      1. Rasmussen has the better record of polling elections then others.

        Still a month before the election any pollster can say what ever the fuck they want so long as they get close just before the election.

        So take Rasmussen’s “record however you want

        1. The way polling really works:

          Ask loaded questions intended to get the results the pollster wants to report in every poll between the two major candidates for months June-September. This establishes a powerful groupthink among the electorate to steer them to vote for your desired candidate.

          Once October rolls around, conduct the polls in a completely unbiased fashion so that you can establish future credibility. Hope that the June-September legwork was enough to carry your guy.

  4. Polls are retarded, but this should cause some wonderful salty ham tears from TEAM BLUE.

    1. I bet joe is sucking his midget thumb extra hard.

      1. It’s funny how much these idiots care. I mean, this shit is insanely important to them.

        1. Makes you wonder: if Obama loses, how long before his legion of fluffers catapult him under the bus? My guess is that it will happen before all the votes are counted.

          1. That’s a good question. It depends on whether they blame him or not. If they do, he’s fucked, but it looks like they are doing anything they can blame everything else.

            1. The thing is, they will blame him for compromising too much with Team Red, and for not promoting universal healthcare and green jobs and government workers’ unions enough.

              1. The thing is, they will blame him for compromising too much with Team Red

                Yep. Can’t wait until the “In the end, compromise was Obama’s downfall” retrospectives.

                1. “Compromise” will be Judas to Black Liberal Jesus (Black Sea Scroll revelations notwithstanding).

                2. Same thing will happen if Mitt loses. He’ll have not been sufficiently right wing enough.

                  1. The GOP establishment will conclude Mittens was “too right wing” to win.

                    I think he’s been a lock since November 2008.

            2. Billion dollar Barry – all he has to do is salt away 10% of those campaign funds and what the fuck does he care if he loses the election?

          2. Really?

            If Obama loses, I see the opposite happening. I think his supporters will immediately elevate him to…….whatever is the next spiritual rank after “Lightworker.”

            His loss won’t be his own fault, they’ll claim. It’ll be entirely due to racism, One Percenters, the Koch Brothers, the “corporate media” that was just so mean to him, and so on.

            1. Obama lost for your sins.

            2. Dude, what is he, 50? Where do you go after being the president, seriously? It’s going to be a long, slow, delicious decline, where Chewbacca has to pay for her own swank parties.

            3. Yeah, I’m assuming this. And hard. Might actually be worse than him winning.

              At this point I am thinking about the long game–which party will commit more out and out jackassery if it loses the presidency? Will it be the Republicans, who come back in 2016 with, as some have suggested, a Santorum as the frontrunner, or the Dems, with…I don’t know, who is a liberal Santorum? Debbie Wasserman-Schultz? Lindy West?

              1. My money would be on TEAM BLUE; they seem to be far more delusional than TEAM RED at this point, and that’s saying something.

                1. I agree. And it really is.

                  Oooh, Rasmussen just called me. Excellent.

            4. It’ll be

              “Racist voter suppression and secret foreign money stole our democracy”

              Even though Obama will outspend Romney.

              1. They’ll use the trick of comparing (Romney’s campaign spending + RNC spending + outside groups friendly to GOP spending) to Obama’s campaign spending by itself. I’ve already seen this done.

            5. Assuming BO loses, what are the chances he runs again in 2016?

              That would be a MAJOR problem for the Dems, particularly if they embrace the narrative that “America was too racist for Obama” after the loss. How could they then refuse to give him the nomination without pissing off the black vote?

              1. Because they’re much more pragmatic than you think. OK, we gave the black guy a turn, next time it’s either a Puerto Rican or a woman.

          3. This is what’s happening right now.

  5. More dems thought Obama did better at the debate then dems thought Romney did better.

    BO 44
    MR 39


    1. Head in Sand award goes to: The 44%.

      1. So Romney was entirely wrong about the 47%.

        He was off by 3%.

      2. 44% of Dems is not 44% of voters.

  6. “Other” never polls as well as the other candidates when they actually name them. I’d be willing to bet Stein and Johnson’s numbers would be collectively better if they were names in the poll.

    Polls are bullshit because they discount all but the pollster’s desired outcomes. Nobody wants to say “other,” but they’d probably support their candidate if he/she were actually named.

    I’d like to see a Reason-Rupe Poll putting Johnson against Obama or Romney with “other” being a third option. The numbers would be totally different.

    1. I like to say “other”.

      1. I do, too. As I’ve mentioned, back in May I got called by a pollster while I was house sitting for my parents, and when I told the young lady I would be voting for Johnson, she said, “I’m not supposed to tell you this, but your the second person to say that today.”

        I felt bad for her, since she really seemed to grasp the questions were poorly written.

    2. I think every single outfit, Reason included, should include every candidate that could theoretically win the presidency (including Jill Stein) as well as “Other” “I don’t know” and “I’m not voting.” It’s the only way to accurately represent all the options. I’m surprised there hasn’t been a more concerted effort to protest at the pollster organizations, who are merely perpetuating the media corruption that has led to the two party system instead of promoting facts.

      1. I’m surprised there hasn’t been a more concerted effort to protest at the pollster organizations, who are merely perpetuating the media corruption that has led to the two party system instead of promoting facts.

        People like having two options and no more. They’re afraid of free will.

      2. Nope. They no what state they are calling, so they should include everyone on that state’s ballot.

        1. If they’re doing state-level polling, I totally agree. But if they’re doing a national poll that isn’t based on electoral college projections, I think just those candidates that qualify enough state ballots should be good enough.

    3. “Other” never polls as well as the other candidates when they actually name them.

      I’ve voted for a third party candidate every election since 1980, but no, “other” always polls better when he is unnamed than when voters actually go to the polls and don’t vote for third party guy.

      Right now, 5 to 10 percent of the population is voting for “other”. On election day, it will be 1 to 2 percent.

    4. No, I suspect the offered choice “other” inflates the vote for president, and that the “others” most of them have in mind are people who aren’t running.

  7. Obama – 44%
    Johnson – 35%
    Other – 21%
    Romney – 47%
    Johnson – 30%
    Obama – 23%

    Somewhere around there would be my guess. C’mon, Reason-Rupe. Do a poll like that and see what the results are. It would be a good exercise in how stupid polls are.

    1. Johnson – 10%
      Other – 85%
      undecided – 5%

      1. Who are you voting for President?

        Gary Johnson
        Jill Stein
        Virgil Goode
        Jimmy MacMillan
        Other / Don’t Know

        Give em a taste of their own medicine.

  8. I’ve been thinking this whole election that what was really propping Obama up was that people were just very very nervous about handing the keys over to the Republicans. Romney spouting the right wing Tea Party crap was making people pick Obama as the lesser of two evils. I mean, the man doesn’t have a lot going for him; unpopular bailouts, unpopular health care, crappy economy. He ought to be getting his ass kicked, but as long as people thought Romney was a Santorum/Cain/Palin type they just wouldn’t pull the trigger.

    1. My friend Nadine had thought Romney was a right wing extremist, then heard him in the debate and thought he was either a sensible guy or a right wing extremist who’s an evil genius at presenting himself as not one.

    1. Sullivan is an idiot. The gender gap is as large as it ever was.

      If, hypothetically, men favor Romney 51-49 and women favor Obama 59-41, that is a ten point gap. Adjust it to 60-40 and 50-50 and that is still a ten point gap.

      1. But men favor Romney 51-43 and women are split in the newest data. I think that 18 pt lead among women was probably an outlier anyways.

        1. really, in all seriousness, they never should have been given the right ot vote in a govt with all power. Only in a strict, constitutional, limited reach of federal power scenario should they be allowed to vote.

          That goes for everyone actually.

    2. Look: I’m trying to rally some morale, but I’ve never seen a candidate this late in the game, so far ahead, just throw in the towel in the way Obama did last week – throw away almost every single advantage he had with voters and manage to enable his opponent to seem as if he cares about the middle class as much as Obama does.

      Who is under the delusion that any politician cares about anything, much less an entire class of people, beyond the votes that can be squeezed out of them? Well, okay, obviously, Andy is, given what I quoted above. High information voter, he’ll tell you. Gullible, barely maturating cockstain is more like it.

      1. Admittedly, a mature cockstain is probably worse than the other variety. Just guessing here.

        1. You see, nicole, when the holy books were being written, they really didn’t know that you gals produced eggs. They thought that we just put our dicks up in there, and shake you a little bit, nine months later the little maturating seedling became a full fledged little buddy. How can our little buddies be worse?

          1. You don’t want to let a stain like that set, is all I’m saying.

            1. Well if you’re worried about it, don’t spit it out.

              1. CALUMNY! The vilest slander, I say.

                1. You’re right. I believe that calls for “punishment”.

      2. He’s a reasonable, moderate conservative in the mold of Brooks and Frum. They’re thoughtful and provided quality…stuff to the conservative movement before the Tea Party under the command of libertarian nihilists raped them and killed their families. He’s one of Obama’s 12 apostles and don’t you forget it.

    3. his admirable record

      Is Obama really so good at golf?

  9. newsflash:: douchebag statist warmonger who supports exorbitant tax rates and invasive federal govt is slightly leading another similar douchebag who supports all the same policies and a slightly higher, yet still exorbitant tax rate.

  10. Everyone needs to relax. Romney “pulls even” with Obama (in the popular vote, not the electoral count mind you), and all of a sudden everyone’s calling the election for Romney.

    It’s not like Obama doesn’t have a huge war chest, and there aren’t that many undecided voters out there. The way I see it Romney still has an uphill battle. And all the Obama camp really needs to do is not fuck up. The dumbest thing they could do right now is shake up a winning campaign.

    Not rooting for either side, just seeing a little too much silliness over the weekend. Romney had a good debate, but the contential plates didn’t shift. People need to quit getting sucked into the horse-race drama and just follow the numbers.

    1. I wonder if the Poll Truthers who questioned every prior skewed party sample will notice that this poll had a sample of R+5, which would be a record. 94 and 10 were R+0

      1. BTW, not calling people who questioned the polls, Poll Truthers, but rather those that believe there’s a media conspiracy to skew the polls to favor Obama.

    2. Were you similarly wet blanketing the multitude of people here who thought Romney had no chance a week ago?

      Obviously it’s not a lock for either candidate. I don’t think BO is running a winning campaign in the slightest, though; his state-aligned media has been putting MR on the defensive the whole time.

      1. The way the economy has been the last 4 years, BO shouldn’t even be keeping this close. BO should be behind by as much as HW Bush was at this point in 92. That he has a chance shows the weakness of the GOP campaign.

        1. There are way more variables in play than you’re accounting for.

          Romney is certainly not a world-beating campaigner, but there have been scant few openings for him to exploit with the media in the tank for BO.

          Notice how the polls totally reversed once he was given an opportunity to confront BO on a neutral stage with no MSM filtering the debate?

          1. Notice how Romney’s positions totally reversed? lol.

            Jeez, are you ever gullible.

      2. Actually, it /is/ a lock for BO.

        You remember the ACA court thing? I called it, spot on, well in advance. I told you all, with no doubt and no room to wiggle, that the ACA would survive its encounter with SCOTUS. And of course it did.

        Now I’m telling you the same basic thing: BO will win. Romney has no chance whatsoever.

        The polls? Without an apparent race, the media has nothing to sell. That’s all that is.

        Here’s how it’s going to go:

        Issue-oriented Dems will vote Obama
        Issue-oriented Reps will vote Romney

        Swing voters — you know, the ones that think, and recognize when Romney tells a whopper, abuses his dog, advocates war with Iran, says that 47% are “moochers”, insults the English over the stupid Olympics, and says that they are entitled to the “best medical care they can afford”, and also, “borrow from your parents”… these people will be voting Obama in droves.

        And there goes the election. Guaranteed.

      3. The media are, if anything, subtly pumping Romney because they want a horse race.

        Don’t think the whole debate perception is just because Obama did that bad. He didn’t. The media piled on and blew up a mediocre performance into a collossal ass-whooping.

        Cause they wanted to give viewers the perception that there was a dramatic upset happening.

        How much did the polls shift? A couple points. Popular vote, no mention of the swing states.

  11. Average Reason commenter: “Red and Blue! Bah! It’s all the same and nothing would change. Now orange, on the other hand….all of the checks and balances that stop the other guys would totally dissolve if our guy was miraculously elected, and I don’t have the cold harsh reality of having ever witnessed an actual libertarian president to tell me different! Libertarian utopia 2013!”

    Seriously, do we need a section on this website about US Government structure 101? Not to mention the fact that in every government ever, bureaucracy has always increased. Just because someone invented a new word in this century doesn’t mean the normal order of things is going to reverse.

    1. err, last century.

    2. I think if Johnson was elected he would do a lot to slash the bureaucracy. (of course, he’s not getting elected so it’s moot)

      The reason the bureaucracy always expands is because everyone elected since Hoover has been either an ideological leftist who wants it to expand, or a rightist who talks about limited govt but is ultimately concerned about other things too much to do battle with the entrenched bureaucracy. I have no illusions about Romney not being one of the latter, but it’s better than the former.

    3. Lisa, could you please help us understand US Government Structure 101? It’s just so difficult for some of us to understand. Isn’t there supposed to be one Representative for every 30,000 citizens? Isn’t that something like 10,000 Representatives? Aren’t Senators supposed to be put forward by state legislatures? How are direct taxes supposed to be apportioned?

      1. The above examples are enough to see that the structure of the federal government changes fairly frequently. True, we’ve been in the midst of a continual expansion of federal power since at least the 1930s. But that certainly doesn’t mean that things need continue in this manner forever.

        Could I apply your thesis to the founding of the Republic? Just because someone invented a new word (constitutional democracy) doesn’t mean the normal order of things is going to reverse? That’s absurd.

  12. Just having a POTUS without a cult of personality would be an improvement.

    1. Nice.

      Probably the best argument for voting for Romney:

      “The news media will not give him a pass”

      1. It would be nice if they did their jobs.

  13. That jsut looks like its gonna be cool. I like it.


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.