Election 2012

Gallup: Romney Leads Obama 52 to 45 Among Likely Voters


For most of the year, Gallup's Tracking poll has found President Barack Obama leading Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. However, since the first presidential debate on October 3rd in Denver Romney has surpassed the president and has held on to the lead. Thus far, Gallup has detected little effect from the vice presidential debate. The effect of the second presidential debate, in which Obama is believed to have had the edge, remains to be seen.


Source: Gallup

Gallup's cross tabs reveal Obama is losing substantially compared to 2008 among Southerners, college graduates, Protestants, men, and white voters. In 2008, the South voted equally for Obama and McCain; today, Romney has garnered a 22-point lead over Obama among Southerners. At the same time, Obama still leads in the rest of the country, but by smaller margins than he did four years ago.

Also in 2008, Obama won college graduates by 2 points and the postgraduate vote by 30 points. However, today Obama now trails Romney by 22 points among college graduates, and his margin among postgraduates has been cut in half. Men were evenly divided between Obama and McCain in 2008, but today Romney has a 14-point advantage among men. Obama continues to enjoy a 6-point margin among women; however, this is less than half what it was in 2008.

Obama lost the Protestant vote in 2008 by 6 points, but this trail has tripled to 18 points in 2012. While Obama has maintained his substantial lead among non-white voters, his support among white voters has declined since 2008 producing a 22-point deficit.

Obama continues to lead among young people, but has lost his lead among those 30-64. Although he won both these groups in 2008, he trails by 10 points among those 30-49 and is even with Romney among those 50-64.

In sum, the most dramatic shifts have been among Southerners, college graduates, and those 30-49 years old. 


Source: Gallup

NEXT: DC Comics Retains Rights to Superman

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. What?

      You have been predicting an Obama win for like 6 months now.

      1. And I’m gonna be broke of RMoney wins!

  1. Romney has garnered a 22-point lead over Obama among Southerners.

    Twenty two points… Twenty two schfucking points in the south. So a nor’eastern blue-blood republican who is a mormon no less, is leading by twenty two points in the south.

    Either the country has changed, or Obama had better write off that 47%.

    1. I realized this after the SC primary, where a mormon and two catholics beat a baptist.

    2. Nope, it’s just more of that old southern racism! Which wasn’t there in 08, cause they’re tricky.

      1. That’s cause in 2008 McCain didn’t properly employ the southern strategy dixiecrat dog whistle like Romney did.

  2. I’m gonna miss Uncle Joe.


    I wish Mitt would ask Obama why we have troops in Iran though. Apparently Biden and Reid are friends with a few of said troops.

    1. And Biden always means what he says!

  3. Obama lost the Protestant vote in 2008 by 6 points, but this trail has tripled to 18 points in 2012. While Obama has maintained his substantial lead among non-white voters, his support among white voters has declined since 2008 producing a 22-point deficit.

    So once again, Democrats can take the black vote for granted.

    1. Clearly, this is racism. From which voting bloc it’s coming, I suppose this depends on your POV…

      1. On a serial note, it really does tell the Democrats that no matter what, they can take the black vote for granted. A democrat can go against nearly everything he promised (or eluded to) during his campaign, and *bam* black vote in the bag. The next black community leader who wags his finger at the national democratic party warning that “you can’t continue to take the black vote for granted”, I’ll say, “Uhm yes, yes they can.”

        1. My post was serial as well, Paul, for the reasons you elucidated. And should to bed the myth that proggie leftists of any flavour cannot be racist, or at the very least more concerned about the colour of the TEAM that the content of their ideas.

        2. If you’re a constant, you’re not a factor.

          Math is hard!

    2. I understand that Obama’s strategy this time around is to appeal to black, hispanics, and just enough white voters to win. The white voters in this case being unions.

      It’s depressing that it’s become this racially polarized, but if the D’s think they can build a winning coalition out of those groups that might be the future.

      identity politics triumphs.

  4. Such a target-rich environment for Romney.

    Your complete list of green energy crony enrichment schemes:


    I could see pitching a change-up over the last few weeks on the economy and competence built around the colossal failure of the green energy sector, and the corresponding enrichment of dozens of Obama donors.

    1. Seems like every other day another one goes down.

    2. The problem with Romney is that he wouldn’t attack the concepts, but that he’d try to sell you on the idea that he’d do them better. Because Bain Capital.

      1. BINGO! That is the inherent sliminess of Shit Flopney and a chance for him to be on both sides of an issue in typical “moderate” fashion.

        1. Right, that’s why he interrupted the moderator to remind America that government doesn’t create jobs. Thrice. Because he’s such a big government supporter.

          1. ObamneyCare. Next?

          2. Obamneycare. Next?

            1. MassCare was not Obamacare, nor the grandfather of Obamacare, or whatever other formulation that you and the rest of the Blur Brigade come up with in a vain attempt at guilt by assoc.

              1. The Obama administration cited Romneycare as their model.


                Now I’m not sure what you mean by masscare not being obamacare, but it sounds a lot like the locals here in Washington state claiming that Public Monies aren’t being used for a new stadium, while the city offers public monies for a new stadium.

                1. Sure they called it their model, after Romney was the nominee. What were they saying in 09 when they passed it?

                  1. What were they saying in 09 when they passed it?

                    My understanding, before Romney was even a glint in anyone’s eye, that the Obama administration was studying MassCare quite closely on a purely technical level. And why wouldn’t they? MassCare was the first broad healthcare plan which purported to guarantee 100% coverage to all citizens of the state. I think claiming that Obamacare in no way was birthed or modeled after MassCare is questionable.

                    1. The stuff in MassCare was straight out of early 1990s Republican alternatives to HillaryCare. The most you could say is that they’re distant cousins.

                      Of course, that’s before you get to the fact that MassCare was perfectly constitutional and popular in the jurisdiction in which it was in force. Unlike obamacare.

                    2. Of course, that’s before you get to the fact that MassCare was perfectly constitutional and popular in the jurisdiction in which it was in force.

                      Yes, at the time, and has done little to live up to its promise, either medically or financially. Devil Patrick getting his mitts (ha!) on it certainly hasn’t helped.

                      Moreover, it was a big government solution to a free market (or lack thereof) problem; you asserted The Flopster is not a big government guy. This demonstrates the opposite.

                  2. What were they saying in 09 when they passed it?

                    MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who advised both Romney and Obama on their plans, says insurance companies supported the reforms in both instances, because they were guaranteed more customers, particularly young and healthy people who were among the most likely to be uninsured.

                    “The idea of the mandate was to bring those healthy people into the pool, thereby bringing those prices down, and making health insurance affordable for everyone,” Gruber said. “If you want to tell insurers, ‘You can’t charge the sick more than the healthy,’ you have to tell insurers, ‘Don’t worry, the healthy will still buy insurance.’ Those two have to go hand in hand.”

                    Gruber likes to describe Massachusetts reform as a three-legged stool. The first leg was ending discrimination in insurance premiums, fulfilled by the second leg — the mandate. The third leg was government subsidies to make a mandate feasible.

                    “The key thing about the mandate is to remember no one is mandated to buy something they can’t afford,” Gruber said.

                    Except CJ John Roberts disagreed with Gruber’s last assertion. Also, you might want to have a talk with both Drs. Donald Berwick and Ezekiel Emmanuel about their handiwork with both plans.


                    1. So if the same guy from Home Depot who advised me on how to build my deck, also advises a guy across town on building a patio, that means my deck is the grandfather of his patio?

                    2. Strictly speaking, yes, as he responsible for the advice he provides in the construction of said patio, and is a concrete, demonstrable example of this.

                      Let me put it another way: I operate on two different patients with the same DX, granted they are different people, but one may respond slightly different to the operation and may influence how I approach the second operation provided their cases are congruent and their health HX’s are as well.

                      Next, you ask me “Is patient ‘A’ the grandfather of patient ‘B’s operation, since the same surgeon performed both procedures?” The answer to the question, strictly speaking, is yes.

                    3. You’re just trying to throw the malpractice lawyers off the scent. It won’t work. Yes, they will now sue Patient A for the outcome on Patient B’s surgery, but they’re still coming after you.

                      The Trial Lawyers of America thank you for this new idea. And sue you for patent infringement because they’re pretty sure they already came up with this business model.

                    4. So if the same guy from Home Depot who advised me on how to build my deck, also advises a guy across town on building a patio, that means my deck is the grandfather of his patio?

                      No, it means you should have gone with the J-Bolts before the slab set up, so you wouldn’t have to break out the roto-hammer.

                2. The Obama administration cited Romneycare as their model.

                  If Obama said it, then it must be true.

              2. I’m not blur brigade, and His Flopness is on record saying, “On day one we will repeal ObamneyCare!”, and he has been slowly but steadily walking that back with things such as, “Well, there are some good things in there, so we’ll keep those and discard the rest.” Oh, and his reliance on state-based exchanges, both in MA (which has been a smashing success. NOT!) and the country proper is also inherent in both.

                And yes, Tulpa it is. I’m not going to insult you, but good grief, both are insurance regulation, coverage and treatment mandates writ large.

                The fact that this fellow is rarely called out on it speaks volumes, and it is the very definition of big government.

                1. If he came out and said he was itching to repeal community rating (the preexisting condition thing) he would be cooked. The populace loves that part of OC.

                  1. “Repeal and replace” is the tack that Republicans are taking because it minimizes the extent to which they have to disagree with certain popular provisions of ObamaCare, while allowing them to oppose unpopular legislation that their political enemies support and created. Truth is, there’s no political capital for Republicans to have another go at healthcare reform — they will only have the political consensus to repeal ObamaCare and return to the status quo (assuming they have the votes for that, of course).

                    Whatever Romney says or thinks about healthcare reform, he won’t be able to do anything beyond repealing ObamaCare.

                    1. It will take less political capital to make reforms from the starting point of Obamacare than to repeal.

                  2. If he came out and said he was itching to repeal community rating (the preexisting condition thing) he would be cooked. The populace loves that part of OC.

                    And that provision, single-handedly, is the most expensive, anti-liberty and anti-economic freedom aspect of the law, Tulpa.

                    It comes down to a very simple binary: You either believe medical care is a plenary, negative right or you don’t. He does. What will necessarily follow is big government and mandates in order to enforce this, from stupid contraception mandates to the 26-year child mandates, other very popular aspects of the law.

                    1. “26-year old” Dammit, I want my preview back!

                    2. You were right the first time.

          3. Well if he said that in a debate, he must really mean it.

            1. Why would he say that in a debate if he didn’t mean it. Very few people are going to respond positively.

              1. Why would he say that in a debate if he didn’t mean it.


                1. It’s almost as if the second sentence I wrote never happened!

                  1. It’s almost as if your second sentence doesn’t explain your first one!

          4. Right, that’s why he interrupted the moderator to remind America that government doesn’t create jobs. Thrice. Because he’s such a big government supporter.

            And you coincidentally forget to mention the times in the debates where he’s said he’ll create millions of jobs. Yes, he’s big government. That you can even type such statements is a due to your selective memory.

      2. That’s exactly it.

        So many missed opportunities.

      3. “Because Bain Capital” isn’t that bad an argument.

        Bain put up their own and their investors’ capital. They carefully chose their investments, and while they had their losses, they picked a lot of winners.

  5. One strange thing about this comparison is that people who were in one category are now in another. Millions of voters who were under 30 in 2008 are over 30 now, so the estimate of Obama’s losses among that cohort is actually low. Likewise with college grads vs. postgraduates, etc.

  6. When the opposition is stuck on binders and Big Bird after the debates, I don’t think Romney is much worried about them setting the narrative. That’s what they got (as opposed to emphasizing his highly irresponsible trade war language and me tooism on increasing student loans), Hell, let them.

    1. I honestly don’t understand the binders thing.
      It’s stupid. Only partisan shills would jump all over a statement like that and insist it’s sexist. The people in the middle are all just scratching their heads going “WTF?”

  7. While I welcome the opportunity to topple the Obama statues and hound him into exile on the tiny island nation of Hawaii I am sorely disappointed we can’t yet ransack the offices of the “Department of Homeland Security”.

  8. I’m sure Mr. Buttplug will be along to tell us what the geniuses at Intrade are saying.

    The 4% margin of error that some liberal commentators are clinging to is a mirage. The margin of error goes both ways; it’s just as likely that Romney is at 56% as that he’s at 48%. That’s a 95% CI. The probability of the true percentage for Romney being below 48% is 2.5%, and the probability of him being below 50% is about 15%.

    1. A lot of people don’t get that. They think the probability of the 48% is the same as 52%. It ain’t.

  9. What?

    Romney takes the lead and the reason staff editorial about polls goes silent?


    1. Maybe they’re as stunned as I am. I’m on record, loudly and proudly claiming that Obama is going to win the 2012 election, but these events of the last couple of weeks are getting fascinating. And I don’t know what to make of it.

      Romney went from way down to way up after one debate win and a possible minor loss.

      The thought of having to ship Tulpa a bottle of Scotch annoys me.

      1. I don’t think PA allows that. Donate it to your local soup kitchen with a card signed Paul Ryan.

        1. I don’t think PA allows that.

          Break a law a day, Tulpa.

          How is PA going to know?

          But hey, if you don’t want a fine bottle of scotch on a won bet, I’ll put you firmly in the ‘light-in-the-loafers’ camp.

          1. I’ll gladly collect on his behalf. I think CA law would allow it, but in your honor I will gladly break other laws on the day of receipt in order to fulfill your oath.

      2. The dramatic shift is something of an illusion. It’s similar to what happened with Reagan/Carter, where people just needed to see that Reagan was not the fire breathing monster Carter and the media had made him out to be. The same thing is happening here, just not to quite the same extent.

        1. ^This.^ Many, many people were looking for a half-way decent excuse to vote against Obama. Romney is that.

      3. I’m with you Paul, as I am convinced The Zero is lock.

        These polls are interesting, to say the least. Whatever you may feel about the Tulpy-Poo, one thing I will say is he is talented mathematician who does parse polling data well.

        So, take that for what you will.

        1. You know who else was a talented mathematician?

          1. President McKinley had an original proof of the Pythagorean Theorem.

            1. I’m pretty sure that was President Garfield.

              1. Maybe. Those dead white guys all blend together.

  10. For some reason, this comes to mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp6-wG5LLqE

  11. Aha, RCP has Pennsylvania as a toss-up again. Yeah, Calidissent et al., tell me how my vote for Romney doesn’t matter again.

    1. Red Hot Chili Peppers in PA? They’re a long way from Coachella.

    2. Either Romney wins or Obama wins Pennsylvania regardless of how you vote.

      On the other hand each vote for Johnson shows the winner and loser that your vote can’t be bought simply to take down the least of two evils and the next election each party will have to seek your vote to win.

      So yes your vote for Romney compared to a Johnson vote DOES NOT MATTER.

      1. No single vote matters much.

        That being said, a vote for Romney is understandable but short-sighted. The only thing politicians understand is punishment the only way to punish a politician is to not vote for them.

        1. Corning|10.18.12 @ 6:49PM|#


          Joshua|10.18.12 @ 6:53PM|#

          Wait a second!

          1. Joshua is not me. (though my first name is Joshua)

            If ever confused look at the email address.

            mine is stendec(at)gmail(dot)com

            1. Really? Your name is Joshua Corning but you are not the poster Joshua Corning?

              1. no.

                I am Joshua Corning and poster Joshua Corning and poster Corning (i also think i was hook like in 2005 but can’t find any of the posts)

                The poster named just plain Joshua is not me.

    3. By the way a poll shows Romney with a 4 point lead in PA.


      Your Romney vote now counts even less.

      You can vote for Johnson and still have Obama lose.

    4. As Corning said, your vote doesn’t matter regardless of how close your state is. Florida in 2000 is about as close as you’re ever going to get in a national election, and it came down to several hundred votes, and ultimately, a Supreme Court decision. And I will still be surprised if Romney ultimately wins PA

    5. Your vote doesnt matter. 1 vote never matters in a presidential race.

  12. I’m beginning to suspect Mitt Romney presenting himself to the American people for the first time unfiltered in that first debate made an unchangeable impact. I think Obama could have been on his game that night and it wouldn’t have mattered. Fence-sitters were desperate for something other than the incumbent to choose, and the Governor turned out not to be the caricature that had been previously presented to them.

    1. I think you are right. Obama’s only justification for re-election was that Romney was unacceptable. Romney showed that not to be true and Obama was in big trouble.

    2. I’ve thought for the last 2+ years that anybody the GOP nominates could kick the shit out of Obama. Obama can’t win in this economy on nothing but his base of low-information voters and/or partisan hacks.

    3. Agreed – and I think that most people just don’t pay that much attention until the election is a few weeks away. People who don’t read Reason or other political blogs, or listen to political radio just don’t obsess on this shit until it’s time to decide.

  13. Does it really matter? We’re going to have a moderate liberal as president either way. Combine that with a moderately conservative congress, and we can hope they won’t screw us too badly for the next 4 years.

    1. I think you could call Romney that. But I don’t see anything moderate about Obama.

      1. His skin tone.

      2. well… he’s moderately incompetent…

        1. Moderately?

      3. His throwing ability.

        1. That’s pathetic, not moderate.

      4. I’m not sure how someone can say Romney is moderate, but Obama isn’t, considering how close they are on the major issues.

        1. They’re only close to one another using the broader philosophical endpoints of anarchy and total state control.

          Relative to the mean of American politics, Barack Obama’s proclivities towards nationalization, union-friendly stimulus and policy, and support for Warren-esque “you didn’t build that” philosophy, BO is quite left-wing.

          Romney is just your standard pandering American social democrat politician.

  14. Every one of those parameters was a downer for Obama. How does this not mean that his goose is cooked? I mean this stuff is not necessarily less true in Ohio and other battlegrounds than anywhere else, is it?

  15. If these poll results hold up, that third debate is going to be some great theater.

    If you thought BO was aggressive and Crowley was slanted last time, rest assured that BO and Schieffer will crank it up to 14 this time.

    1. “Governor Romney, do you have any regrets about murdering that poor woman from the commercial?”

      1. Which one? The one in Binder #46 or #68?

        1. The one in the kennel he strapped to his car.

          1. Zing!

            You’re on message, TIT, I like that.

            And I like your abbreviated name.

  16. http://www.9news.com/money/294…..mp-to-388K

    Unemployment applications jump back up this week. CNN buries the story in their sidebar list, HuffPo doesn’t mention it at all, but talks about Obama’s appearance on the Daily Show tonight. Stay classy, MSM.

    1. Last week, California reported a large drop in applications, pushing down the overall figure to the lowest since February 2008. This week, it reported a significant increase. The gyrations occurred because it processed applications last week that were delayed from the previous week.


  17. I’m still going with Tim Cavanaugh, InTrade, and the stock market and guessing that Obama pulls through. I would change my opinion if the market crashes out of the blue sometime in the next few weeks.

    1. Cavanaugh is riding on my coattails.

      1. Feh. He subscribes to my newsletter.

    2. Why would the equities market be enthusiastic about BHO?

      1. I’m not making a guess about where the market will go after the election, only observing where it is now relative to a couple of years ago and to when Obama took office. I somewhat agree with Bob Prechter’s socionomic thesis, and the idea that a positive social mood (reflected in current lofty stock prices) favors the incumbent.

        It’s an interesting experiment, now that the polls are saying one thing and InTrade and (Prechter’s analysis of) the stock market is saying another.

        1. Are stock prices high or the dollar low?

          1. Relative to some hard assets like gold the stock market has definitely not done all that well. But there are some other measures (broader consumer goods prices, foreign currencies) against which it’s quite a bit higher than early 2009. And Prechter argues that the kind of inflation which itself pushes the market higher by weakening the currency is in its way also a reflection of improving social mood.

            In the 70s when everyone thought things were truly terrible, the market meandered sideways to lower even while inflation raged out of control. We’re in different territory now I think.

            1. Companies have become very good at squeezing out costs. The technology and methodologies weren’t there in the 70’s.

  18. I remember after the last debate I said I thought that Romney had peaked. Oopsy.

  19. How is he doing in the electoral college? My understanding is that Obama still leads in most of the swing states. Many more than he actually needs to win.

    1. My personal theory is that the nationwide poll is probably a better indicator of who will win the Electoral College than aggregating the individual state polls.

      I think the larger samples in the Nationwide polls make the polling more accurate.

    2. The last couple of polls show Romney winning most of the swing states. A Romney landslide is distinctly possible.

      1. A Romney racist landslide is distinctly possible.

        – C. Matthews

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.