Before we get to this afternoon’s various sporting contests, one more thought on the Clown Car Cavalcade: The latest NBC/Marist polls for Florida and South Carolina show a big lead for Newt Gingrich over Mitt Romney, 15 points in the Sunshine State, 19 points in the Palmetto State.
That’s not the shocking part. This is, buried in paragraphs 20-23 at the tail end of the MSNBC First Read article (but on page 2 on each poll’s full results, pretty much right up top.)
Turning to the general election, President Obama’s standing has improved in Florida, always a key presidential battleground state.
Forty-six percent of registered voters in the state approve of his job, which is up five points since October.
In hypothetical match-ups, the president leads Romney by seven points (48 to 41 percent) and Gingrich by 12 points (51 to 39 percent).
In South Carolina — a reliable Republican state in presidential contests — Obama’s approval rating stands at 44 percent, and he holds narrow leads over Romney (45 to 42 percent) and Gingrich (46 to 42 percent).
Yeah, see, President Obama leading in South Carolina over both these chuckleheads should be a big, fat story. But no, it’s all about Newt’s double digit lead in the primaries. And yes, I know I’m supposed to keep this on the down low in case the Republicans figure out this whole “the further to the right I catapult myself in the primaries, the worse I’ll do in the general” thing, but it’s far, far too late for that.
Funny how that works.
Jeff Fecke
But Obama totally can’t win! This one poll says he’d lose by two points to a generic, sane Republican, so he’s a goner! /msm
Redshift
Which isn’t even news! Didn’t already he have double-digit leads in those two states in the last round of polling?
We’re told that a lot of important things don’t get coverage in the news because news is about changing, and if the story is important but has no new developments, there’s no news. Yeah, right.
Samara Morgan
This is the result of the Palinization of the GOP.
In 2008 I predicted that Palin would destroy the GOP, because she would sunder the republican elite from the base along the intellectual faultline.
Palin refused to play Galatea to the GOP Kingmakers Pygmalion.
But the base insisted on her anyways.
The base will pick the candidate now. And all of Roves horses and all of Roves men cant put the old model back together again.
Ron
To be fair, polls about the general election now are not as meaningful as primary polls. Of course in the general election, it’s not necessarily about winning states like SC. But if the GOP has to campaign in SC they are in trouble.
Benjamin Franklin
Self-interest? The Me-dia live or die by their ratings, which propels ad rate.
It’s what’s hot and immediate. It’s the ‘scoop’
Their behavior is quite predictable, and that is, at least, a little comforting.
‘The Devil you know’
ericblair
@Ron:
Ahahaha yeah. If the GOP loses South Carolina it would basically be the Mordor scene after the ring falls into Mount Doom. That would be that for the goopers. I can’t see it happening, because enough of them will fall in line after they get their final marching orders, but it’s fun to cause some extra underwear laundry for the cocktail weenie crowd.
Ron
@ericblair: I don’t know that losing SC is realistic. But normally they wouldn’t spend any money campaigning there. If its close enough that they have to spend money there, that’s a victory for the Dems.
MattF
So. Step one: The Republican party uses the ‘Southern Strategy.’ Step two: Southern conservatives take over the Republican party, Step three: Actual Southerners, upon viewing the lunatics who claim to be conservative, decide they don’t want it. Step four: ???
In any event, the only sure thing is that it’s good news for John McCain.
agrippa
The GOP seems to be relying upon their base of about 45% nationally. And, somehow pick up the extra 5 or 6% that they need. The issue is in doubt on that matter.
Their main concern should be holding the HoR ( they can afford to lose 21 seats.) And holding the line in the Senate.
I think that the root problem in the USA is the fact that we do not have a working majority on just about any particular domestic policy matter. The country is very hard to move.
darwinsjoke
@MattF
Step five: PROFIT
agrippa
@Benjamin Franklin:
The ‘news’ is about getting an audience ( the audience is the product, it is not the customer) to the advertiser. Thus, it is entertainment; no different from any other TV or radio show.
JWL
You know what isn’t funny? The Stone Cold Fact that whomever the republican nominee turns out to be, is someone who might well be elected to the presidency.
I’ve lived to see Ronald Reagan and GW Bush each elected twice (Yeah, I know, hanging chads). You can’t convince me that it can’t happen again.
huckster
Well, the last thing the media wants to do is declare this thing over with, before it even starts. That South Carolina poll sounds like an outlier, but if it is even close to reality it really is over.
Julia Grey
They called me on that poll here in SC.
Maybe they counted me twice or something. Or their sample was overweighted with AAs (who do make up 30% of our population).
Because Obama leading here, even by only a couple digits, makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. N.o.n.e.
So I’m thinking the reason nobody made a headline out of this result is that they just flat don’t believe it.
Pffffffft
@Samara Morgan:
Palin hasn’t been relevant to national GOP politics since November 4, 2008. The balkanization of the party started long before anyone knew who that asshole was.
pete
@JWL: Certainly some Republican can be elected President, but I seriously doubt that any of these Republicans can be. And I’m not seeing a much better candidate holding back in the wings, waiting to be summoned as a savior. (Jeb Bush? Christie? Donnez-moi un break.)
I’m not saying 2012 is a gimme, but I am suggesting that Obama’s campaign has good reason to think about how to promote the rest of the ticket in potential swing House and Senate seats — while not neglecting their own cause, of course. Those polls Zandar linked to are quite interesting.
Anya
That poll is surprising because South Carolina, generally elects insane politicians. But hopefully, it’s indicative of the fact that despite the media bias towards triviality, voters are noticing that the Republican Party’s policies are destructive to the nation. But we all know that 45% of the population is a lock for these lunatics, regardless of how insane they are. Anyone watching the clown show should be mortified that these sociopaths are running for the highest office of the land.
Jewish Steel
NYT
See? He’s just a regular guy after all. I hope he can get comfortable in that 12 million dollar house he’s expanding in La Jolla. Poor guy.
Benjamin Franklin
@agrippa:
It’s becoming more nuanced, but there is a distinction (albeit; shrinking) between print and broadcast Me-dia.
Broadcast is less egregious than PR or Ad firms, with the least odious, but still culpable, Print Me-dia.
merrinc
@Julia Grey:
Howdy, neighbor (I’m in NC). You are exactly right and reading that Obama was ahead in a SC poll provided me with my belly laugh of the day. A Democrat will win the Palmetto state’s electoral votes right after we finish playing the Balloon Juice Ice Hockey championship game in Hell.
amk
@Jewish Steel: If he is so ‘uncomfortable with his wealth’, he could give them away. Talk about grey lady giving a BJ to this loser.
cokane
wow good find man. Those polls are unreliable this far out from the election, and I think most people rightly assume Obama has about zero chance to win S Carolina. But if he’s doing that well, he’s going to run the table in other states.
carpeduum
No worries it will be a big story……just as soon as Obama’s numbers dip back into negative in SC.
“Latest poll shows Obama losing the middle class”
Then down at the bottom they will mention it was SC.
cmorenc
@MattF:
This classic piece of idiocy from Mark Halperin was humorous for quite awhile, but after countless repetitions it’s grown stale and tiresome, and there’s enough fresh fodder already for classic one-liners from the 2012 GOP primary campaign that we have no need of it any longer.
I sincerely wish people would retire from further use of it, excepting perhaps only those specific instances when some bobbling news-head says something eerily reminiscent of that specific line.
JWL
@pete: I think your scenario wildly optimistic. It certainly encompasses the wildest hopes of this administration.
Jewish Steel
@amk: Yeah, I thought of Wittgenstein who, after WWI, found himself one of the wealthiest men in Europe. He gave almost all of his money away. It can be done. What’s stopping Mitt?
Hungry Joe
@JWL:
Exactly. But exactly. As unfathomable as it may seem right now, by September ’12, no matter which troglodytic nitwit the GOP barfs up, it’ll be a for-real race. The last time a presidential election really and truly wasn’t up for grabs was ’84, and before that, ’72.
Anya
@Jewish Steel: Our liberal media at work. They are desperately trying to shore up Romney’s creds as a regular guy.
amk
@Jewish Steel: Heck, he could sign up with sage of omaha right now and let him take care of it.
JPL
If, as people here believe, the Obama numbers are skewed, the whole poll is in doubt including the Newt lead. You can’t cite some of the results but not others.
Hill Dweller
@Jewish Steel: So if he wasn’t in it for the money, what other reason did he have for breaking up companies and ruining peoples’ lives?
That article is the perfect illustration of Romney’s quandary. They’re trying to present him as an ordinary guy, but the fact remains he has led a pampered life. Moreover, with all that family money, Willard had the freedom to do just about anything, but he chose to become a vulture capitalist. In fact , he seemed to enjoy that line of work.
RareSanity
@Zandar:
Excellent!
I’ve always thought “chucklehead” was a grossly underutilized term. It’s ability to be insulting, non-vulgar and hilarious, is only surpassed by the fact that a snappy comeback by the target, of equal or greater effect, is damn near impossible.
The same thing goes for “balderdash”.
MazeDancer
Even Rasmussen, three days ago, showed how women will not vote for Newt. It’s Obama 49% to Gingrich 34%. Imagine the numbers after 10 months of unpacking Newt’s baggage, suffering Newt’s towering ego, and comparing Callista and Michelle.
Linda Featheringill
@MattF:
Right. One thing I discovered during the Gulf oil gusher [FSM preserve us all] was a surprising amount of diversity of opinion among those who commented in the local online newspapers. Politically, they ranged from here to there.
I suspect the Republicans would like for us to believe that all Southerners are alike and therefore a lost cause for us. I don’t believe it.
kdaug
Shut up, dude!
Posted this last night, posting it again. (Do note the complexion.)
ETA: I am NOT trying to jinx this thing… but the spidey-sense is signaling a blowout.
Frankensteinbeck
@Samara Morgan:
No, you were making speeches about how this was all evolution, even though it’s a process of three or four generations, tops. You were also heavily suggesting that Christians were genetically stupid. This did go on DURING general ‘Man, it’s only going to get dumber, huh?’ discussions.
You have never correctly predicted anything that wasn’t already common knowledge. Or did the protests in Israel lead to the rest of the Arab countries ganging up on it and it collapsing, the Arab Spring hit all of those countries and result in Islamist Democracies kicking the US out, and cyber hackers destroy all governments and big corporations by exposing their secrets while I wasn’t looking?
Jennifer
@Hungry Joe: You’re forgetting ’96, which was never really up for grabs, either. I can understand how people don’t remember how in the bag the 96 election was for Clinton, because of all that came after it. But in 96, no one had ever heard the name “Monica Lewinsky” and it was bobdole’s “turn” to be the nominee – and he ran a singularly uninspiring campaign. Less memorable even than Gore 2000.
Tom Q
Just for the record: though I agree that, if Obama’s leading in SC, the GOP is in for an historically bad night, it’s not as if Barack got destroyed there in ’08. He held McCain under 54%, and got close to 45% himself — other than GA, it was his closest margin in the Southern states he lost. SC has a lunatic GOP, but it also has a large black population, and they made it a decent showing.
Bago
@Benjamin Franklin: Uhhh, what? If me media isn’t portable, searchable, hyperlinked and index, what the hell is it doing in my hands? Why am I carrying this fish wrap?
Hungry Joe
@Jennifer:
Yeah, but Dole … I mean, he wasn’t really out of it until … Well, all the experts agreed that …
Hmmm. Maybe you’re right. But it was nothing like the no-doubt wipeouts of ’84 and ’72 (not to mention ’64).
pete
@JWL: Oh no, I didn’t go wildly optimistic. If I may quote myself: “I’m not saying 2012 is a gimme.” The wildest hopes are a House majority and a Senate supermajority, and I’m not going there! But he has to think about coattails, or it would be a poisoned victory, an exercise in vetoes and damage limitation.
To be absolutely clear: I am way to the left of Obama politically, always was, but decided early in 2008 that he could, would and (given the race) should be elected. Yes, as the least-bad alternative, but with several significant upsides. I’m sticking to that assessment for his reelection. Whether it will be enough to make a major difference for the country, that I don’t know.
Nellcote
@Linda Featheringill:
http://emiliawahoo76.blogspot.com/2011/12/maybe-other-liberals-should-be-aware-of.html
S. cerevisiae
The best thing about the 96 campaign was Citizen Kang
Tom Q
@Hungry Joe: It might be pointed out that neither of those elections were no-doubt blowouts a year ahead, either. There were (believe it or not) ’83 polls showing Mondale slightly ahead of Reagan, and the soon-to-disappear Muskie was leading Nixon as ’72 began. Everything will seem inevitable in retrospect, but it’s often not till Springtime of election year that even the blowouts start to take shape.
And, though I know there are those here who vehemently disagree, I think Barack has a solid chance of getting re-elected in just such a blowout. His profile is far closer to Reagan’s than most people perceive.
serge
Well, sitting here in Charleston, I would take the SC poll results with a boulder of salt. People are nuts here.
But then all of the people I happen to work with, with a couple of exceptions in a highly professional environment, happen to be Democrats. Charleston isn’t really SC, though.
pete
@Tom Q: Definitely time to go all Talking Heads on you … however, chicken counting is hard, especially about the unhatched
Linda Featheringill
@pete:
Yes, counting unhatched chickens is difficult.
However, I think this poll means that the game is on in South Carolina. Let’s go for it.
Linda Featheringill
@Nellcote:
Interesting essay. All of us are sometimes guilty of judging people by location or by income or by something else, which is prejudice.
kdaug
@MazeDancer: Exactly. Look at the speed at which each Rep Ozymandias has fallen. And the gunpowder is still dry. Newt, Romney, doesn’t matter. The oppo on each fills a warehouse of man-sized safes.
feebog
@ Pete:
Democrats are not going to gain any seats in the Senate. In fact, we will be lucky if they maintain a majority. The only real pick up opportunities are in MA and NV, with AZ and ND on the edge of not realistic. There are some races out there that will be extremely close, no matter how long Obama’s coattails, Tester in Montana and McCaskill in Missouri to name two.
OTH, I thing there is a good chance Dems regain the House. They need a turnover of 26 seats. However, SCOTUS has just agreed to hear the Texas redistricting case in January. What do you want to bet that Roberts, Scalia, et al are getting the stage set to ratfuck Democrats not only in Texas, but every other southern state?
Tom Q
@pete: I never count chickens, but I also don’t count my side out, which a number of folks here seem willing to do. Even aside from the “Obama is Doomed”” bunch, there are way too many “If Obama wins it’ll be extremely close” folk. I just like to periodically point out that there are definite scenarios in which Obama wins by a very comfortable margin. Whether those scenarios can come to fruition we’ll know better next Spring/summer.
grandpa john
@Tom Q: Also SC is a somewhat fundamentalist state and Mormonism is considered by many here as a cult not a branch of christianism, which definitely hurts Mitt here. as for Newt he is just plain unlikable and unliked everywhere except for the wingnuts. his history of infidelity and grifting does not stand him well with the christian folk either.
grandpa john
@serge: Us upstaters would agree with you on that,although I imagine that the lowstaters would disagree
grandpa john
@serge: Us upstaters would agree with you on that,although I imagine that the lowstaters would disagree
pete
@Tom Q: I agree. And I think that the opinion-poll response to Obama’s recent outreach efforts is very encouraging (even if this SC one does turn out to be an outlier). Yes, the MSM will promote the “close horse-race” script almost no matter what, but we should have a pretty good idea in three or four months.
pete
@feebog: No net Senate gain does seem likely. And I’m not sure about the House, especially given the latest Texas appeal. What I am saying is that Obama’s election team would be foolish not to be figuring out how and where best to help, so basically I assume they will try. I’ll be disappointed if they don’t. And, hey, the most important part of winning is showing up.
Nellcote
It will be interesting to see if congressional blue dogs (Tester, McCaskill etc) will run away from The Prez like those loosers did in 2010.
rikyrah
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA