COMMENTARY | More voters than not would like to see that the Obama administration end its run by January 2013, according to a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. However, it would appear that a majority of those same people would put Obama back in the White House for another four years if given the choice between voting for him and voting for any of his Republican opponents.
Because of various problems seen facing the nation -- sluggish economy, high unemployment, immigration issues -- there are many who are frustrated and/or disappointed with the Obama administration, so much so in some respects as to want to replace him come the 2012 national elections. However, doing so would require a candidate from the other major political party, the GOP, to be produced, nominated, and eventually elected. Doing just that -- getting one of the Republican contenders elected -- might be the most difficult hurdle Republicans will face. Because even though sentiment seems to have risen to the point where people would most likely vote for the generic, unnamed Republican candidate, those specific candidates -- when a name is attached to them -- lose to the incumbent president.
Sounds contradictory, does it not? However, like most things generalized, whatever is being generalized can be acceptable or unacceptable in a blanket reaction. But when it comes to specific items, persons, places, issues, etc., one may be preferred over the other, giving more favorable weight to that which was least popular in the general sense. In the case of President Barack Obama, there is a general feeling that he seems to be an adequate president but there may be someone who can do a better job. But when particular replacement candidates are put forth, the cumulative value of what makes Obama a good or better president (hypothetically, of course) seems to rise above those of his challenger.
According to the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, as many as 45 percent of respondents said they would most likely vote for the Republican candidate, whereas 43 percent said they would vote for President Obama. At the same time, the poll indicated that even former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who has recently surged to fore of other national preference polls (as tracked by Real Clear Politics) and posted a 40 percent to 23 percent lead over second-place Mitt Romney, could not muster enough general voter support to defeat Obama in a head-to-head match-up.
The poll further indicated that Obama would win a contest against Gingrich, if the election were held today, by a margin of 51 percent to 40 percent. It is a far closer score than was recorded in November, though, when Obama had an 18-point advantage. But that, too, was also before Gingrich's rise in the Republican polls.
The other major contenders do not win against Obama, either. However, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney seems to fare best (and within the margin of error). Also closing the gap from his November performance (where he finished six points back of Obama), Romney only trailed the president by two points, 45 percent to 47 percent.
Texas congressman Ron Paul, who posted the third highest support numbers among Republican voters (9 percent), fared worse than did Gingrich, finishing 13 points behind the incumbent.
It would appear that such a contradiction among voters -- wanting to replace the president but not wanting to replace him with the candidates offering themselves up for the job -- might lead to the rise of a strong third party candidate. Such talk has been offered by businessman Donald Trump, who recently declined to moderate a Republican presidential debate due to the opposition to his remarks of perhaps mounting an independent run for the presidency. Former 2008 vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has commented numerous times that she would consider an independent run for office should none of the candidates look as if they were able to win against Obama. Even current third place polling Ron Paul has yet to rule out running as an independent should he eventually fail to win the GOP nomination.
But detractors of the third party idea point to the siphoning of potential votes for the eventual Republican nominee and note the precedent of elections where third party candidates John Anderson and Ross Perot have garnered millions of votes that could have gone to other major party candidates. Perot's 1992 showing, pulling in almost 19 percent of the vote, is often cited as a major contributor to the defeat of incumbent President George H. W. Bush and the election of Bill Clinton, who won the popular vote by less than 6 million votes.
Still, the Republican Party has nearly a year to choose a candidate and present said contender as the most favorable candidate in a two-person match-up against President Obama. Although the polls indicate that there are no GOP candidates that can beat him at present (with the possible exception of Mitt Romney -- a possibility due to margin of error in polls), a year could make a big difference with an electorate that shows that it is at least willing to countenance replacing the man currently in the Oval Office.
kindle fire review community matt schaub fire island fire island diaspora social network diaspora
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.