The Obama Campaign Dives Into Romney’s New Hampshire Exit Poll Results
EmailPresident Obama won New Hampshire in the general election — though not the Democratic primary — in 2008, turning it from Red to Blue in 2008, 54%-45%.
Key to that victory: the substantial independent vote in this state.
The Obama team is watching those independents carefully, as well as other key demographic groups. They’re focused on how former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney performs, since he’s the candidate they’ve long been convinced will win the GOP nomination.
Members of Team Obama say that current exit polls indicate that:
* Mitt Romney lost to Ron Paul by four points among self-identifying independents — Paul 31%, Romney – 27%;
* Romney finished a distant fourth among voters who thought “Strong Moral Character” is the most important candidate quality, losing to Paul by 21 points.
* Romney won the wealthy, but lost the middle class. His biggest margin was among those making over $200K followed by those making $100-200K but he lost those making under $50K by 4 points.
“So he loses independents and low income voters,” says a top Obama campaign official. “His right-turn isn’t going to help these things.”
Another top Democrat says he’s looking at Romney’s performance in lower- and middle-income wards and areas of the Granite state.
“Like Iowa, he did not do well here,” the Democrat says. “Wait to see what happens in South Carolina with those groups after a couple million dollars and relentless ‘corporate raider’ pounding.” The Democrat also says that before Iowa Romney had about a thirty point lead. “He will have lost almost two-thirds of that in one week,” the Democrat says.
One polling guru who wanted to keep his name out of it takes the larger point that Romney needs to be stronger with independents, as well as lower- and middle-income groups, but he splashes cold water on some of the numbers members of Team Obama are throwing around.
“Given the margin of sampling error in the exit poll, Paul’s four-point margin over Romney among independents is not statistically significant. We’re saying they ran about evenly in this group. Ditto for those who make less than $50,000 a year.”
-Jake Tapper
Best Commencement Speeches of 2012 
Joe Biden Recalls Death of Wife, Daughter
I believe people will start associating him with Wall Street more so than his stump speeches and he will be on the defense. Conservatives are looking for a reason to distance themselves. On the other hand, Gingrich may be his own worst enemy by going after him. To me, it is entirely possible for a dark horse to emerge.
Posted by: JaneMiami | January 10, 2012, 9:31 pm 9:31 pm
The Obama campaign is TOAST, he should start packing for his trip back to Chicago now!
Then he can take all the vacations he wants and they won’t cost the tax payers a dime!
Posted by: BIG JIMMY | January 10, 2012, 9:34 pm 9:34 pm
Gallup Obama down 4 more points overnight
Solyndra, Lightsquared, MF Global, Goldman Sacs, Fast&Furious. Lavish secretive parties with Hollywood millionaires
OBAMA______VS_____AMERICA
Posted by: yep I said that | January 10, 2012, 9:37 pm 9:37 pm
The Obama campaign is TOAST, he should start packing for his trip back to Chicago now!
Posted by: BIG JIMMY | January 10, 2012, 9:34 pm 9:34 pm
Hardly, President Obama currently polls better than any of the Republican candidates.
p.s – SURPRISE! the taxpayer has always paid for certain aspects of a President’s holiday. It’s as if some right wingers have been in a coma for the past 50 years.
Posted by: Dan | January 10, 2012, 10:03 pm 10:03 pm
DAN — First, Once the GOP stop bickering, you will see themcome together behind our nominee…. instant defeat fro Obama!!! —- Secondly, Americ doesn’t forget that Obama CANT RUN on his record!! ——— Just a treat….. NOT ONCE in Obama’s Presidency has he balanced even ONE MONTH of the Federal budget. December, 2011 marked the 39th straight month in the red, according to the Congressional Budget Office, continuing a streak that dates back to before his inauguration! — You would think that someone who professed “Hope and Change” could have cut SOME spending… NO, he increased it 23%!! — If this country is to survive, we CANNOT have four more years of this President!!!
Posted by: TheLoyalOpposition | January 10, 2012, 11:25 pm 11:25 pm
Loyal…it’s funny you want to complain about the budget. You obviously missed where the GOP repealed ‘pay as you go’, which the Dem’s have tried to put back in place and once again it was blocked by the GOP. Also, when the GOP took the senate, the FIRST thing they did was allow ‘their’ earmarks with ‘found money’ while they cut the ones to Democratic states..remember the multi billion dollar jet engine the Pentagon didn’t want but the GOP kept pushing for. If you think these people care about balancing a budget, you are delusional just like the rest. Facts are size of gov doubles under Repubs and shrinks under Dem’s..(despite what they tell you) it’s been that way for 60 years. So far all I’ve seen proposed are more tax cuts for the wealthy and trickle on economics, you can look around for yourself and see how well that’s worked.
Posted by: D | January 10, 2012, 11:36 pm 11:36 pm
U.S. News and World Report Poll published 1/9/2012——– Americans, 2-1, Fear Obama’s Reelection
Posted by: free_2_choose | January 10, 2012, 11:39 pm 11:39 pm
D | January 10, 2012, 11:36 pm —– Oh come on…. “pay as you go” was a scam to begin with…. please give me a detailed account of ALL the times the Democrats actually honored it!! — And then please compare that to the times they IGNORED it… LOL!! ———— If you want proof that Democrats are fiscally irresponsible and will never really “cut” the budget, just look at the last three years!! — Bottom line… the GOP tries to insist on the “regular order” of budget procedures… where both the House and Senate are required to 1) pass a budget resolution, and 2) various appropriations committees then are supposed to make their spending decisions within the limits set by the budget resolution. —- While the GOP-controlled House dutifully complied with the Budget Act and passed a budget resolution… the Democrat-controlled Senate has NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES FOR THREE YEARS!!! —- So without a binding budget resolution signed onto by both houses of Congress… appropriators basically had free rein on spending… which is exactly what the Democrats want!!
Posted by: TheLoyalOpposition | January 10, 2012, 11:43 pm 11:43 pm
The “ankle grabbers” are waiting for Romney in South Carolina. Romney can talk and dance all he wants, the Tea Party and the conservatives are not in bed with him.
Posted by: NoFlyZone2 | January 10, 2012, 11:43 pm 11:43 pm
Gallup Obama down 4 more points overnight
Posted by: yep I said that | January 10, 2012, 9:37
Yep, he’s back at 42%, just like he had been on Dec 18th, and on Nov 15th, and on Oct 16th, and on Sep 19th, and on Aug 19th, and on July 19th. Thanks for reporting that earth-shattering news.
Hey, maybe if you close your eyes and wish really really hard, he’ll plummet to 35% like Ronald Reagan did.
Posted by: Jess Dewitt | January 11, 2012, 12:25 am 12:25 am
U.S. News and World Report Poll published 1/9/2012——– Americans, 2-1, Fear Obama’s Reelection
Posted by: free_2_choose | January 10, 2012, 11:39 pm
Actually it wasn’t a US News and World Report poll. It was an INTERNET poll done by Synovate and published by USN&WR. 33% fear Obama’s reelection according to that poll. Gotta love the reliability of internet polls. heh
Posted by: Jess Dewitt | January 11, 2012, 12:48 am 12:48 am
Romney won’t do well againts Obama. I mean, the guy owns a house in New Hampshire and has been campaigning there for years and still can’t get a majority from people in his own party. Granted, he’s got a lot of mansions…. so, it’s not exactly his home turf… but still. You buy a mansion and drop millions of dollars into a state over a half a decade… that ought to buy you more than 39% of the votes.
He reminds me of Francis in PeeWee’s Big Adventure, and his daddy said he could have Obama’s bike.
Posted by: Blip | January 11, 2012, 3:50 am 3:50 am
Blip,actually Romney will do very well against Obama.Have you seen the most recent Gallup poll approval rating for Obama?
Posted by: Nephron | January 11, 2012, 8:48 am 8:48 am
Theloyalopposition, how do you ignore that the mess left by Bush, the economy was in freefall one step from another Great Depression, the great financial losses due to big bank’s greed, the fall in the stock market, two ongoing wars, a huge national debt with all that expensive interest to pay, unemployed needing assistance,etc. would all make balancing a budget impossible.
Compare it to a family’s finances. If they ran an unbalanced budget with no savings and carrying a lot of debt, but had two incomes, then one job was lost, one of the kids got terribly ill and ran up huge medical expenses, and they were being sued and running up legal bills, would anyone be able to balance that family’s budget?
The wealth lost by Bush’s inaction isn’t going to magically appear. All those family’s who lost their homes aren’t going to get their equity back. All those family’s who are now upside down in their mortgages aren’t going to feel financially secure for a very long time. And without that lost wealth the economy logically can only slowly recover.
Try to see the big picture. The past and current Republican policies of little or weak regulations on industry will always cause the rest of us big and expensive problems. The greediest of the businesspeople will take advantage of little government oversight at the expense of honest business folk and the public. The banking crisis we are all still suffering the results of, is the best example that the main policy of the Republicans is extremely harmful to our country and our economy. This is the biggest proof that the Republican Party should not lead our country. They do not learn from their mistakes.
Posted by: Librarian53 | January 11, 2012, 9:28 am 9:28 am
D: “So far all I’ve seen proposed are more tax cuts for the wealthy and trickle on economics, you can look around for yourself and see how well that’s worked.”
It’s tax cuts for all, not just the wealthy. Get it straight. The reason is simple — the people grow their businesses and their economy much better than politicians and their inefficient government.
The success of our country would argue that free markets, free enterprise, and freedom have worked out quite well for us.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2012, 9:33 am 9:33 am
“The success of our country would argue that free markets, free enterprise, and freedom have worked out quite well for us”
Yes indeed, remember that that last big crash wasn’t our fault at all–the government MADE us do it.
Posted by: Wall Street | January 11, 2012, 9:43 am 9:43 am
Mitt Romney is unsatisfying and uninspirational to his own party. He is a flip flopper without a core. Mitt Romney is a wealthy Wall Street type corporate raider who refuses to releases his tax information. He’s stiff and can’t relate to the middle class, often embarrassing himself with gaffes when he tries. He knows nothing about foreign policy. He never says anything interesting, exciting or new — though new to him, maybe, at the moment, a flip flop from a previous position directed by current political winds. He’s become known as the weather vane candidate. He’s a career politician that only has private experience because he lost some elections. He lost those elections because he’s boring, unrelatable, uninspiring and lacks any convictions. He’s a paperdoll AND weather vane, a shape shifting opportunist full of “pious” and hypocritical baloney.
The only thing we know for sure about what he would do as a private equity president is the continuation of the 15% capital gains tax on carried interest of successful transactions, and if he were to ever be as transparent as every presidential candidate for the past three decades excluding himself, everybody would get why.
Once he’s thoroughly scrutinized impressions of him will only worsen. He’s only winning now because the field against him was so weak.
Posted by: Karen | January 11, 2012, 9:52 am 9:52 am
Nephron wrote “Romney will do very well against Obama.”
Yer darned tootin’. The most recent Gallup head-to-head shows Romney trailing Obama by only 2 percentage points. Go Mitt!
Posted by: Glomerulus | January 11, 2012, 9:55 am 9:55 am
WALL STREET: “Yes indeed, remember that that last big crash wasn’t our fault at all–the government MADE us do it.”
No economic system is without fault, but we can’t expect the free market to work when government is stifling it at every turn. It’s no longer a free market at that point, but one designed by politicians in government.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2012, 9:58 am 9:58 am
Anonymous, if you look at the percentage of the Republican’s proposed tax cuts, someone earning under between 50 and 75K would get a tax break of 2.7% but someone earning more than million gets a 9.3% tax break! It is the same slight of hand the Republicans used for the Bush tax cuts, give a little break to regular folk but a much bigger percentage break to the wealthy. And where is the logic of tax cuts at all when our national debt is so big, the interest alone grows it astronomically!
If you look historically at our country, when taxes were slightly higher on the wealthy, our national debt goes down, we have money for a strong military, etc. all while seeing business thrive and profit.
The Republican’s proposed tax cuts for the wealthy are always under the guise that they will invest their additional wealth, when in reality there is no guarantee or historical evidence that they will in numbers large enough to justify giving those tax breaks.
Posted by: Librarian53 | January 11, 2012, 10:02 am 10:02 am
Posted by: Anonymous
Is that you Grover? Don’t get all worked up now, you’ve gotten almost all of the peons to sign on,..we’re confident they’ll fight hard to keep our taxes down–no matter what the consequences are for the rest of the country.
Posted by: wall Street | January 11, 2012, 10:10 am 10:10 am
KAREN: “Mitt Romney is unsatisfying and uninspirational to his own party.”
Your assessment is no surprise coming from an Obama-loving Democrat. He must be ‘satisfying’ and ‘inspirational’ enough, as his ‘own party’ is in the process of nominating him — in historic fashion I might add.
KAREN: “Mitt Romney is a wealthy Wall Street type corporate raider who refuses to releases his tax information.”
Just as soon as Obama releases his college grades and other withheld information, Romney can be fairly asked to do the same.
KAREN: “He’s a career politician that only has private experience because he lost some elections.”
Does that mean Obama is a career politician because he failed in the private sector? I’d rather have someone successful in the private sector or both, like Romney, than a career politician like Obama — especially one as inept and destructive as Obama.
KAREN: “He’s only winning now because the field against him was so weak.”
. . . which is the same reason he’ll defeat Obama. That’s how elections are won. Duh . . .
Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2012, 10:10 am 10:10 am
No economic system is without fault, but to see historically the harm of bank failures, ordinary citizens losing equity in their homes, tax payers having to pay off those federally insured bank accounts and the resultant economic downturn, when banks are allowed to deceive the public and do nothing to prevent it is just plain stupid. But that is what happened when the wise banking regulations made after the Great Depression were weakened in the 90′s and more banking failures and shenanigans resulted in our recent economic woes.
To keep allowing the unfettered greed of any industry would mean the government wasn’t following its direction of protecting the citizens. Because this economic mess from bankings unfettered greed has hurt millions of Americans. Protecting us from this happening again is no different from our government protecting us from terrorists. It is their mandate to protect, not to allow the greediest of bankers or business people to ruin our economy.
Posted by: Librarian53 | January 11, 2012, 10:11 am 10:11 am
He must be ‘satisfying’ and ‘inspirational’ enough, as his ‘own party’ is in the process of nominating him —Anonymous.
Good luck with that “enough” business. It doesn’t dispute the fact that Mitt Romney is a flip flopper without a core . It doesn’t dispute the fact that Mitt Romney is a wealthy corporate raider who refuses to releases his tax information. It doesn’t dispute the fact that Mitt Romney is stiff, uninspiring, having trouble with young people and a huge chunk of the middle class. and can’t relate to the middle class, often embarrassing himself with gaffes when he tries. It doesn’t dispute the fact that Mitt Romney has no foreign policy or national security experience and it doesn’t dispute the fact that MItt Romney knows nothing about foreign policy. It doesn’t dispute the fact that Mitt Romney never says anything interesting, exciting or new — though new to him, maybe, at the moment, a flip flop from a previous position directed by current political winds.
It doesn’t dispute the fact that Mitt Romney has become known as the weather vane candidate. It doesn’t dispute the fact that Mitt Romney is actually a career politician at heart that only has private experience because he lost some elections. It doesn’t dispute the fact that he lost those elections because he’s boring, unrelatable, uninspiring and lacks any convictions.
It certainly doesn’t dispute the fact that MItt Romney IS a shape shifting opportunist full of “pious” and hypocritical baloney.
It doesn’t dispute the fact that MItt Romney is only winning now because the field against him is so weak.
As for the election against Obama, wanna bet $10k? Now, let’s shake and then pretend we’re afraid of pink slips.
But wow thanks for sharing something that disputes nothing and showing us all that Republicans aren’t as dimwitted as they are portrayed on tv (/sarc)
Posted by: Karen | January 11, 2012, 10:34 am 10:34 am
LIBRARIAN53: “. . . give a little break to regular folk but a much bigger percentage break to the wealthy.”
Did you ever think that’s because the taxes of the ‘regular folk’ are already disproportionately lower than that of the wealthy? Don’t you worry, though, as with our current progressive tax system, the rich will always pay a much higher percentage.
With a flat tax, all pay their fair share, and when taxes are adjusted, all are affected equally. The flat tax is better, as politicians can’t play one class off of another by paying off one class for votes.
LIBRARIAN53: “And where is the logic of tax cuts at all when our national debt is so big, the interest alone grows it astronomically!”
You have to cut spending too. Yes, that logic is indeed missing from your average liberal. Thanks for making the case for me.
LIBRARIAN53: “If you look historically at our country, when taxes were slightly higher on the wealthy, our national debt goes down, we have money for a strong military, etc. all while seeing business thrive and profit.”
Yes, politicians tend to over-tax during the good times. Don’t mistake high taxation for the cause of economic growth. That’s s.o.c.i.a.l.i.s.m and has proven to fail time and again.
LIBRARIAN53: “The Republican’s proposed tax cuts for the wealthy are always under the guise that they will invest their additional wealth . . .”
The wealthy generally invest to create more wealth. Remember that whole greed thing? And, unless Americans, wealthy or otherwise, literally hide their money under their mattress, rather than save it in a bank, their money will be reinvested back into the economy. You have to understand how our economy works before being able to intelligently debate about what’s best for it.
LIBRARIAN53: “. . . in numbers large enough to justify giving those tax breaks.”
Being that it’s their money to begin with is justification enough. It’s called freedom and free markets, not government welfare for the irresponsible.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2012, 11:03 am 11:03 am
“Did you ever think that’s because the taxes of the ‘regular folk’ are already disproportionately lower than that of the wealthy?”–Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2012, 11:03 am 11:03 am
If somebody thought that they would be wrong.
Let’s see Mitt’s tax records and check out the accuracy of your claim.
Going for 4 pinocchios or whopper of the year here, Big A?
Posted by: Narodnik Newt Perry | January 11, 2012, 11:07 am 11:07 am
ANONYMOUS: “Did you ever think that’s because the taxes of the ‘regular folk’ are already disproportionately lower than that of the wealthy? Don’t you worry, though, as with our current progressive tax system, the rich will always pay a much higher percentage.”
Narodnik Newt Perry: “If somebody thought that they would be wrong.”
No, as usual, you are wrong. The rich pay 95% of all income taxes and are taxed at a higher percentage. Our tax system is classified as a progressive one. Look it up.
With a flat tax, on the other hand, all pay their fair share, and when taxes are adjusted, all bear the burden of their government equally. The flat tax is better, as politicians can’t play one class off of another by paying off one class for votes.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2012, 11:13 am 11:13 am
Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2012, 11:13 am 11:13 am
Numbers, sources, facts? or are we supposed to trust partisan gibberish?
How do you define “rich”? What is the average percentage of the income those rich pay and what cost-benefit analysis do you use to determine “fair” share, and how do you apportion what is stand to lost by whom without societal goods such secure property rights, highways and infrastructure, national defense and so on? Do you claim that we have a progressive taxation system with no credits, incentives, loopholes or tax breaks?
As income rises, does the marginal propensity rise or drop?
You’re so far off on your percentages, I know you have no source. Nice try, pet.
You realize you’re quick to back Mitt and quick to provide cliches that contradict some of his stump speech, right?
Or didn’t you realize that?
Posted by: Jen | January 11, 2012, 12:17 pm 12:17 pm
This site is lame. You delete just about 100% of my comments. I am not vulgar, insulting, or dishonest in my comments… what gives?
Posted by: Blip | January 11, 2012, 12:17 pm 12:17 pm
JEN: “Numbers, sources, facts?”
I gave you the numbers. And, my source is the federal government. Look it up.
JEN: “How do you define ‘rich’?”
Top 50% wage earners. They pay 95% of all income taxes.
JEN: “. . . what cost-benefit analysis do you use to determine “fair” share . . .”
Do you really need a cost-benefit analysis to know that Americans paying the same share of government via the same tax percentage is fair? Freedom and fairness don’t require such obfuscation, as it comes natural to most Americans. Only dishonest liberals . . .
JEN: “. . . such secure property rights, highways and infrastructure, national defense and so on?
All possible with a flat tax that ensures we all pay our equal share of government. Why do you insist some Americans not pay their fair share of government? That’s right, it’s necessary for Democrats to win elections.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2012, 12:49 pm 12:49 pm
Look it up.– Anonymous
I did, that’s how I know you are inaccurate and really have no idea what you’re talking about.
I encourage to look it up too and to perform the whole cost-benefit analysis. Yes, you do need to do one because everyone knows that some have more to lose without certain services and social goods and those who have most to lose are those with the most, to put it in the most simple terms.
The upper class, by the by, is usually defined as the top 1% with household incomes exceeding $250,000 annually. To be considered “rich” most people think you’re net worth must be over $1 million.
What is the average percentage of the income those rich pay? How much do they have to lose without the benefits that come from societal goods such as national defense, infrastructure, etc? (More … ) Do you claim that we have a progressive taxation system with no credits, incentives, loopholes or tax breaks?As income rises, does the marginal propensity rise or drop?
Posted by: Jen | January 11, 2012, 1:18 pm 1:18 pm
marginal propensity to consume
(hint: as income rises, it drops)
Posted by: Jen | January 11, 2012, 1:33 pm 1:33 pm
The rich pay 95% of all income taxes and are taxed at a higher percentage
——————————————————
Wrong again, as usual. Most of the income of the very highest earners is taxed as capital gains at only 15%.
Posted by: baloney patrol | January 11, 2012, 2:14 pm 2:14 pm
JEN: “. . . that’s how I know you are inaccurate and really have no idea what you’re talking about.”
The top 50% wage earners pay 95% of all income taxes. Just because you don’t like people pointing that out, doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
JEN: “The upper class, by the by, is usually defined as the top 1% . . .”
. . . and they pay about 40% of all income taxes, whereas the top 5% pay about 60% of all income taxes. Whatever way you break it down, the rich pay more, therefore, their tax cuts should be more.
A flat tax is the only way we all pay an equal share of government. That way when you liberals propose spending and tax increases, it’s not just the job creators and most successful that bear the brunt. You wouldn’t be so quick to steal the fruits of the people’s labor in that case, but when it’s the evil rich, who cares right? Until we all pay, with a stagnant economy.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2012, 3:13 pm 3:13 pm
BALONEY PATROL: “Wrong again, as usual. Most of the income of the very highest earners is taxed as capital gains at only 15%.”
You need to patrol your own baloney. We are talking income taxes, not capital gains, which is actually a double tax. The initial investment was already taxed via the income tax, so you are wrong, as usual. Another day, another liberal scam exposed.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2012, 3:18 pm 3:18 pm
Baloney doesn’t know about the double taxation of capital gains? i tought that was elementary finance.
Posted by: Nephron | January 11, 2012, 4:55 pm 4:55 pm
We are talking income taxes
———————————-
Well of course…because if you include all taxes and fees the highest earners pay a much smaller percentage of their income in taxes.
Posted by: baloney patrol | January 11, 2012, 6:00 pm 6:00 pm
A flat tax is the only way we all pay an equal share of government. — unnamed commenter at 3:13
If we all pay what you consider an equal share then we should all have an equal amount to lose or gain… and we do not. So what to do about that if equal shares is your concern. Any ideas?
And why won’t Mitt release his tax returns?
Also, why does he say a flat tax will hurt the middle class and that would be bad for business? Isn’t that quite different than what you allege? And yet you support him? Of course he does flip flop around on the topic so maybe you’re not quite up to date on his various discussions of the subject.
Does the propensity to consumer rise or fall with income? And does it benefit business and the economy if the middle class is consuming?
Baloney patrol is accurate, if you include all taxes and fees the highest earners pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxess
Posted by: Jen | January 11, 2012, 10:30 pm 10:30 pm