New Presidential Polls show near-tie with Romney advantage

3 Recent polls show President Obama ahead of Governor Romney:

  1. Democracy Corps: Obama 49%, Romney 46%
  2. RAND: Obama 48%, Romney 46%
  3. IBD/TIPP: Obama 47%, Romney 43%

2 Polls resulted in a Tie:

  1. Public Policy Polling: Obama 48%, Romney 48%
  2. Reuters/Ipsos: Obama 46%, Romney 46%

4 Recent polls show Romney ahead of the President:

  1. Gallup: Romney 51%, Obama 45%
  2. Monmouth/SurveyUSA: Romney 48%, Obama 45%
  3. Politico/George Washington University: Romney 49%, Obama 47%
  4. Rasmussen: Romney 49%, Obama 47%

Latest from the swing states shows Obama with the upper hand:

  1. Colorado: Romney 50%, Obama 46% (Rasmussen)
  2. Iowa: Obama 48%, Romney 48% (Rasmussen)
  3. Michigan: Obama 52%, Romney 43% (Angus Reid)
  4. Ohio: Obama 48%, Romney 48% (Angus Reid)
  5. Ohio: Obama 50%, Romney 45% (CBS News/Quinnipiac)
  6. Ohio: Obama 47%, Romney 47% (Suffolk)
  7. Ohio: Romney 47%, Obama 46% (Pulse Opinion Research)
  8. Pennsylvania: Obama 50%, Romney 45% (Morning Call/Muhlenberg)
  9. Pennsylvania: Obama 48%, Romney 44% (Pulse Opinion Research)
  10. Pennsylvania: Obama 48%, Romney 45% (Gravis)
  11. Pennsylvania: Obama 52%, Romney 42% (Angus Reid)
  12. Virginia: Obama 47%, Romney 46% (Pulse Opinion Research)
  13. Wisconsin: Obama 51%, Romney 46% (Angus Reid)
  14. Wisconsin: Obama 50%, Romney 47% (Pulse Opinion Research)

New Obama Ad says YES, We *are* better off than we were 4 years ago

“Here’s where are today: 30 months of private sector job growth, creating 4.6 million new jobs.”

“We’re not there yet,” the ad’s narrator admits. “But the real question is: Whose plan is better for you? The President’s plan asks millionaires to pay a little more to help invest in a strong middle class. Clean energy. Cut the deficit.”

The ad will air in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia, according to the campaign.

NY Times:

Mr. Obama has been arguing not just that his plan to economic prosperity is moving in the right direction – forward, as his campaign slogan says – but that Mitt Romney’s policies would take the country back.

This ad doubles down on that argument, pointing to Mr. Obama’s plans to ask the wealthy to pay higher taxes and Mr. Romney’s support for less business regulation. The ad also raises again a claim made in a study that Mr. Romney’s campaign has disputed, saying that his tax plan would actually raise taxes on middle class families by $2,000.

But the Romney campaign called the ad false and misleading. “Americans are not better off since President Obama took office,” said Ryan Williams, a spokesman for the Romney campaign. “Twenty-three million Americans are struggling for work, our national debt has hit a record-breaking $16 trillion and more Americans are in poverty and on food stamps than ever before. Mitt Romney’s economic plan would lead to a more prosperous future for middle class families spurring growth and job creation, and ensuring that the next four years are better than the last four.”

The Romney campaign put out a statement in response, saying: “23 million Americans are struggling for work, our national debt has hit a record-breaking $16 trillion, and more Americans are in poverty and on food stamps than ever before.”

Why Bush’s 04 Strategy won’t work for Obama

In response to the reports that the Obama administration will be looking to George W Bush’s 2004 re-election strategy, one columnist gives caution. Bush-Cheney ’04 may have scraped through a victory, but the same tactics won’t work for Obama. John Avlon gives five reasons 2012 is different but they rest on the following premise:

The balancing act in politics is inspiring the base without alienating the center of the electorate. Ultimately elections in America are won by the candidate who connects with moderates and the middle class. Thirteen months out, it is clear that President Obama has an uphill climb toward reelection ahead of him. His greatest asset is the weakness of the Republican field and his still-high personal approval ratings. But everything from job approval numbers to the unemployment rate to the consumer price index bodes badly for the president. If he wins reelection, it will be a much narrower victory than he enjoyed in 2008. Swing states like Indiana and North Carolina are unlikely to come back into his fold. He won independent voters by 8 percent last election but now his independent approval rating is underwater at 37 percent, with Mitt Romney carrying a 55 percent approval among independents in a head-to-head contrast.

Reaching for the last presidential reelect playbook smacks of a lack of imagination by Team Obama. Yes, the president needs to reignite support of his progressive base, which has suffered because of unrealistic expectations that collided with an enduringly bad global economy. But while playing to the base might feel good to Democratic Party consultants, a look at the national numbers shows that it threatens to take a long-shot and make it worse, guaranteeing a razor thin reelect at best by focusing on the base at the expense of independents and the center.

Will Hillary Challenge Obama in 2012?

No. and Hotair explains why:

“Absolutely no interest” in running again, she says, which in fairness is the same answer she gave back in October. Ace is skeptical about her denials, but come on: How exactly is Her Majesty going to reposition herself to Obama’s left in time for 2012? Between her hawkishness and her marriage to the man who Betrayed The Cause by governing from the center after his own health-care implosion, her liberal cred is shot. Remember, the nutroots treated her as more or less a de facto Republican during the primaries. Plus, if she challenged The One, all the nastiness — racial and otherwise — that was dredged up in “Game Change” about her campaign’s tactics would be revisited. And if she lost again, which she almost certainly would, she could be staring at so many burned bridges that a run in 2016 would be impossible. Besides, given the “dark valley” of unemployment that Democrats will be forced to defend in 2012, why would she even want the nomination? Having beaten Obama in the primary by painting herself as the “true liberal” in the race, she’d be a sitting duck in the general when the GOP inevitably ran to the center. It ain’t happening. Although it would be awesome if it did!

How the Obama campaign reacted to the Palin pick

Time has some interesting revelations about the choice for Vice President when Tim Kaine was considered but ultimately passed over:

There was no great way to explain putting someone with no foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. If we chose him, we would need to rely on some of the same language we had used on this issue as it related to Obama — judgment vs. Washington experience, a new foreign policy vision vs. the status quo — but doubling down would make it twice as tough for us to roll this boulder uphill.

Later that night, we held a conference call with Obama to brief him on our day. “Well, it sounds like you both are for Biden, but barely,” he said. “I really haven’t settled this yet in my own mind. It’s a coin toss now between Bayh and Biden, but Kaine is still a distinct possibility. I know the experience attack people will make if we pick him. But if that really concerned me, I wouldn’t have run in the first place. My sense is — and you tell me if the research backs this up — that Barack Hussein Obama is change enough for people. I don’t have to convince people with my VP selection that I am serious about change.” (Read “Obama and Biden’s Chemistry Test.”)

But the money quotes are all about Sarah Palin:

We always knew this day was going to be a pain in the ass. Coming right off the exhaustion and exhilaration of our convention week and VP pick, we would have to jump right in and deal with theirs. But [Sarah] Palin was a bolt of lightning, a true surprise. She was such a long shot, I didn’t even have her research file on my computer, as I did for the likely McCain picks. I started Googling her, refreshing my memory while I waited for our research to be sent.

But here she was, joining our real-life drama. And given her life story, coupled with the surprise nature of her selection, her entrance to the race would be nothing short of a phenomenon. But I also thought it was a downright bizarre, ill-considered and deeply puzzling choice. The one thing every voter knew about John McCain’s campaign at this point was that it had been shouting from the rooftops that Barack Obama lacked the experience to be President.

Summoning the wisdom from “the philosopher she turns to most”, besides Mother Theresa, then campaign adviser Anita Dunn offered advice on Palin, whom she had worked against unsuccessfully in Alaska’s 2006 governor’s race:

…warned us that she was a formidable political talent — clearly not up to this moment, she assured us, but bound to be a compelling player and a real headliner in the weeks ahead. (Read about where Sarah Palin is going next.)

“All of you on this call should watch video of her debates and speeches,” Dunn counseled. “The substance is thin, but she’s a very able performer. And her story is out of Hollywood. She’ll be a phenomenon for a while.”

The Obama campaign was mostly annoyed that McCain had chosen a VP nominee that, they claim, had less experience than Obama:

Our strategy with the other potential picks would’ve been to start by saying that choice X subscribed to the same failed George Bush policies as John McCain; all they were doing was doubling down on the same out-of-touch economic policies that had hurt American families. We should have gone the same way with Palin. But McCain had been haranguing us for months about experience, and we were incredulous that he had picked someone with zero foreign policy experience who had been a governor for less time than Obama had been a Senator. Galled by the hypocrisy, we moved in a more aggressive direction.

We decided to call McCain on the experience card directly. The value was in making him look political — essentially, calling him full of shit — and we sent out a release making that clear. “Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency,” it read. “Governor Palin shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush’s failed economic policies — that’s not the change we need; it’s just more of the same.”

Rasmussen: Obama 45, Romney 45; Obama 48, Palin 42

For some reason, the poll speculates about Palin running under a 3rd party:

Just 21% of voters nationwide say Palin should run as an independent if she loses the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Sixty-three percent (63%) say the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee should not run as an independent. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure.

If Romney secured the GOP nomination and Palin chose to run as an independent candidate, Obama would win the resulting three-way race with 44% of the vote. Romney is the choice of 33% of the voters under that scenario, with Palin a distant third with 16% support. Three percent (3%) like some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided…

When Romney is the Republican nominee, he beats Obama among unaffiliated voters 48% to 41%. But when Palin is the GOP candidate, unaffiliated voters prefer Obama by a 47% to 41% margin…

In a three-way race, Palin hurts Romney by drawing 28% Republican support. Romney captures 52% of the GOP vote in that scenario.