ONTD Political

CBS/NYT Poll: Romney Pulls Ahead of Obama--Among Women

1:34 am - 05/16/2012
CBS/NYT Poll: Romney Pulls Ahead of Obama--Among Women

(CNSNews.com) - A CBS/New York Times poll on the presidential race released Monday showed that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has not only moved ahead of President Barack Obama 46 percent to 43 percent among all registered voters, but also that Romney has moved ahead of Obama among female registered voters.

In the CBS/New York Times poll released a month ago, Obama led Romney among women 49 percent to 43 percent. In the new poll, Romney leads Obama among women 46 percent to 44 percent.

Last month’s CBS/New York Times poll was conducted April 13-17. This month’s poll was conducted May 11-13. In the month between these two polls, Obama lost 5 points among women and Romney gained 3 points.


In the current poll, Romney also leads Obama among men, 45 percent to 42 percent. A month ago, he led Obama among men, 49 percent to 43 percent. So, from April to May, Romney lost 4 points among men compared to Obama's loss of only 1 point among men.

Nonetheless, Obama’s decreasing strength among women voters and Romney’s increasing strength among women voters put Romney ahead in the overall poll.

Last month, among all registered voters, Romney and Obama were tied in the CBS/New York Times poll at 46 percent a piece.

Romney's current 46 percent to 43 percent lead over Obama in the overall poll is within the poll's 4-point margin of error.

The respondents to the poll were asked: "If the 2012 presidential election were being held today and the candidates were Barack Obama, the Democrat, and Mitt Romney, the Republican, would you vote for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney."

According to a sheet including the historical trends in the poll that was released by the New York Times, 27 percent of the respondents to this survey said they were Republicans, 35 percent said they were Democrats and 34 percent said they were Independents. In last month's poll, 26 percent said they were Republicans, 34 percent said they were Democrats, and 33 percent said they were Independents.



Source

OP thoughts: Sorry if this has already been posted but ... what?
lozbabie 16th-May-2012 12:57 pm (UTC)
Can I ask why?
chasingtides 16th-May-2012 01:11 pm (UTC)
I don't particular like either one - as I said, this is a "gun to my head" scenario - but I have a couple of reasons. One, I don't see a reasonably large distance between the actual policies/actions of Obama and Romney, should either of them be elected. Whatever damage Romney might do, I feel that Obama is equally likely to do. (And as a queer transman who's disabled and angry, neither one are jumping up to do me favors.)

I live in Massachusetts under Romney. I wouldn't be picking him because I blindly think he's somehow awesome, but. Obama has done things, as president, that I find to be more unconscionable than Bush's acts. (These include, but are not limited to, the assassination of US citizens, the recent clauses slipped into the NDAA and passed New Year's eve, etc.) I don't believe that Romney wouldn't do such terrible things to people, if he were given a chance, but he has not actually done them yet.

And I can't willingly say that I could live with myself if I voted someone back into office after he committed such acts. Those are terrible things and, for me, deal breakers. And deal breakers mean that I'd have to choose someone else.

(As it stands however, I find it highly unlikely I'll be voting since I hate both Romney and Obama and a third party won't win.)
thevelvetsun 16th-May-2012 02:45 pm (UTC)
You don't have to rule out a third party because they won't in. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy, no one thinks they'll win, so they don't vote for them, and then what a surprise, they don't win. Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote in 1992, that wasn't that long ago. Voting third party sends a strong message that the two major parties aren't representing us.
chasingtides 16th-May-2012 02:48 pm (UTC)
I'm also fairly opposed to the system as it stands, for a variety of reasons, and feel that voting contributes to that, strongly. It's too often (read: always) voting for the lesser evil and I'm tired of voting for evil, even if the evil is a lesser third party.
thevelvetsun 16th-May-2012 02:53 pm (UTC)
Most pollsters interpret our low voting turnout as a sign that the American people are generally content and don't care who wins. I don't think I've ever heard the mainstream media say not voting is a form of protest. I've considered not voting as a form of protest, but I feel it would be misinterpreted as contentment which is the opposite of what I am. I'm voting for Jill Stein, but there are tons of alternate candidates out there.
redqueenofevil 16th-May-2012 10:00 pm (UTC)
What about going to vote if only to vote on local measures? I imagine that considering your location, the vote for your state is going to go a specific way. That said, if Massachusetts is anything like California, they will put a bunch of state and local measures on, and those are at least worth voting for. Right?
chasingtides 16th-May-2012 03:48 pm (UTC)
I didn't say what they talk about. (Obama talks a really good talk.) I said what they would actually do in the next four years. And those are drastically different things.
85redberries 16th-May-2012 03:56 pm (UTC)
But why? I've read only all oppressive, ridiculous or horrible political things said by Romney. Not everything in President Obama's policies or ideas are oppressive, ridiculous and horrible. There's a difference in right-to-work vs. unions, economic regulations, views on Russia, pro-life vs. pro-choice, stem cell research, marriage, student loans, views of POC, etc.

And are you saying he mainly has the edge for you because it would be better to change things up for its own sake and are comfortable with how he leads your state?

Are you referring to indefinite detention in NDAA?
chasingtides 16th-May-2012 04:01 pm (UTC)
NDAA, yes.

And I magically got healthcare under Romney (and sure Obamacare is based off Romney care, but in a bastardized, weaker form that's less awesome). Romney didn't infringe on LGBT rights while he was in office. He didn't go to war on women's rights. There's a lot that he says - like Obama, he talks big talk - and just never does. And maybe that's just what politicians do, but it does mean I'm paying more attention to their actions than their speech making.
85redberries 16th-May-2012 04:27 pm (UTC)
I'm not talking about just what Obama says. I'm talking about what he supports and does, which is why I mentioned those specific things.

That NDAA clause doesn't make Obama worse than Bush and neither does assassinating US citizens. That's actually the same thing as Bush.

Romney says he plans to go to war against women's rights (get rid of PP fed funding!), but since he hasn't done horrible things like that yet then he won't? That's a bold prediction.
effervescent 16th-May-2012 04:40 pm (UTC)
What do you think of the amount of pressure that Romney would be under from the right to undo a lot of the good that Obama has done? In my opinion I think that Romney is going to be under huge amounts of pressure to reverse Obamacare, to reverse a lot of the good that Obama has done. That's what Republicans are itching for, right now, and I wouldn't have faith that their pressure isn't going to weigh heavily on Romney, especially considering he'd be a first term president. Yes, he needs to appeal to the centre, but he also needs to keep his base happy and voting, too.

Considering how much damage the Republicans have done to those goals when they weren't in power, I hate to think what they'd do when they are in power. Is there a reason you think that he's going to be immune from that sort of pressure? Just honestly asking.
fornikate 16th-May-2012 07:16 pm (UTC)
"Romney didn't infringe on LGBT rights while he was in office. He didn't go to war on women's rights"

maybe because he didn't have enough power to do so then. but if he becomes POTUS, i'd be worried about those rights.
dawn9476 16th-May-2012 07:43 pm (UTC)
Romney got rid of a state funded council that was designed to protect gay people
pandaseal 16th-May-2012 04:41 pm (UTC)
Could you elaborate on your criticism with regards to Obama and people with disabilities? I have many issues with him, but I've actually been pretty happy with the administration in that area.
chasingtides 16th-May-2012 04:49 pm (UTC)
I don't see him as better (or worse) than Romney on it. That's neutral, but neither one are doing me huge favors over it either. (Healthcare's awesome, but, for example, it does little good if it doesn't cover pre-existing conditions.)
pandaseal 16th-May-2012 05:05 pm (UTC)
I see him as much better, TBH. My right to use a service dog was reaffirmed, he signed into law new hiring goals for government organisations, new accessibility standards for an era of online digital television were passed, The Olmstead decision was upheld. That's just things off the top of my head. I may not benefit from all of those, but as far as I know, he's the only sitting President to have yearly meetings with disability rights groups.

Maybe Romney would be equally as good, but I haven't found much indication that that is the case.
lunchy 16th-May-2012 04:57 pm (UTC)
So you would vote for someone who bullied gays and now laughs it off, wants to "get rid" of PP, won't say whether or not he would have signed the Fair Pay Act, will more than likely try to get rid of Obamacare (which, for all of its flaws, has already helped my family immensely), can't empathize with the middle class in the slightest, and is so blatantly against anything not rich, white, and male? Really?

As one Bostonian to another, your ~personal opinion~ sucks.
chasingtides 16th-May-2012 05:00 pm (UTC)
I'm happy then, for you, that whatever my personal opinions and beliefs, I do think that Obama will get re-elected.

And I'm a little confused as why people think I like Romney when I specified this is a gun-to-the-head scenario, not a "Chase is going to vote with a smile on his face" scenario.
dawn9476 16th-May-2012 07:37 pm (UTC)
Romney would have signed NDAA. He would have signed it even if he didn't have a veto proof majority. Romney's whole foreign policy teams consists of the people who lied about war with Iraq. He is going to do the same thing that Bush did with Iran. Invent lies to justify us attacking Iran.
eculeus 16th-May-2012 09:49 pm (UTC)
I feel woefully uneducated but could you tell me about this assassination of US citizens thing? That's very disturbing and I'm surprised I haven't heard anything about it.
____jonas 16th-May-2012 10:06 pm (UTC)
MA didn't do very well under Romney, though. We were 47th in the country for job creation, we lagged behind the rest of the country in recovering from the 2001 recession. We've been doing a lot better at everything since Patrick has been in office (#1 in the country for education, at the top for health care).

And while Romneycare was a step in the right direction, it was also the result of a coalition pushing for what would have amounted to a single payer system (the ACT Coalition's MassCare bill). So while it's great we got something, he wasn't looking out for the citizens so much as for the private insurance companies.
schmutzigs 17th-May-2012 11:05 am (UTC)
as someone from europe i have not heard of the NDAA controversy and Obama assissinating US citizens. Could you link me to an article?
furrygreen 17th-May-2012 11:19 am (UTC)
It's not discussed much here. You know, keep the whole "murder our own" hush-hush.

People sort of let it slide because the President usually attaches "these are/were/suspected terrorists" and most are done by drone attacks (without the benefit of even a trial as to whether they WERE terrorists and without any consideration of those whom might be with these individuals.) For example, I remember hearing of one case where a drone attack was used to take out a terrorist while said terrorist was in a car with his 15 year old (US citizen) cousin. They try to brush it aside as "this was *our* opportunity" or some such.

But links?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/11/obamas-killing-of-us-citizens/
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/09/30/cia-assassinates-two-american-citizens-in-yemen/
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/09/30/did-obama-just-assassinate-a-u-s-citizen-aulaqi-killing-raises-questions-over-presidential-powers/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?pagewanted=all
This page was loaded Dec 26th 2014, 4:31 pm GMT.