Daily 2012 Polling numbers for September 30, 2012………Obama still leads just about Everywhere…

Sunday, September 30
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
General Election: Romney vs. Obama Gallup Tracking Obama 49, Romney 44 Obama +5
General Election: Romney vs. Obama Rasmussen Tracking Obama 48, Romney 46 Obama +2
Iowa: Romney vs. Obama Des Moines Register Obama 49, Romney 45 Obama +4
Ohio: Romney vs. Obama Columbus Dispatch* Obama 51, Romney 42 Obama +9
Washington: Romney vs. Obama Rasmussen Reports Obama 52, Romney 41 Obama +11
Massachusetts: Romney vs. Obama Boston Globe Obama 57, Romney 30 Obama +27
Massachusetts Senate – Brown vs. Warren Boston Globe Warren 43, Brown 38 Warren +5
President Obama Job Approval Gallup Approve 46, Disapprove 46 Tie
President Obama Job Approval Rasmussen Reports Approve 50, Disapprove 49 Approve +1

from realclearpolitics….

Share on Facebook

29 thoughts on “Daily 2012 Polling numbers for September 30, 2012………Obama still leads just about Everywhere…”

    1. Warren IS trending UP….

      The race is tight BUT…if Brown DOES NOT come back up in the next five weeks …
      I’m going out a limb here …

      I think SHE wins….

  1. It’s amazing that Brown is only 5 pts behind Warren considering Obama is winning the state by 27 pts.

    The Democratic margin in the Presidential race may be too much for him to overcome, but if he does lose he could possibly come back and run for Governor.

  2. The people in Massachusetts must really think that Romney did a horrible job for him or he wouldn’t be down by 27 points.

    I know that Gore lost his home state (TN) against Bush, but 27 points would have to explode an existing record.

    1. Mitt Romney won in Mass I’d think Z because he WAS a moderate GOP Governor…

      Same as Pataki and Christie…

      By going to the right way toooo long AFTER he locked up the nomination and staying there, up to the Convention I think he lost it….
      Romney should have NEVER tried to be what he isn’t….
      A TRUE Rightwingnut…..

      By trying to lie to moderates…and the rightwingnuts….
      He seems to lost them both ….
      And the indies…

  3. The people of Massachusetts don’t necessarily think that Romney did a particularly bad job, after they generally like his health plan which is already in effect, together with genuinely divided feelings about the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) high-stakes tests for public schools and their students.

    It’s just that he lost interest halfway through his first and only term and spent most of his time knocking Massachusetts to politically useful out-of-state audiences like South Carolina Republicans.

    And the Mitt Romney they’ve seen since the 2012 Republican nomination campaign is one they barely recognize.

  4. Yeah I seem to recall Republicans making hay of the fact that Gore lost his home state of TN by about 5 pts or so

    Well it looks like Romney will lose BOTH his home states–Massachusetts by at least 20 pts. and Michigan possibly by double digits.

    Does Mitt consider Utah a home state too?

    At least he’ll win there.

  5. Elizabeth Warren could still easily lose this election; in fact I don’t know who’ll win. We may have a better idea after the second debate. For one thing, Scott Brown needs to find a new issue besides Elizabeth Warren’s ancestry.

    1. I’m sticking my toe in the water…

      I think He lost his hold on the Blue Collars who woke up after Clinton and Obama showed them the way at the Convention and the Debate confirmed it….

    1. Jack….
      You have made the point that Conventions are anachronism’s….

      NOT needed…..

      The Democrats would NOT agree ….

  6. S. Grover Cleveland (D-inc., NY) carried the national popular vote in 1888 but lost both his home state of New York and the Electoral College to Benjamin Harrison (R-Ind.) [When Cleveland did win the Electoral vote in 1884 and 1892, he also carried New York.]

    In 1844, James K. Polk (D) won the White House, but the Whigs held onto Tennessee.

    T. Woodrow Wilson (D) had no trouble taking Virginia in 1912 & 1916, but in 1916, he didn’t keep New Jersey, of which he had been governor after presiding over Princeton. As with Cleveland, it depends what question you want to ask.

    That’s what I can find readily from my notes, but one option in Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections is to click the yellow “Home St.” box next to a particular election to see a map that shows the home-state rank and percentage of each major Pres. & VP candidate.


  7. Scott Brown doesn’t have much to offer
    By Yvonne Abraham

    | Boston Globe Columnist

    September 30, 2012

    Seriously? Another Scott Brown ad hammering ­Elizabeth Warren on the ­Native American thing? Isn’t our sitting US senator better than this? Nah…

    …So why does Brown persist? Well, here’s the most demoralizing part of the whole mess: It works. Back in March, when asked for a word to describe Warren, 1 percent of ­respondents to a Globe poll said “dishonest.” In the survey completed last week, that number jumped to 12 percent.

    According to the Globe poll, 18 percent of voters are still undecided in this race, and 19 percent of that group are less likely to vote for Warren because of the Native American flap. That amounts to 3 percent of voters overall who could break Brown’s way if he keeps hammering the issue. He clearly believes that sliver of the electorate is worth the potential for racist outbursts and for damage to his nice-guy image.

    Maybe if I had little else to offer those voters, I’d take that risk, too.


  8. I doubt that either candidate will win 55% of the overall vote, so 3% is significant, if you want to go that way.

    Massachusetts does have a native American Indian population (e.g. Wampanoags and Pequots, who’d both like to run casinos), but they don’t form a significant portion of the electorate, as they would in Prof. Warren’s home state or other western states. Nor have they been a politically useful target in themselves for at least a century (entering Boston used to be a capital offense for Indians on a law that was only formally repealed in the last 10 or 20 years.)

  9. I think Elizabeth Warren’s convention speech was missed by most of the voters who are still undecided and usually less interested in politics.

    The commercials and local news coverage affect them much more.

    Like her record at the Consumer Finance bureau, it made much more of a D.C. and inside-national-politics splash than a Bay State one.

    1. He, he, he….

      You’re probably right DSD….

      Not the original night….

      They probably heard about it EVERYDAY for a week afterwards in their Newspapers, Regular TV, Cable News channels, and Political ads….And word of mouth at work and in the bars

  10. I read The Globe every day, and they didn’t give it that much play (I don’t even remember reading the story though I think I saw it live) because there were a lot of other news stories that convention week (e.g. Clinton’s, Biden’s and Obama’s speeches), and Massachusetts held her primary election on Thursday, September 6th.

    It was also in the week following Labor Day, when most folks are concerned about Back to School for themselves or their family.

  11. Warren spoke to the people she needed to speak to — Democrats. She has been on the rise ever since the convention, and now Senator Zero is below 40% in the polls.

    Hey, where has Manila gone to? First Corey, now Manila.

Comments are closed.