Poll finds Romney gains in Wisc. and Fla., not Ohio
Republican Mitt Romney gets a small bounce in Florida and Wisconsin for his choice of Paul Ryan as running mate, per Quinnipiac/CBS/NYT. In Ohio, president's lead is unchanged.
Poll finds Romney gains in Wisc. and Fla., not Ohio
Thomas Fitzgerald, Inquirer Politics Writer
Republican Mitt Romney got a meager “bounce” from his choice of Paul Ryan as running mate, but the challenger has cut into President Obama’s lead in Florida and Wisconsin among likely voters, according to the new Quinnipiac University/CBS News/New York Times poll of swing states released Thursday.
The president maintains a 51 percent to 45 percent lead in the Big Enchilada battleground of Ohio, which is unchanged from the first edition of the survey released August 1.
In the new poll, Obama was at 49 percent, to Romney’s 46 percent, among likely voters in Florida. That compares to a 50 percent to 41 percent Obama lead earlier in the month.
And in Wisconsin, the horse race stands at 49 percent for Obama, to 47 percent for Romney, an improvement for the Republican from his 45 percent to 51 percent deficit in the August 1 survey. Ryan, the House budget chairman, represents a southeast Wisconsin congressional district.
By margins of more than 4-1, voters in each state say that the federal Medicare program of health-care for retirees is worth the cost, and six in 10 voters say they want to keep the current system in place. Ryan is most known for his budget proposal that would convert Medicare partly into a voucher-supported private insurance program.
“Gov. Mitt Romney’s pick of U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate has made some small difference in Florida and Wisconsin, at least at this point, when voters in these three key states are asked about their presidential vote,” Peter A. Brown, assistant director of Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said in a statement.
“Voters, however, see Ryan in a more favorable light than they do Vice President Joseph Biden. And when voters assess the two running mates’ qualifications to become president, Biden is only slightly ahead in Florida and Ohio and slightly behind the seven-term congressman in Wisconsin. In fact, Ryan’s qualified/unqualified ratio is better than Biden’s.”
Most voters agreed with Romney’s core contention that the federal government, under Obama, is trying to do too many things that ought to be left to the private sector.
The detailed results of the three-state poll can be found here.
Of course Romney is gaining. The latest economic reports have the Country slipping back into a recession b/c the POTUS has no idea how to create biz. friendly environment. Obama is working directly for the Fortune 100 (and taking their campaign money) to try and kill every small to medium sized biz. out there to eliminate competition.— Professor1982- Hoover depression took 12 years to over come.
Bush depression will take at least 8 years.
Don't expect a country to go from loosing 800,000 jobs a month to gaining 250,000 jobs a month in just 3 years. Let me correct myself, Obama actually achieved the 1,000,000 job reversal, but he needs time to make that 250,000 job gains stable.— Seed - You give Bush too much credit. Bush didn't create the Recession, Clinton did when he 1) repealed the Glass Stegal Act and 2) allowed the private Central Bank to pour nearly $9T in "funny money" into the economy which we all know became the Internet Bubble. Just like Wilson in the 1913 when he deregulated the banking industry and legalized the privatley controlled central bank, the Central Bank poured cheap capital into the economy only to create massive destabilizing bubbles. Clinton, by repealing FDRs regulations stripped away all the safeguards which protected America from 1933 on thus setting up America for the 2nd Great Depression. — Professor1982
- Based on your logic I wonder if you are the father of your children or the last guy your wife slept with before your marriage.
You don't seen to share any responbility to the guy in charge :-)— Seed - A typical neophyte response when being shalacked in a debate. What next? You want to debate why "M3" isnt used by the "Fed" anymore to measure inflation??? Or would you prefer a competition you might be able to handle like a spelling bee? — Professor1982
- Nice attempt to try and change the topic. Checkmate. — Professor1982
- Professor, did you just read the Clff Notes on Glass-Steagall? The historical context is that the regulatory provisions of the act had ceased to be enforced (as they were orignally intended in 1930's) many years before the act was repealed in 1999 (see: Citibank merger with Smith Barney, 1998). Repeal of Glass-Steagall wasn't deregulation, because the Fed had ignored the regulations for years. Plus, macroeconomically speaking, are you seriously arguing that the world would be a better place if we regulated 21st-century financial institutions the way they were regulated 8 years before Pearl Harbor?
— 1980 - 1980 - You a dope. Glass Stegel prevented Banks, Insurance companies, and Investment banks from owning or having interesed in each other or their assets. Moreover it was put into place to protect FDIC insured banks from risk taking endemic to investment banks (hence why GM, AMEX, and about 1000 other non-banking financial institutions raced to be labeled "bank" so they could be bailed out by the FDIC). This was put in place as a "firewall" to prevent catastrophic meltdowns in the financial sector. Go back to community college and let the people with PhDs handle the heaving lifting. — Professor1982
- "You a dope" and "whose saying", huh? I hope that correspondence-school degree didn't set you back too much, cretin. It's hilarious, by the way, that you know everything there is to know about Glass-Steagall....except how to spell it (and, of course, the historical fact that the 1999 repeal of its previously-unenforced regulatory provisions had little or no practical impact). — 1980
- BTW, whose saying that banks should be regulated like they were "8 yrs before Pearl Harbor"???? I am saying re-instituting Glass Stegal and separating ownership and investment by FDIC insured deposit banks, insurance companies and investment banks is a pretty damn good idea. Hence why the US was so financially stable from 1933 to 1999. — Professor1982
- By the way, nitwit - you neglected to mention when "Clinton...repealed the Glass Stegal (sic) Act", he did so in his fiendishly clever disguise as Sen. Phil Gramm (R- TX) and Reps. Jim Leach (R- IA) and Thomas Bliley (R- VA), and by then sneaking the repeal measure (known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, amazingly enough) through a REPUBLICAN House and a REPUBLICAN Senate. How devious of Bill Clinton to disguise himself as 258 Republican lawmakers. — 1980
- No arguement there. But Clinton was President and he could have VETOED the bill. — Professor1982
- You: "Bush didn't create the Recession, Clinton did when he 1) repealed the Glass Stegal Act"
You again: "Clinton, by repealing FDRs regulations stripped away all the safeguards"
"Clinton... could have vetoed the bill"? Seriously? So the repeal is the responsibility of the Democratic president because he failed to protect a Republican senate and a Republican house from a bill co-sponsored by three Republicans?!
As I wrote a couple of times, you lack any knowledge of the historical context of the repeal. For somebody who refers to others as dopes, phonies and neophytes, you sure do strike me as a bit of a dopey, phony neophyte.— 1980 - Hey, prof 1984. Since you are so in favor of wall street reform, I'm sure you'll be backing president Obama this year. Stop trying to use Carl Rove jiu jitsu. You're punching yourself in the face. — PhillySteel36
You can reach Tom Fitzgerald at 215-854-2718 or tfitzgerald@phillynews.com.
Reach Thomas at tfitzgerald@phillynews.com.
