As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Romney Goes Bouncy Bouncy

Gov. Mitt Romney is getting a solid post-convention bounce, with his numbers rising in the polls and new money filling his campaign’s coffers.

The Rasmussen Daily tracking poll, which uses a three day rolling average and now has two of its three days using post-debate data, gives Romney a 49-47 percent edge nationally. In Ohio, Obama leads by only one, 50-49 percent. Romney is up 49-47 percent in Florida and 49-48 percent in Virginia.

In the Gallup poll, which incorporates seven days of surveying, the numbers have just started to move back toward Romney, with the gap narrowing nationally today from five to three points, putting Obama ahead 49-46 percent. Obama’s approval rating declined two points, to 50 percent, while his disapproval rating rose two to 45 percent.

Meanwhile, the Romney campaign is putting out word that it raised $12 million in online contributions in less than 48 hours following the debate. The campaign says more volunteers are signing up and the crowds at the candidate’s events have grown, according to Fox News.

Romney was also filmed doing handstands in his hotel room in Denver following the debate.

Okay, not that last part.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

28 Responses to Romney Goes Bouncy Bouncy

  1. Up to the debate all the public had seen of Romney was the 30 second attack ads.. The debate was the first time they saw him for an extended period of time. Plus Obama did poorly..

  2. I have a product that’s been selling for four years and then my competitor introduces something similar but with a new twist. Now, after almost an $860 million dollar year-long advertising campaign to promote my product, the best my sales tactics can produce is a 50/50 share of the market, then my product is not popular with the public.

    Even if MrObama wins his re-election, half of his constituents don’t like him and won’t buy anything he’s selling. Of course, the same could be said for MrRomney, too. But, MrRomney’s ‘product’ hasn’t been tested yet and has a chance to become popular.

    $860 million dollars spent to convince Americans that BarackObama is the best man for the job and so far, it has failed to do so.

    • I agree, srdem. This election won’t be about who has the most money. In my opinion, Romney’s debate answers sealed the deal for a lot of people who had questions about his character and principles. Mitt Romney offered to help guide us back to constitutional principles in that debate, while all the empty chair offered was a continuation of the malaise that has plagued this country for the last four years.

      Most everybody in this neck of the woods have been talking about the debate. My husband took one of our older doggies in to have a tooth pulled the other day and our vet was talking about how Mitt kicked butt in the debate. I’ll take a wager that a heck of a lot more than 60 million people watched those debates. If you add in C-SPAN, PBS, Univision, and internet downloads, it could equal or surpass the Reagan-Carter audience.

      • Has anyone noticed that not one memorable quote emerged from the debate? I chose not to watch it, but it appears only to have been noteworthy insofar as Obama didn’t polish Mitt off. Otherwise, neither candidate appears to have distinguished themselves in any way.

          • Great video. Still, better to have a lackluster “annointed one” than the yawn-on-legs that is Mitt Romney. When O is sworn in for the second time, maybe then you will realize that it is not enough to simply hate the guy in power. You actually have to like the guy you chose.

          • BTW, as for your “presstitutes” remark (eye roll), I think in the age of the Internet, if something had been said that caught the public’s imagination, it would make he rounds through YouTube meme-ing. Apparently the only interesting part was the “uhs”.

  3. My understanding is that of the o’s millions, only 2% is reportable. He cheated so massively in 2008, not requiring security codes on credit cards, taking foreign money especially from the Arabs – and, as someone noted, giving away credit cards.
    I was thinking today how the world outside the US must be anticipating a win for the o. While bankrupting us, think of all the “free” money the world can look forward to.
    I still am not sure he is all that smart, and directing his own attack campaign. I haven’t seen any evidence of his brilliance. None.
    Without an obsequious media and teleprompters, he seems not a good bet for brilliance, neither short nor long-term. I still think someone’s running him.

    • Those pricey fundraisers sound like money laundering operations. I do understand those $3 raffles to win a lunch with Teh Won merely props up the “little people” numbers (and I HATE that Mitt does these too) and after the past 4 years, who throws good money after a failed President?

      Mitt was right, 47% will vote for him no matter what. Heaven help our country.

    • HOW VERY DARE YOU! Mitt once leveraged a hostile takeover of a moderately performing business and liquidated half its payroll to make millions of dollars in consulting fees! Do you honestly think he won’t work that magic for the taxpayer, too?!

  4. It was so good that people got to see and hear Romney with their own eyes and ears instead of having the media “interpreting” him for them. Dick Morris has an interesting post on how after the debates the MSM focused on what Obama did wrong and offered excuses for him (must have been worried about an international situation which the rest of us are unaware of–gag) but not saying anything about what Romney must have done right.

  5. Just watched a live-stream of Romney speaking in Apopka, FLA to a crowd of 6000. It’s a shame that FOX didn’t carry it – he was wonderful. No teleprompters, no notes! His kindness and sincerity shines through with his personal stories, of which there are many. Obama, OTOH, has no personal stories that he could share. The contrast between the shuck ‘n jive street hustler and the articulate, dignified, intelligent, well-bred Mr. Romney could not be more stark. I like him more each day.

    • Discussing US foreign policy in a partisan political debate doesn’t seem like a good idea considering the volatile and unstable MiddleEast and the European monetary crisis. Then there’s the Russian “flexability” issure, too.
      MrObama might have to be very careful what he says about anything and MrRomney might not be aware of ongoing negotiations.

      Can they even discuss the terrorist attack on 9/11, what they’d like to do about Iran and how does Israel fit into a long-term policy.

      .

  6. Thirty-two years ago I was a young college student working on the college paper. We talked our adviser, Dr. Bev. Pitts into allowing us to go to Cleveland, OH to cover the Presidential Debate between Ronald Reagan and President Jimmy Carter. The debate was October 28, 1980. After jumping through all the hoops for the Secret Service, we finally got credentialed to attend the debate. As a 21 year old college senior it was one of the biggest highlights of my college career. Five of us made the five hour drive to Cleveland, and sat in awe as we met and rubbed elbows with politicians, national reporters, and a host of VIPs in the reporters gallery. The debate, sponsored by the League of Women Voters had a huge food spread, and we five broke college kids stuffed ourselves.

    One of the main topics that was brought up was Social Security and Medicare. William Hilliard, from the Oregonian asked about SS and Medicare, Reagan’s and Carter’s responses sound the same as the responses that Romney and Obama put forth this last debate.

    MR. HILLIARD: Governor Reagan, wage earners in this country – especially the young – are supporting a Social Security system that continues to affect their income drastically. The system is fostering a struggle between the young and the old, and is drifting the country toward a polarization of these two groups. How much longer can the young wage earner expect to bear the ever-increasing burden of the Social Security system?

    MR. REAGAN: The Social Security system was based on a false premise, with regard to how fast the number of workers would increase and how fast the number of retirees would increase. It is actuarially out of balance, and this first became evident about 16 years ago, and some of us were voicing warnings then. Now, it is trillions of dollars out of balance, and the only answer that has come so far is the biggest single tax increase in our nation’s history – the payroll tax increase for Social Security – which will only put a band-aid on this and postpone the day of reckoning by a few years at most. What is needed is a study that I have proposed by a task force of experts to look into this entire problem as to how it can be reformed and made actuarially sound, but with the premise that no one presently dependent on Social Security is going to have the rug pulled out from under them and not get their check. We cannot frighten, as we have with the threats and the campaign rhetoric that has gone on in this campaign, our senior citizens – leave them thinking that in some way, they’re endangered and they would have no place to turn. They must continue to get those checks, and I believe that the system can be put on a sound actuarial basis. But it’s going to take some study and some work, and not just passing a tax increase to let the load – or the roof – fall in on the next administration.

    MR. SMITH: Would you repeat that question for President Carter?

    MR. HILLIARD: Yes. President Carter, wage earners in this country, especially the young, are supporting a Social Security System that continues to affect their income drastically. The system is fostering a struggle between young and old and is drifting the country toward a polarization of these two groups. How much longer can the young wage earner expect to bear the ever-increasing burden of the Social Security System?

    MR. CARTER: As long as there is a Democratic President in the White House, we will have a strong and viable Social Security System, free of the threat of bankruptcy. Although Governor Reagan has changed his position lately, on four different occasions, he has advocated making Social Security a voluntary system, which would, in effect, very quickly bankrupt it. I noticed also in The Wall Street Journal early this week, that a preliminary report of his task force advocates making Social Security more sound by reducing the adjustment in Social Security for the retired people to compensate for the impact of inflation. These kinds of approaches are very dangerous to the security, the well being and the peace of mind of the retired people of this country and those approaching retirement age. But no matter what it takes in the future to keep Social Security sound, it must be kept that way. And although there was a serious threat to the Social Security System and its integrity during the 1976 campaign and when I became President, the action of the Democratic Congress working with me has been to put Social Security back on a sound financial basis. That is the way it will stay.

    MR. SMITH: Governor Reagan?

    MR. REAGAN: Well, that just isn’t true. It has, as I said, delayed the actuarial imbalance falling on us for just a few years with that increase in taxes, and I don’t believe we can go on increasing the tax, because the problem for the young people today is that they are paying in far more than they can ever expect to get out. Now, again this statement that somehow, I wanted to destroy it and I just changed my tune, that I am for voluntary Social Security, which would mean the ruin of it. Mr. President, the voluntary thing that I suggested many years ago was that with a young man orphaned and raised by an aunt who died, his aunt was ineligible for Social Security insurance because she was not his mother. And I suggested that if this is an insurance program, certainly the person who is paying in should be able to name his own beneficiary. That is the closest I have ever come to anything voluntary with Social Security. I, too, am pledged to a Social Security program that will reassure these senior citizens of ours that they are going to continue to get their money. There are some changes that I would like to make. I would like to make a change in the regulation that discriminates against a wife who works and finds that she then is faced with a choice between her father’s or her husband’s benefits, if he dies first, or what she has paid in; but it does not recognize that she has also been paying in herself, and she is entitled to more than she presently can get. I’d like to change that.

    MR. SMITH: President Carter’s rebuttal now.

    MR. CARTER: These constant suggestions that the basic Social Security System should be changed does call for concern and consternation among the aged of our country. It is obvious that we should have a commitment to them, that Social Security benefits should not be taxed and that there would be no peremptory change in the standards by which Social Security payments are made to retired people. We also need to continue to index Social Security payments, so that if inflation rises, the Social Security payments would rise a commensurate degree to let the buying power of a Social Security check continue intact. In the past, the relationship between Social Security and Medicare has been very important to providing some modicum of aid for senior citizens in the retention of health benefits. Governor Reagan, as a matter of fact, began his political career campaigning around this nation against Medicare. Now, we have an opportunity to move toward national health insurance, with an emphasis on the prevention of disease, an emphasis on out-patient care, not in-patient care; an emphasis on hospital cost containment to hold down the cost of hospital care far those who are ill, an emphasis on catastrophic health insurance, so that if a family is threatened with being wiped out economically because of a very high medical bill, then the insurance would help pay for it. These are the kinds of elements of a national health insurance, important to the American people. Governor Reagan, again, typically is against such a proposal.

    MR. SMITH: Governor?

    MR. REAGAN: When I opposed Medicare, there was another piece of legislation meeting the same problem before the Congress. I happened to favor the other piece of legislation and thought that it would be better for the senior citizens and provide better care than the one that was finally passed. I was not opposing the principle of providing care for them. I was opposing one piece of legislation versus another. There is something else about Social Security. Of course, it doesn’t come out of the payroll tax. It comes out of a general fund, but something should be done about it. I think it is disgraceful that the Disability Insurance Fund in Social Security finds checks going every month to tens of thousands of people who are locked up in our institutions for crime or for mental illness, and they are receiving disability checks from Social Security every month while a state institution provides for all of their needs and their care.

    MR. SMITH: President Carter, you have the last word on this question.

    MR. CARTER: I think this debate on Social Security, Medicare, national health insurance typifies, as vividly any other subject tonight, the basic historical differences between the Democratic Party and Republican Party. The allusions to basic changes in the minimum wage is another, and the deleterious comments that Governor Reagan has made about unemployment compensation. These commitments that the Democratic Party has historically made to the working families of this nation have been extremely important to the growth in their stature and in a better quality of life for them. I noticed recently that Governor Reagan frequently quotes Democratic presidents in his acceptance address. I have never heard a candidate for President, who is a Republican, quote a Republican president, but when they get in office, they try to govern like Republicans. So, it is good fo the American people to remember that there is a sharp basic historical difference between Governor Reagan and me on these crucial issues – also, between the two parties that we represent.

    Complete transcript at http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-28-1980-debate-transcript

    In 1980, little did I realize that nothing much would change in the following 32 years. The debate and arguments about SS and Medicare sound the same today as they did on that cold and snowy night in Cleveland. I’m sure that when the debate about foreign policy occurs, it will sound the same as 1980.

    Obama truly is Carter 2.0

    • Thank you, Shofar. How exciting it must have been to be an active participant in what turned out to be such an historical event.

      The Reagan Foundation has the full Carter-Reagan debate posted on their YouTube channel. I watched the video before the Obama-Romney debate just to remind myself of the events of the time. Thirty-two years later…we’re older and greyer but the issues are hauntingly similar.

      http://youtu.be/_8YxFc_1b_0

      • Susan,
        You have no idea how much it impacted my life. I still have the credentials from the debate locked in my safe.

        I will say this, they did feed the reporters covering the debate with more food than I had seen in years. We all ate so much that I think we waddled to the car for the trip home. Imagine five guys in college, stuffed to the gills, trying to write up what the had just witnessed, making the five hour drive back to school in a beat up Toyota. The conversation, writing, and the odor is something I will never forget. And of course there was the one guy that kept wanting to stop for beer.

  7. 590570 41013As I web-site possessor I believe the content material matter here is rattling amazing , appreciate it for your efforts. You must maintain it up forever! Very best of luck. 368913