TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 12 °C Saturday 25 May, 2013

100 days ahead of vote: Obama ahead but vulnerable

President Barack Obama appears to have a slight edge over Republican rival Mitt Romney – but issue of the economy continues to curb his popularity.

Image: Susan Walsh/AP/Press Association Images

WITH 100 DAYS to go before the US election, President Barack Obama appears to have a slight edge over Republican rival Mitt Romney, though he is still at the mercy of a stumbling US economy.

Polls show the Democratic incumbent’s lead is shrinking as voters lose faith in his ability to tackle crucial domestic issues, in particular the economy, as growth slows and the job market stubbornly refuses to pick up.

According to a Wall Street Journal and NBC poll published this week, only 36 per cent of American voters are confident Obama can improve the economy, while 43 per cent prefer Romney, a multi-millionaire former venture capitalist.

Unemployment at 8.2 per cent

Obama and his team have been hammering away at Romney’s argument that his business experience makes him the better choice to get Americans back to work, alleging that his firm often sacked US workers and sent jobs abroad.

But the attacks appear to have gained little traction with a pessimistic electorate. Unemployment is stuck at 8.2 per cent and is not expected to fall below 7.9 per cent by the end of the year, the White House acknowledged Friday.

Figures released by the US Commerce Department on Friday showed GDP growth in the second quarter slowing to 1.5 per cent from 2.0 per cent in the first, amid falling consumer demand.

Economists warn that growth of less than two per cent is not enough to make inroads into unemployment, and Romney’s economic advisors claim that their policies could quickly double the rate.

Sixty per cent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track, the Wall Street Journal poll found.

Obama slightly ahead

An average of national polls compiled by RealClearPolitics.com, a non-partisan website that tracks political trends, shows Obama slightly ahead of Romney overall, with 46.4 per cent of the vote to 45.1 per cent.

His lead has narrowed from 3.6 per cent at the beginning of July, even though polling expert Nate Silver of the New York Times, gives Obama a 65 per cent chance of being re-elected thanks to the lead he enjoys in certain key states.

In his speeches, Obama exhorts his followers to mobilize for what he warns will be a tight election. In fact, the WSJ and NBC poll found that only eight per cent of the electorate remains undecided at this point.

The campaign is likely to gather in intensity in August, and several key events in the coming weeks could still shift the momentun.

Romney must unveil his running-mate, Republicans and Democrats will hold nominating conventions at the end of August and early September respectively and televised debates have been scheduled for October 3, 16 and 22.

“What matters most is economic news over the next 100 days,” said Thomas Mann, an expert on the US presidency at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

“Every democratic government around the world faces a daunting challenge getting re-elected during these difficult economic times,” he told AFP.

But Mann said he was “impressed by the fact that Obama has maintained a small lead over Romney and job approval ratings just a few points under 50 per cent over the last months is spite of the economy.”

32 per cent ‘very negative’

Still, Obama has recently suffered a drop in his personal popularity. Some 43 per cent of voters responding to the WSJ and NBC poll said they had a negative opinion — 32 per cent of them “very negative” — of their president.

The decline comes amid an onslaught of aggressive Democratic campaign ads targeting Romney’s Swiss bank accounts and what they portray as a record of lost jobs at companies controlled by Bain Capital, the investment company he led.

The two camps have have pummeled each other on issues as diverse as foreign policy and support for small business. Romney accuses Obama of espousing a view of the economy that is “foreign to the American experience.”

For its part, the White House has mounted a deft counter-program to Romney’s current trip overseas, hailing the “special relationship” with Britain on Thursday just as Romney struggled with a gaffe over the Olympics in London.

On Friday, Obama signed a law strengthening US cooperation with Israel in an Oval Office ceremony that happened to be held just ahead of Romney’s visit to Israel this weekend.

On the campaign trail, Obama strategy has been to position himself as the defender of the middle class while lambasting his rival as an “outsourcing pioneer.”

He has campaigned heavily in states that could decide the outcome of the November 6 election, such as Ohio and Florida, to where he travels next week.

- © AFP, 2012

Read next:

Comments (67 Comments)

  • Barack Obama will be re-elected as US president in November 2012

    Reply
  • Note how Dom and John McGuirk are facebook friends, hmm…

    Reply
  • Obama has had a rough trot of it, having come into office as the financial markets imploded. His was never gonna be an easy job, but do it he did, and suffer the wrath of the ill informed and ignorant electorate majority he might, but a second term in office is when he can really enact real change. Most presidents try to use their second term in office to build their legacy. The first term is about playing it safe enough to get re-elected. I hope he gets another four years in office. He has been good for the public image of America, and it’s been a long time since a president has been just that. But having re-elected Dubya, I’d put nothing past the American voters…

    Reply
  • Obama a failure – true. Will Romney be a failure? Most likely.
    Only when the constitution is supported and USED will the country
    start to see some life injected into it.

    Reply
  • Go Romney??? That fella is another ‘Dubyaw’ in the making. I hope Obama gets his second term…

    Reply
    • With Obama it’s an Obamanation.

      Teach your kids to borrow money to solve their problems???

      And never pay it back! What school did he go to?

      Reply
    • Ken the economy is big and complex and not the same as the little life lessons you pick up here and there. Romney’s economic right politics are exactly the kind of nonsense that brought the US to where it is now.

      Whatever school Obama went to, at least it wasn’t the austrian or chicago school, proven failures.

      Reply
    • Noel O'D 28/07/12 #

      @Ken Harr

      Reply
    • Noel O'D 28/07/12 #

      @Ken Harris I would be interested to know how you could back up your claim. Can you cite a piece of legislation or a policy document or maybe an online newspaper report to support what you say. Something tells me you can’t and are a spoofer like so many others on here.

      Reply
    • So if it’s ok to refer to George Bush as ‘Dubyaw’ in an insulting fashion, shall we also refer to the current president as ‘Hussain’?

      Reply
    • Noel, do you seriously think the US state debt (bonds) sitting in Chinese and Asian treasuries will ever be repaid? Mr. Hussain is going to make a speech to inform the US citizenry that the taxes are going to go up and services will be cut because the good people of China want their money back? Do Chinese vote in the US elections? You seriously think that the administration is going to tax the voters to pay non-voters? Of course these debts will never be repaid – and that is the legacy of leftist and Keynesian economics. Devaluation of savings, ballooning of un-repayable debts and vendor-finance based economy. And yet you call Austrian school a failure?! That’s profound ignorance.

      Reply
    • “Dubyaw” was actually a bad president that did a lot of stupid shit, though. Obama had the misfortune of inheriting his mess, as well as a general global recession. I don’t think it’s fair to act like they’re the same, a lot of false equivalences get thrown around in modern politics and it really does destroy rational debate.

      Reply
    • ‘Dubyaw’ inherited Clinton’s mess. He turned the stocks bust into a property bubble. Obama is trying to turn property bust into another bubble by pumping money into economy but unfortunately there isn’t an asset class people want to buy any more. There isn’t a single area where Obama has excelled over Bush. The economy is shit, the foreign policy is confused and the domestic policy is no better. All Obama has got going is his ‘image’.

      Reply
    • limofax 28/07/12 #

      Dom, there you go messing with the facts again. Dubya eroded the tax base by introducing the tax cuts for the super duper rich while at the same time embarking on a massive hike in military spending so he could take america into a completely unjust war in Iraq, costing thousands and thousands of lives, all for Mickey Mouse reasons. Bush was some president alright.

      Reply
    • @Dom…Sheesh!

      Reply
    • What is this, now? I thought you were through discussing with me?

      Yes, Bush was not great on the expenditure front, and one can argue about the merit of the Iraq mission. But just look at this nobel-prize-for-nothing failure!! How many borrowed billions went into ‘stimulating’ the economy and still no result (which can only surprise a total economic ignorant)? And on the foreign policy front – what happened with all those nice promises? We’ll close Gitmo. Check. We’ll make friends with Ahmedinejad. Check. We’ll make peace in the Middle East. Check. The only foreign policy promise that Obama delivered was to bomb Pakistan. The only bloody ally in the region. Not to mention a complete lack of policy response on Libya, Egypt, etc.

      Reply
    • @Dom, why would it be insulting to refer to Obama as ‘Hussein’? That is his middle name after all. Do you think all people with ‘Hussein’ in their names are bad people?

      Reply
  • @ Dom Firstly I didn’t make any comment about Austrian schools. Secondly when Clinton left power the US and world economy were growing but hadn’t grown out of control. This happened during Dubya’s two terms when taxes for the wealthy were cut and financial regulation was non existent.
    Obama is attempting to pick the economy off the floor and to do this he has to create a fair tax system. This requires him taxing the wealthier in a way they weren’t previously.

    Reply
    • The manufacturing sector went into recession during the Clinton mandate. The economy first starts shrinking at the lower stages of production and then moves onto the services. In fact some economists have wondered at the very early stages of GWB mandate about the two-speed economy. Secondly, the financial industry was deregulated during Clinton mandate, nobody is arguing otherwise these days. Get your facts straight.

      Reply
    • Regulation was moderated during Clintons term but a blind eye turned to it by the Bush administration. Also if as you say the recession in particular sectors had begun towards the end of the Clinton presidency what did Bush do to turn it around………absolutely nothing is the answer. Just like the FF led governments here he threw petrol on the economic fire in Dubya’s case by way of tax breaks for the rich.
      Yes deregulation had begun in Clintons time but the economy was in surplus and it happened to allow the economy to grow. However Dubya took his eye off the regulation ball completely and the proof is there in the Libor scandal.

      Reply
    • What you mean, Bush did nothing? How did we get the properly bubble if it wasn’t for the administration’s policy? By 2003 the economy was back to ‘growth’. The same kind of growth we had during Clinton’s years – credit fueled bubble.

      But here comes the gem of the gems. You’ve ‘outsmarted’ limofax (which is quite an achievement given the depths of his ‘success’) – the Libor scandal is the proof of Bush’s deregulation. Wow! The scandal that originated in another country stemming from abuse by British banks of an index controlled by British Bankers Association using a mechanism which has been in place pretty much unchanged since 1986 is the fault of Bush! It is obvious that you and the rest of you pimple-faced mates here are completely clueless.

      Reply
    • limofax 29/07/12 #

      God love you Dom, you’re persistent, I’ll give you that. A bit like Forrest Gump.

      Reply
    • Limax, there is an old saying ‘don’t wrestle with pigs, you both get all dirty and the pig likes it’. Being a good conservative I believe that people are intrinsically good and that this old saying ought not apply. However, each time I meet a character such as yourself, I am becoming more and more convinced this saying is true. People like you do drag others dow to your level (in shit, to be bunt) and enjoy it.

      Reply
    • limofax 29/07/12 #

      Classy

      Reply
  • The American economy will not recover before the election because the super rich who control do much want the Republicans and their tax.cutting ways. Big business will probably dictate who the next president will be. Dangerous for us because what happens in America often influences politics here.

    Reply
  • Bush was a disaster in most measurable terms, he took a bad situation in the middle east and turned it into a clash of civilisations.he took the boom and bust cycle, and wether he is to blame or not; presided over the worst bust in 70 years. The jury’s still out on Obama but I think he will be elected to a second term. Health care has to be an achievement right? I mean less people dying because they cant afford to be treated has to be a good thing. Admittedly drones killing remotely isn’t a good thing,in fact it’s a terrible thing. That wont change with the next president. What I find depressing is the idea that an idea is ok or not depending on the political persuasion of the person espousing it. An idea should be looked at on it’s own merits, not as a missile in a pre determined mindset. Ps I have no bother with the right. Churchill great guy. Nixon, Misunderstood genius. IKE what can you say, kicked hitlers ass and warned us about the military industrial complex. Reagan even with his we can build bigger missiles than yours thing. But bush 11 was by any measurable standards a douchebag. There I said it.

    Reply
  • Noel O'D 28/07/12 #

    Regulation was moderated during Clintons term but a blind eye turned to it by the Bush administration. Also if as you say the recession in particular sectors had begun towards the end of the Clinton presidency what did Bush do to turn it around………absolutely nothing is the answer. Just like the FF led governments here he threw petrol on the economic fire in Dubya’s case by way of tax breaks for the rich.
    Yes deregulation had begun in Clintons time but the economy was in surplus and it happened to allow the economy to grow. However Dubya took his eye off the regulation ball completely and the proof is there in the Libor scandal. Regulation in a growing economy should be changed to recognize changed times when the economy overheard and heads on a downward slide, this was not done by Bush.

    Reply
  • At this point Carter lead Reagan by 7 points, Bush 1 lead Clinton, and John Kerry and Al Gore both led George W Bush. Obama’s approval is lower than any President who’s ever won re-election, and the economy is getting worse, not better.

    Also missing from this article is the fact that Romney can’t spend a cent of the money he’s raised for the General election until September. Obama’s outspent him 6-1 in June and July to cling to a narrowing 1 point lead. That’s going to change rapidly in the final two months.

    November 6th is going to be awesome.

    Reply
  • What’s more, while Obama is outspending Romney on a massive scale he’s not raising the money to back his spending, His campaign has been in the red for the last two months. They’ve taken the strategy of spending big up front on attacking Romney in the hopes that it will pay off later. Unless they have something more than “But what about Bain” in their bag and avoid more “you didn’t build that” gaffes then his campaign is in serious trouble when it comes to the final legs of the campaign. So far Romney is raising more and spending less, while maintaining similar favorability, than Obama and the pro-Romney PACs are raising and spending more more than Pro-Obama PACs.

    Reply
    • Does spending = winning?
      If so we have lost sight of what governing a country is really about.
      The purpose of government is to provide an environment in which the
      people can safely fulfill their lives. Not support special interests at the
      expense of others.
      Today it’s become buying favour – who’s got the most money wins???
      That gives Bankers an unfair advantage. Right?

      Reply
  • Go Romney.

    Reply
    • Yes go Romney because we all want a guy who managed a company whose business was buying up companies and asset stripping them making thousands upon thousands of people redundant before selling off the bits and pieces of the company that was left for vast profits as the next US President.
      Also the guy won’t support a healthcare bill that was similar to one he introduced himself – hypocrite.
      And just this week he made a fool of himself with his comments about the Olympics, would worry about his diplomacy skills in a serious way.
      So yes Romney for President……I don’t think so.

      Reply
    • Yes, we want that kind of guy. A kind of guy who knows how to manage things. Take a bad company, strip the fat and make it leaner and meaner (if you buy something, improve it and sell it with profit – you created value). And in relation to his ‘gaffes’ these are all a product of Murdoch and liberal dominated media in the UK, both of which shamelessly prefer Obama. What was the ‘gaffe’? He told there were some doubts regarding readiness – the UK media were full of this kind of stuff. They had to call in the army because security arrangements failed. Etc. It is all media b/s and you are the obvious result.

      Reply
    • Romney doesn’t exactly have a good track record as a job creator, you know. You’re believing another brand of media if you think otherwise.

      Reply
    • Dom, anything good on Fox news tonight? ;)

      Reply
    • limofax 28/07/12 #

      Dom, I think you’ll find that Murdoch owns Fox News, Roomney’s biggest supporters. He is also very, very conservative. So there you go, a couple of facts to brighten up your evening.

      Reply
    • The UK media owned by Murdoch was pro-Blair, pro-Obama and is again pro-Obama. Fox is a different target market. I did not say the UK Murdoch owned media is pro-Obama because they are Murdoch owned, I said Murdoch owned UK media are pro-Obama. This is a fact that can be easily verified, if you didn’t spend your energy engaging in logical fallacies.

      Reply
    • Leigh, I wonder if can you tell the difference between productive an non-productive jobs. Because we don’t need jobs. We need jobs that produce stuff. There’s a bit of a difference there.

      Reply
    • And I particularly liked the ‘gaffe’ when he called Ed Milliband ‘the Leader’. Rather silly of him. How can one address the Leader of the Labour Party and Leader of the Opposition as ‘the leader’?? Shame on you Romney.

      Reply
    • limofax 28/07/12 #

      Dom, take a chill pill man, you need to relax. Try to stop thinking of people as economic units. That’s the problem with all these Chicago/Austrian economics fans, they thrive on inequality and despite failing over and over again they just keep digging deeper and deeper into the abyss. It’s nice to be nice, you’ll find you won’t be as angry if you try it. As for Mitt “American Borat” Roomney, what he said really wasn’t the point, it was the fact he said it in the first place, on what he had been calling a “diplomatic mission”. He showed all the diplomacy of a shovel. He’s hardly presidential material and he won’t win either way.

      Reply
    • Limofax, you don’t seem very clued in. The Austrian school isn’t digging, their policy is unpopular and not followed by politicians conservative or otherwise. What is followed is Keynesian pump-priming of the economy with deficit spending and this is exactly the kind of digging which is about to bring down the US and the EU economies.

      Reply
    • limofax 28/07/12 #

      Dom. Nah you’re wrong. But keep dreaming man. I suppose in your case pride comes before a fall.

      Reply
    • And as far as your opinion on Romney is concerned, luckily the Americans are too smart to take the opinion of the arrogant Europeans seriously. They will not let the UK media or the Irish liberals run their election.

      Reply
    • I am ‘wrong’ and ‘dreaming’. Now that’s a well formulated argument. Well done.

      Reply
    • Americans smarter than Europeans? What?

      Reply
    • limofax 28/07/12 #

      Its impossible to argue with those who live in the land of make believe. Try Yoga, i think it might help you.

      Reply
    • Typical response of a loser. You’ve lost your arguments one by one and now it’s patronizing, make believe and yoga.

      Reply
    • limofax 28/07/12 #

      Sorry Dom, you lost, big time. I won, hands down. I would like to thank to parents, neighbours and all those who contributed to my success, you will not be forgotten.

      Reply
    • Your parents definitively contributed to your ‘success’.

      Reply
  • Rocco 28/07/12 #

    Let’s hope Romney does the business. Obama has proved a failure over the last 4 years.

    Reply
  • I’d love to have seen what responses Ron Paul would have gotten had he been made the nominee. America needs a third party. Republicans and Democrats just divide the nation to much and it seems the loony tunes in both sides control both parties.

    Reply
  • Noel. You must be kidding right? It’s all over the news. The USA is more and more in Debt!
    By the trillions. Don’t borrow, produce. that’s the way out of money trouble. Not a cap-in-hand begging from bankers. I don’t approve of begging and certainly the US does not need to beg.

    Reply
    • He’s not kidding, he is clueless. Reading his entries reminds of those TV shows when they ask 8 year olds what they think about some serious issue. Then you can hear stuff like “Regulation was moderated during Clintons term but a blind eye turned to it by the Bush administration” or “the economy was in surplus and it happened to allow the economy to grow”. I have no idea what ‘the economy was in surplus’ means. Perhaps he is referring the budget situation but then the whole argument is wrong because budget surplus does not cause the economic growth, it’s the other way around – economic growth (plus moderate government spending) results in a budget surplus.

      Reply

Add New Comment