What does it mean if Mitt Romney leads President Obama by 24 points among veterans?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Right on the heels of Memorial Day comes a strong suggestion that President Barack Obama could have problems with military veterans in November.
A new Gallup Poll shows that veterans support Mitt Romney over Obama by a whopping 24 points - 58% to 34%.
Veterans make up about 13% of the population as well as almost a quarter of adult men. Pollsters say this large edge among veterans is a big reason why Romney leads among men overall.
Historically, Republican presidential candidates do better among veterans than Democrats. Both George W. Bush and John McCain carried the veteran vote, but Obama won veterans under 60 in the last election.
It's worth pointing out that another poll this month found the president leading Romney among veterans 44% to 37%.
Meanwhile, both Romney and Obama saluted the troops over the Memorial Day weekend.
The president honored the veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and those who "loved their country enough to sacrifice their own lives for it."
He talked about the importance of providing health care, benefits and education for veterans. His campaign has been highlighting the killing of Osama bin Laden, the end of the Iraq war and the push to wind down the Afghanistan war.
Romney addressed global threats at an event with Sen. John McCain. "I wish I could tell you that the world is a safe place today," Romney said, telling veterans that the United States must remain the world's top military power.
This year is the first election since World War II without a major candidate who is a veteran. And it's clear both men realize the power of this voting bloc.
Here’s my question to you: What does it mean if Mitt Romney leads President Obama by 24 points among veterans?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
How much faith do you put in polls?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
With more than five months to go before election day, there's one thing you can count on: the polls.
There will be polls. Lots and lots of polls.
Some of us in the media tend to hyperventilate about the latest polls, their significance, and what we can read into them. but it's worth remembering that sometimes, they're just numbers.
The Los Angeles Times has a smart piece that lays out some rules on how to be smart about the polls.
For starters, don't forget the limits of national polls.
While presidential elections are fought out state-by-state in the electoral college, most polls are nationwide. It's too expensive to keep polling all the battleground states individually.
So while national polls can be helpful, they may hide important changes at the state level.
Next up: don't obsess about small shifts in the horse-race numbers.
Small bounces in the polls for Pres. obama or Mitt Romney from week-to-week are likely a result of natural changes in the statistical sample. Instead - pay attention to what issues are moving voters.
Another hint: be skeptical of apparent big swings. They usually don't happen in the general election.
Also: don't mix apples and oranges.
Every polling organization does things a little bit differently, which could explain significant "shifts" in surveys done by different pollsters in the same state.
Lastly, this Los Angeles piece suggests it's wise not to set out looking for a poll that supports what you already think, "as the saying goes, some people use data the way a drunk uses a lamppost - for support rather than illumination."
Here’s my question to you: How much faith do you put in polls?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
Was it a mistake for Democrats to pick North Carolina for their convention?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Right about now, Democrats are probably wishing they hadn't picked North Carolina as the site for this summer's convention.
When President Obama selected Charlotte, North Carolina, more than a year ago, it seemed like a smart way to double down on a state that propelled him to victory in 2008.
North Carolina hadn't gone to the Democrats since Jimmy Carter.
But things have gone downhill – fast – in the Tar Heel State for Democrats, and the list of problems seems endless.
For starters, North Carolina voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage at the same time President Obama was saying he thinks it's a good idea.
Now gay rights activists want the convention moved out of North Carolina, practically impossible at this point.
Unemployment in North Carolina is 9.4%, far above the national average.
Plus, who dreamed this up? President Obama will give his convention speech in Bank of America Stadium. Perfect – not.
Then there are the unions, one of the Democrats' key voting blocs. They're angry and aren't in the mood to help fundraise.
That's because there are no unionized hotels in Charlotte. Also, North Carolina has the smallest proportion of union members and union membership in the country.
To top it all off, there are two sex scandals engulfing prominent North Carolina Democrats: the trial of former Sen. John Edwards and the ongoing investigation of the state party chair, David Parker.
The Obama political operation used to be better than this.
Here’s my question to you: Was it a mistake for Democrats to pick North Carolina for their convention?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 4pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
Joe Biden: asset or liability for President Obama?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Joe Biden's recent gay marriage gaffe is only the latest example of the vice president stepping in it.
And some are starting to openly wonder if Biden is the best running mate for President Obama in what is shaping up to be a close contest against Mitt Romney.
Republicans are making a strategy of targeting Biden, following him closely on the campaign trail in the hopes that he slips up.
A source close to Romney tells Politico that Biden is "a ticking time bomb. Who the hell knows what he's going to say?"
And another Republican describes the veep as "the chink in the armor" - someone likely to commit unforced errors.
Biden's off-script moments are legendary, from describing then-candidate Obama as "clean" and "articulate" in an interview to calling Obama’s health care reform a "big f***ing deal" on mic.
But Democrats insist Biden is the best surrogate for the president. He connects with working class voters in a way that the sometimes aloof president can't.
Also, Biden is a great attack dog who goes after Romney in a way Obama might not want to. Just yesterday Biden said Romney's time in private equity didn't qualify him for the White House any more than being a plumber would. Gotta love it.
Meanwhile if you listen carefully, the calls for a Vice President Hillary Clinton keep getting louder.
Clinton's approval numbers are through the roof, and some suggest that with Romney closing the gender gap and gaining among women, Obama should dump Biden for Clinton on the ticket.
It seems like a remote possibility, but stranger things have happened in politics.
Here’s my question to you: Joe Biden: asset or liability for President Obama?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 4pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
Are you better off now than you were three and a half years ago?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
It's the economy again, stupid; and this time around it just might sink President Barack Obama's re-election chances.
A new poll shows the president and Mitt Romney locked in a dead heat over who could better fix the economy, the top issue on voters' minds.
The Washington Post/ABC News Poll shows Obama with a three-point lead over Romney if the election were held today – 49% to 46%. But on handling the economy, the two are tied at 47%.
Despite the recent hoopla over other issues ranging from birth control to gay marriage, more than half of Americans say the economy will decide their vote. Issues such as health care, taxes and the federal deficit only rank in the single digits.
Late in the campaign in 1980, Ronald Reagan famously asked Americans: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
Turns out they weren't. There was a sudden 10-point swing in the closing days of the campaign, and Reagan defeated the incumbent Jimmy Carter in a landslide.
So how about in 2012? Some 30% of those surveyed say they are worse off financially today than when Obama took office in January 2009, only 16% say they are better off. This might make Obama-land nervous.
Obama's numbers on this question resemble those of George H.W. Bush. He lost his 1992 re-election bid in a rough economy.
However it's not all bad news for Obama. The poll shows voters are evenly split on who could better create jobs, and the president tops Romney on the question of who better understands people's economic problems.
Yet at the end of the day, many Americans might look in the mirror and ask themselves this question.
Here’s my question to you: Are you better off now than you were three and a half years ago?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 4pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
Is former President Carter an effective weapon in Mitt Romney's campaign against President Obama?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Mitt Romney is hoping Jimmy Carter can help him win the White House.
The likely Republican nominee has been comparing President Barack Obama to the former Democratic president on the campaign trail.
For example, when Romney was asked if he would have approved the bin Laden raid, he answered "even Jimmy Carter would have given that order."
And when talking about the economy, Romney described the Obama White House as "the most anti-small business administration... probably since Carter."
For many, the name alone evokes an incompetent, liberal commander-in-chief and a time of recession, inflation, unemployment, high taxes and gas prices, more government and a sort of national malaise..
And, as Politico points out, by framing yourself as Carter's enemy, you can try to make yourself Ronald Reagan. Brilliant. If it works.
Meanwhile Michael Barone suggests in a column on "Real Clear Politics" that the 2012 election could mirror what happened in the 1980 race between Carter and Reagan. There was a late break away from the incumbent that year.
Jimmy Carter actually led Ronald Reagan in the polls for much of the race. His job rating was kept higher by attempts to free the Iran hostages even though voters were unhappy with the economy and other issues.
But during a debate just days before the election, Reagan famously asked: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" Suddenly the polls took a 10 point shift in Reagan's favor. He won in a landslide.
Barone suggests that despite economic concerns and opposition to Mr. Obama's policies, voters might be keeping his ratings artificially high for fear of rejecting the first black president. They might change their support to Romney at the last minute.
Here’s my question to you: Is former President Carter an effective weapon in Mitt Romney's campaign against President Obama?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 4pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
Will President Obama's support of gay marriage cost him black votes?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
While President Obama's support for gay marriage is sure to fire up parts of the liberal base, it could alienate others - including black voters.
In other words, backing same-sex marriage might be a risky position for the president in an election year when it comes to one of his core voting blocs.
In 2008, African-Americans were crucial in making Mr. Obama the nation's first black president. Exit polls showed 96% of black voters supported him and they made up 13% of the electorate.
Fast forward four years: While polls suggest America on the whole is moving toward support of same-sex marriage, ABC/Washington Post polling shows 55% of black voters are still against it. That compares to 43% of whites.
And this opposition from blacks could hurt the president - particularly in the South.
Just this week in North Carolina, blacks voted two-to-one in favor of the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
North Carolina is a swing state where near-unanimous black support for Mr. Obama secured his 2008 victory.
So what if even some black voters in a state like North Carolina choose to sit this election out due to the president's support of same-sex marriage?
Groups on both sides of the issue like to compare gay marriage rights to the struggle for civil rights; but many blacks don't like that comparison. And black churches tend to see the issue in religious terms, with ministers playing a big role in the opposition to gay marriage.
While it's unlikely blacks will suddenly decide to vote for Mitt Romney over this, if some of them decide to stay home, it could make a difference in the outcome of the election.
Here’s my question to you: Will President Obama's support of gay marriage cost him black votes?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 4pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
Is President Obama simply using gay marriage for political gain?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Today's definition of political opportunism? Gay marriage.
President Obama has been in office for 3 1/2 years and has artfully dodged the question of whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.
Suddenly his vice president, Joe Biden, comes out publicly and says he doesn't see anything wrong with gay marriage.
And right away people want to know where the president stands.
Then the voters of North Carolina go to the polls and overwhelmingly pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Again the questions: Where does the president stand?
Suddenly at 3 o'clock this afternoon, after 3 1/2 years of not answering the question, Mr. Obama decides to take a position.
All of a sudden he thinks same-sex marriage is a good idea.
He's locked in what promises to be a close race against Mitt Romney.
So picking this moment to pander to the gay and lesbian community on the issue of same-sex marriage suits his political purpose, which is to be re-elected.
One of the major broadcast networks interrupts programming to breathlessly report that the president has decided that it's OK for same-sex couples to marry.
Pardon me if I don't hyperventilate over all of this. We have real issues in this country for which President Obama has been glaringly short on answers.
We have more than $15 trillion of debt, an unemployment rate that's an embarrassment for the largest free-market system in the world, a Congress that refuses to agree on whether it's daylight outside or not, and the country is supposed to come to a screeching halt because President Obama was pressured into taking a position on a wedge issue. I'll pass.
Oh, and at the end of the day, it's still up to the states.
Here’s my question to you: Is President Obama simply using gay marriage for political gain?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
How much does it matter if you like a candidate for president?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Voters "like" Barack Obama more than they "like" Mitt Romney - and that might be all it takes to decide the outcome of the election.
A new USA Today/Gallup Poll shows 60% of registered voters say that President Obama is likable. That's nearly double the 31% who feel that way about Romney.
Even among crucial independent voters, the president holds a double-digit edge.
So despite the fact polls show Romney and President Obama in a dead heat both nationally and in key battleground states - Mitt Romney is facing a huge likability gap here.
And it could cost him.
Consider this: In each of the last five presidential elections, the candidate the voters "liked" the most won.
When you put all the other issues aside, a lot of people vote for the guy who does a better job connecting with them on a personal level.
In 2004, polls famously showed undecided voters would rather have a beer with George W. Bush than John Kerry; and swing voters found Bush to be more of a "real person" than Kerry.
As for Romney, pollsters say this likability deficit presents a challenge for his campaign as it tries to shape his image.
They can either work on making voters see Romney as more likable or they can give up on likability and try to emphasize other areas where Romney is stronger than President Obama.
For now it doesn't look like Romney is hurting too badly on this issue since he's neck-and-neck with the president.
But he might be doing even better if he hadn't tied his dog to the roof of his car.
Here’s my question to you: How much does it matter if you like a candidate for president?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 4pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
Why do negative campaign ads work?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
When it comes to presidential campaign ads - it's already ugly out there. Very ugly.
A new study shows negative campaign ads in the race for the White House have skyrocketed since 2008.
According to the Wesleyan Media Project, 70% of presidential campaign commercials run so far have been negative. 70%. That compares to just 9% at this point in the 2008 campaign.
Experts say part of the reason for all this negativity is the "skyrocketing involvement of interest groups." Their activity is up 1,100% from four years ago. But it's not just the interest groups that are going negative. The campaigns are also to blame.
The study shows more than half of the ads put out by the campaigns have been negative, as well as 86% of the commercials put out by independent groups, like Super Pacs. That's a lot of trash talking.
These groups are dominating the airwaves, accounting for about 60% of commercials. The campaigns account for just 36% of the spots. Compare that to 2008 when virtually all of the ads in the White House race - 96% - came from campaigns.
We have the Supreme Court to thank for the outsized role of outside groups. The 2010 Citizens United decision allows for unlimited donations by corporations as long as they're made to groups independent of the candidate. Like Super Pacs.
Meanwhile with six months to go until the election, get ready for an onslaught of negative ads from both sides.
That's because even though voters say they don't like negative campaigning, the ads are effective. Experts say negative ads tap into emotions like anxiety, fear and disgust - that can push a voter away from a candidate.
Here’s my question to you: Why do negative campaign ads work?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments