BEEF Daily

New Poll Indicates Readers Approved Of Romney In First Debate

RSS

Last week's presidential debate provided an interesting turn of events. While President Barack Obama is usually charismatic and smooth as butter, he seemed a little lackluster in his responses and his usual sharp wit was dimmed by Republican challenger Mitt Romney’s surprise performance.

My View From The Country Blog: Thoughts On Wednesday’s Presidential Debate

Obama does occasionally commit gaffes, but few have equaled his comment earlier this fall about business owners, when he said: “You didn't do that, somebody else made that happen.” Still, he didn’t seem his usual self as he stood opposite of Romney in Denver for the first official debate.

Meanwhile, Romney has been the media’s punching bag, with any missteps ceaselessly pounced on by mainstream media. Arguably, his worst gaffe came on a surreptitiously recorded statement before a small group of supporters a number of months ago: "There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right – there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing."

Until last week's debate, the national polls had indicated a very tight race with the momentum in Obama's favor. That's when Romney’s campaign was raised from its doldrums by his stunningly one-sided performance, perhaps changing the entire complexion for this election. I think a lot of the folks who are still on the fence about their ultimate election choice are taking a second look at what Romney is promising to do as a result of that performance. One popular aspect of his tax plan, for instance, calls for a permanent repeal of the death tax -- something that would be very appealing to America’s farmers and ranchers.

Industry Resource Page: Election 2012

With the 2012 presidential election just a month away, it’s crunch time for the candidates as they campaign across the country, promising to fix the economy and get the U.S. back on track. Political analysts are divided on the best ways to solve some of our nation’s problems, but many are saying it comes down to what role you think the government should play in our lives. Obama wants a more centrally managed approach, whereas Romney wants to allow states to take the lead and give business owners a little more wriggle room to thrive and thus grow the economy.

Watch the debate here.

This week’s poll at beefmagazine.com poses the question: “In your opinion, who won the presidential debate?” With 217 votes in so far, 92% of our readers say that Romney won the debate. Another 6% sided with Obama, and the final 3% aren’t sure.

Vote in the poll here.

What do you think? Does Romney’s big win in the first debate signal his eventual victory of the White House in November? Or, do you think the polls, which still favor Obama with the edge, continue to tell the story? How do you think each candidate’s plans will help or hinder the economy? Weigh in with your thoughts in the comments section below.

Discuss this Blog Entry 11

D. A. (not verified)
on Oct 9, 2012

Here's some logic typical of the kind that interprets political polls for use in campaign advertising: If 47% of Americans are looking for government handouts, then ninety-two percent of ranchers are westerners and Republicans. Based on these percentages, estimating that less than a tenth of a percent of Democrats own ranches or read and respond to this blog, Romney will surely win the election, as long as the electoral college vote trumps the popular vote as it did in 2001. The polls must show the race to be very close, or the major networks wouldn't be justified in raking in billions of dollars for campaign advertising that could be better spent rebuilding crumbling infrastructure, for example. Sorry for the cynicism; there are just too many sheep among the cattlemen of this country. Next time let's nominate someone who grew up farming or ranching and understands that agriculture was the basis of this nation's prosperity before most of its soils wore out, and that responsibility is still the basis of self-government at all levels.

Mike Armstrong (not verified)
on Oct 9, 2012

We know precious little about Romney, even when he’s shadowed by the media. The Public Relations industry, which basically runs the campaigns, makes sure that they keep away from "issues" (except in vague and obscure terms) and focus on "qualities" -- "leadership," "personality," etc. But even so, we get a pretty good preview of the etch-a-sketch candidate.

Looking beyond the debate appearances and focusing on content, researchers found that Romney, who was born to wealth and political power, may have cheated by using crib notes, and repeatedly lied during the debate. His net worth is reportedly $200 million, and his true base consists of the nation’s richest. He refers to middle income as “$200,000 to $250,000 and less”. He considers corporations to be people, and claims that he’s “not concerned about the very poor”. He claimed that his “…job is not to worry about” 47% of the people whom he would represent as president of the U.S. His plan for the Middle East? “…kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it." He wrote a New York Times op-ed in 2008 titled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," in which he said if GM, Ford and Chrysler got a government bailout "you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye". (The industry was not only saved but revitalized by the bailout). He claimed that he get’s “… speaker's fees from time to time, but not very much". He earned $374,000 in speaking fees in one year. He complained at a Beverly Hills fundraiser this year that passengers can’t open the airplane windows at 35,000 feet to get fresh air in case there is a fire in the cabin.

Romney is a spoiled child of privilege and power, entirely unprepared to deal with the calamities facing our world today of climate change, hostile countries, scarce resources, the disappearance of the middle class, and a class struggle that has led to extreme wealth running the world. He would aggravate each of these problems by pandering to the rich at the expense of the rest of the country. So don’t ask “Who made a better impact on the public in a made-for-TV pretend debate”, but who would be a better president. Romney is a disaster in waiting.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Oct 9, 2012

Mike Armstrong, do you grow grapes? You sure seem to be an expert in "whining".

When I read your opening sentence: "We know precious little about Romney", you immediately lost all credibility and needed to go no further in wasting type because you voted in '08 for a person who to this day is a "mystery meat" whom we have no idea as to who he is. Obama has spent millions to block all access to his past records thereby ensuring that we not only knew "precious little" about him.....we know NOTHING!

Mike Armstrong (not verified)
on Oct 9, 2012

Romney argues that his business experience would translate to more jobs for Americans. (In Massachusetts, during his term as governor, the state fell to 47th in the nation in job creation.)
Romney’s objective in business was profit – at the expense of everything and everyone else.
He laid off American workers and outsourced their jobs to other countries. And he and his partners made hundreds of millions of dollars while taking companies to bankruptcy.

Private-equity (PE) firms leverage companies up, slash costs to the bone, and then sell them. Simple formula. But the companies aren’t equipped to survive the long-term—they have to service their debt, and that often pushes them into bankruptcy. No matter for the PE firms—they’ve made their money.

And the fact that I don’t want Romney in office doesn’t mean that I voted for Obama in ’08 – you should not make such assumptions. We now know quite a bit about Obama. On the other writer's complaint that he's 'done nothing', how short can a memory be? He turned a disastrous economy on the verge of a global depression into a marginal economy and is undoing some of the damage by the past administration. As a supposed constitutional scholar, he has shown himself to be far too weak in protecting the rights and interests of US citizens, but Romney is in a completely different league: out-of-touch, incompetent and catering only to the wealthy.

As for what we don’t know about Romney:
An international conference is to convene in a few months to pursue a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East, supported by almost the entire world, including a majority of Israelis. But the government of Israel announced that it will not participate until there is a general peace agreement in the region, which is unattainable as long as Israel continues its illegal activities in the occupied Palestinian territories. So, we are moving steadily towards a(-nother) horrible war, possibly even a nuclear conflict.

Where does Romney stand? He wants to kick the football down the field and hope something develops. Not what I’d call leadership on what could be a nuclear war.

And what about climate change? Romney has become a climate change denier, because that’s now the side of the bread that has the butter. So, where does he stand? He just offers vacuous statements about “needing more data”. Not what I’d call leadership on the most pressing environmental problem since the emergence of our species.

If you stop listening to the sound bites and focus on where he would really take this country, you, too, will be frightened for the world your children will inherit.

Greg (not verified)
on Oct 9, 2012

i spent three years working in Detroit. GM should have filed Chapter 11 just to get compettive. Study up buddy. GM is still not doing well.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Oct 9, 2012

It is sad that the "debates" are supposed to have winners and losers rather than being information sessions.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Oct 9, 2012

Why would we re-elect a president who has failed to deliver any real improvement to this country in the past four years? President Obama's greatest "achievement" is Obamacare, a huge waste of money and time, as well as a forced burden on the American people. Why wouldn't we chose a candidate who has a proven track record in business? 16 Trillion in federal debt is more serious than anyone realizes, and its not morally right to hand this debt down to further generations.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Oct 10, 2012

Romney graduated with highest honors from Brigham Young University, and simultaneously earned an MBA and a law degree from Harvard.

Romney and Bain had an 80% success rate in private business (did Obama ever turn a profit on anything?). Bain Capital was invited by the companies it took over and managed to invest in them; there were no “hostile takeovers.” Romney and Bain Capital saved workers' jobs by saving dying companies, created more jobs when those struggling companies were turned around, and started behemoths like Staples, Sports Authority and Steel Dynamics.

As head of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Romney turned a potential loss (-$379M shortfall) into a +$100M profit. And he donated his entire Olympic Games salary and severance package ($1.4M) to charity.

He served as Massachusetts governor and turned Massachusetts' budget from red to black, from - $3.0 billion to +$2.16 billion; and he cut taxes 19 times.

Now what did the community organizer accomplish?

Mike Armstrong (not verified)
on Oct 10, 2012

By the end of Romney’s term as Governor, Massachusetts had lost more than 40,000 manufacturing jobs—a rate twice the national average. Yes, he cut taxes, but on the rich. He raised taxes on the middle class. He left Massachusetts with a $1 billion deficit, the highest debt in the nation on a per capita basis, driven by spending increases every year. As for Bain, profit was his only motive. Federal governments are not meant to be profit centers, but servants of the people.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Oct 10, 2012

Obama ad claim: "When Mitt Romney was governor, Massachusetts lost 40,000 manufacturing jobs, a rate twice the national average."

Between January 2003 and January 2007 (the first and last months of Romney’s term) manufacturing jobs in Massachusetts fell from 336,000 to 298,200 -- a drop of 38,000 and close to the number Obama’s campaign cited. The state’s manufacturing jobs fell 11.3 percent during that period, nearly twice the rate of the nation, just as the ad claimed.

Is Romney to blame? PolitiFact noted that the 11.3 percent manufacturing job loss under Romney was lower than the 16.7 percent reduction that occurred during the four years prior to his governorship. In the four years after Romney left the governor’s office, the manufacturing job loss was 15.1 percent, which was higher than the rate under Romney.

PolitiFact rated this ad claim Half True. Although the numbers are right, PolitiFact said it is a stretch to lay the manufacturing job loss at Romney’s feet.

Steve (not verified)
on Oct 10, 2012

I would recommend everyone watch the latest PBS Frontline documentary on the two presidential candidates. To me it explains why President Obama has failed and the true leadership qualities that are needed. It would be nice to get some common sense in both the future presidency AND congress.

Post new comment
or to use your BEEF Magazine ID
What's BEEF Daily?

BEEF Daily Blog is produced by rancher Amanda Radke, one of the U.S. beef industry’s top social media “agvocates.”

Contributors

Amanda Radke

A fifth-generation rancher from Mitchell, SD, Amanda grew up on a purebred Limousin cattle operation in which she and husband Tyler are active. She graduated with a degree in agriculture journalism...

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×