.

Patch's Poll: Would You Vote For Obama or Romney if the Election Were Held Today?

The latest poll shows Obama still has a lead among Connecticut voters in the presidential race, although that lead is slipping when compared to the 2008 election.

President Barack Obama still has a pretty solid chance of winning Connecticut this November.

But, according to the latest poll information, his margin of victory might not be as great as it was back in 2008.

According to the latest Public Policy Polling Institute numbers, 51 percent of voters in Connecticut said they would vote for Obama if the election were held today, versus 43 percent for the presumed Republican candidate, Mitt Romney. Six percent said they were unsure.

The 8-point lead would clearly mean a victory in this state, although that’s a significant drop when compared to Obama’s victory in Connecticut back in 2008. That year, he won the race here by 23 points against John McCain, the PPP pointed out.

The polling agency has a full breakdown here, including how Obama is doing among different racial and economic demographics.

So, with the latest data out, it’s time we do our own polling and find out where our Patch readers stand.

If the 2012 presidential election were held today, who would you vote for? Barack Obama or Mitt Romney? Take our poll and share your thoughts in the comments.

legalcitizen August 05, 2012 at 11:51 AM
robert Bracer i do drive a bus and also served in our united states military how about you? hope you can be as prous of yourself as my dad is of me...loser
Daria Novak August 05, 2012 at 01:20 PM
@BillCash - just politely asking for a clarification. Are you saying the US court system ought to accept Sharia law in our courts when you stated "Oklahoma is passing laws prohibiting shariah laws in our courts."? I wasn't sure if you objected to using this foreign religious law.
Bill Cash August 05, 2012 at 02:20 PM
I'm saying it's not a problem. There's no danger of that law being used in our courts. It's an irrational fear being used by politicians to keep the people afraid and controllable. This message board is making me sad. The rich in this country have long used a divide and conquer policy keeping each set of people whether by race, sex, religion,, etc fighting against each other. Any blog or message board today shows just how successful this policy is. I was attacked by Omar for being intellectually inferior because I said Texas is rewriting their textbooks to minimize Thomas Jefferson's role in our history. It's true. I just see people insulting each other and keeping emotions inflamed, rather than rationally discussing the problems. Omar implied that I live here because the state provides for all my needs. Omar doesn't know anything about me but he is willing to make these wild hypotheses. I'd be interested in a sane discussion. Peter Cianelli should be proud that his daughter serves a useful purpose and that shouldn't be the basis for an attack. I don't agree with Peter's comments because he is making unsubstantiated claims but if we have a discussion, it should be about that. I only have respect for what his daughter does.
Ivan Chelmford August 05, 2012 at 03:01 PM
First, let's be factual. Who was it that put the economy in the state it is in? Not Obama. He was handed a debt that no one could conceivably balance in three and a half years. Ronald Reagan put us in a financial hole by 1988 that resulted in the biggest debt this country had ever experienced. Bush senior couldn't fix it. So he got the boot. Clinton came in and balanced the budget. Balanced it! Something the pessimistic far right insisted could never happen. Junior Bush came in and within a year we were, as predicted and frankly expected, in a war that would cost over a million dollars a day. One, in which Colin Powell told the entire country would cost 70 billion dollars to succeed. Well, as we all know it put us in far greater debt than anticipated. Tell me exactly in stated facts where our liberty is legitimately threatened? Certainly not by any politicos. It is threatened by the corporations who control everything. Look it up. . God bless the United States Of America.
Bill Cash August 05, 2012 at 03:28 PM
Ivan, thanks for trying to bring the discussion down to a level of what actually happened. Perhaps it can lead to something productive. I know people idolize Reagan but the deficit did triple under him. It'd be interesting if people looked at charts (which I've done) about when the deficit increased the most. I believe they'd be shocked.
Daria Novak August 05, 2012 at 04:25 PM
@Bill - Sariah law is being used in, I believe, courts in 17 states. Tim Robinson, writing in The Nation, talks about being an attorney and personally involved in over 100 cases where Shariah law was involved in the court case. Below is a quote from Atlasshrugged2000 web site and there are plenty more of these types of cases: "Luckily, the appellate court overturned this decision, and a Sharia ruling by an American court has not been allowed to stand. This time. "Cultural Defense Accepted as to Nonconsensual Sex in New Jersey Trial Court, Rejected on Appeal," by Eugene Volokh in The Volokh Conspiracy, July 23 (thanks to CameoRed)...Sharia in New Jersey: Muslim husband rapes wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex." A federal appeals court in Denver in January stopped an Oklahoma state constitutional amendment which would have banned the use of Islamic law! Due to space I will post the next part in a separate post about Sharia. We must be watchful.
Daria Novak August 05, 2012 at 04:29 PM
Steven Frank's wrote this in 2011 in Sharia Law Deciding American Court Cases on his blog. "In parts of this nation, American laws are no longer the controlling factor.Stay away from Michigan, many parts are now using Sharia religious law and you could become a victim. ““Shariah Law and American Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases,” published by the Center for Security Policy, is one of the most comprehensive studies I have ever seen. It covers more than 600 pages of material. The following summary statement is shocking: Our findings suggest that Shariah law has entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy. Some commentators have said there are no more than one or two cases of Shariah law in U.S. state court cases; yet we found 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate published cases... we found 15 Trial Court cases, and 12 Appellate Court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in the case at bar... some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with Constitutional protections. This is a serious issue and should be a subject of public debate and engagement by policymakers.” We already have three U.S. supreme court Justices committed to using foreign laws in determining U.S. cases.–Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan." We can't afford not to notice when the Constitution and our rights are challenged today.
Bill Cash August 05, 2012 at 04:46 PM
Daria, Yes, when there are contracts involved, foreign laws sometimes have to be considered in court cases but nowhere is shariah law written as part of our court system. Shariah isn't the only foreign law to be considered in court cases. As Abad Awad wrote in the Nation, he described cases where shariah law was upheld because of the contract but also gives this description. Finally, in a more recent case I was involved in, a state judge declined to recognize a Syrian court order that would have transferred the custody of a child to her father because of the mother’s remarriage. The judge reasoned that remarriage alone is not sufficient to transfer custody. Far from deferring to judgments from foreign countries, US courts regularly refuse to recognize such orders due to the constitutional and due-process implications. I will finish in a 2nd post.
Bill Cash August 05, 2012 at 04:47 PM
To consider contracts in law suits is perfectly reasonable. The true story of Sharia in American courts is not one of a plot for imminent takeover but rather another part of the tale of globalization. Marriages, divorces, corporations and commercial transactions are global, meaning that US courts must regularly interpret and apply foreign law. Islamic law has been considered by American courts in everything from the recognition of foreign divorces and custody decrees to the validity of marriages, the enforcement of money judgments, and the awarding of damages in commercial disputes and negligence matters. It is the judge's role not to let it conflict with our constitution. We do allow religious freedom and our fundamentalists would be horrified if we tried to control their beliefs and practices through the law even though some of those practices are pretty terrible.
Barbara Liston August 05, 2012 at 04:54 PM
excellent, Bill, I'm enjoying your intelligent, thoughtful comments.
Bill Cash August 05, 2012 at 05:02 PM
The Center for Security Policy and Atlas Shrugged are right wing ideological groups far more interested in pushing their ideology than in providing the truth. They frequently mix grains of truth with their ideology to prove their points. Frank Gaffney founded the Center and he has accused Grover Norquist of having ties to radical, islamist groups. Gaffney called on the United States military to "take out" the Al Jazeera news network for inciting violence against the Western world. He is way out there.
Kendall Svengalis August 05, 2012 at 07:19 PM
Bill, Thanks for revealing your source. The "Nation" has a long and storied history as one of the most radical, even subversion, publications in America. During its 20th century history, it supported Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, and Ho Chi Min. It published the likes of Soviet apologist Walter Duranty who argued that ‘purge’ meant ‘to cleanse’ in Russian, and that a house cleaning was all Stalin intended. During the government-induced famine in the Soviet Union in the 1930s, he was an ardent defender of the Stalinist regime, arguing that “There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be." Finally, a Pulitzer Prize committee is weighing whether the Pulitzer awarded to Duranty should be revoked. In 1974, the “Nation” editorialized that: “The evidence is that in Cambodia the much-heralded blood bath that was supposed to follow the fall of Phnom Penh has not taken place." Whoops!
Kendall Svengalis August 05, 2012 at 07:20 PM
The "Nation" published pieces by Noam Chomsky which argued that one million Cambodians had been predicted to die, due largely to conditions left by "the US war." By the time he was done, of course, communist genocidal dictator, Pol Pot, had massacred between 2 and 2.5 million of his own people. In its defense, the “Nation” has shown remarkable consistency over the years in defending brutal and dictatorial regimes and advancing radical left political causes. Over the years, it has been a rich source of “useful idiots” in this country who helped perpetuate the communist control over the Soviet Union and captive nations of the Eastern Bloc, until Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Pope Paul, and Lech Walesa helped bring it down. More recently, the Nation denied that Saddam Hussein had killed as many as even 300,000 people. (the actual total was closer to one million). I would much rather get information from a freedom-loving source like “Atlas Shrugged” than from a known source of leftist lies and duplicity. Yet, thanks for revealing your sources. Now, we know where you’re coming from and why you defend the most radical president in American history. Does Ivan read the “Nation,” too?
Bill Cash August 05, 2012 at 07:49 PM
Kendall, the Nation is only one of my sources. Actually a lot of good journalism has come out of there. I read the National Review too. Is that evil? You will have to point out something socialistic from Obama and don't point to the Affordable Health Care Act because that's all based on private insurance companies You make a lot of accusations and have many facts incorrect. Calling people names doesn't impress me at all. It just lowers the level of conversation. Here's what Grover Norquist said about Frank Gaffney: Norquist later wrote an open letter, accusing Gaffney of "racial prejudice, religious bigotry [and] ethnic hatred," calling Gaffney a "sick, little bigot.... His whole life screams of bigotry, and what he said is just part of a pattern..Do you know who Norquist is? Actually, the Nation hasn't defended nearly as many dictators as the conservatives here have. They didn't defend Saddam but they did oppose the war. They knew he was a brutal dictator. Atlas Shrugged is a conspiracy center. You are buying into all their conspiracies. There were many about Bush but I didn't buy into them.
Kendall Svengalis August 05, 2012 at 07:55 PM
Those who want to know more about Obama’s radical upbringing should read Paul Kengor’s estimable and well-researched book “The Communist.” It explains in riveting detail from whom Obama got his nebulous “Hope,” “Change” and ”Forward.” Slogans. Hint: his name is Frank. You know, the guy Obama mentions 22 times in “Dreams from My Father,” but later excised from the audio book after David Axel Grease told him to sanitize his act. Also check out The People’s Cube, another great web site by Russian immigrant Oleg Atbashian: http://thepeoplescube.com/ Atbashian has the great insights of one who has seen socialism up close and can report, contra Lincoln Steffans, that “it doesn’t work.”
Kendall Svengalis August 05, 2012 at 08:14 PM
I read a lot of sources too, but the "Nation" is not one I take seriously. Its track record over the 20th century is abysmal. Defending regimes out of a sense of real politik is not the same as defending a genocidal regime like Pol Pot. The Affordable Health Care Act is the greatest power grab in American history. The 2,700 pages in the law will pale next to tens of thousands of pages of regulations promulgated by unelected bureaucrats, which is exactly what Obama and the Democrats intended., to remove decision-making beyond the reach of electoral politics. Comparing that to private insurance companies is ludicrous. Congress didn't read it, and Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass it first, which shows you where the Democrats were coming from. If allowed to stand, Obamacare will transfer control away from Congress, just as many of Obama's 990 Executive Orders. It's called the Europeanization of America. Read the "New Road to Serfdom" by Daniel Hannan to comprehend how much democracy and national sovereignty has been undermined under the EU's elites. That's where we're headed under Obama. "Liberalism" is anything but liberal these days, but statist to its core. And nobody's calling names, but stating facts. Your facts are wildly inaccurate. Yes, I know who Norquist is, and don't defend what he said. Do you know who Bill Maher is? I could go on about all the foul-mouthed leftist name calling, often directed at politicians' children, which is beyond the pale.
Bill Cash August 05, 2012 at 08:18 PM
I also read the Council of Foreigh Relations, the Economist, Ross Douthat, Jonah Goldberg, Paul Krugman and many others. I also read many books, including many history books. I see you are in the right wing spin room and buying into all their conspiracy theories. I'd suggest you broaden your reading and include more than right wing authors. I'm not against everything the right wing says but I don't pay much attention to Fox or LImbaugh because they make up their facts. Canada won't let Fox News in because they demand that news programs broadcast the truth and Fox doesn't meet that requirement.
Kendall Svengalis August 05, 2012 at 08:38 PM
I read Paul Krugman, too, but don't treat him seriously. He's more ideologue than economist. You know, he's the guy who argued that we should have doubled the "stimulus." and, in effect, flushed twice as much down the rat hole. I guess, he failed to notice that when politicians spend "stimulus" money, they often direct it to their friends, like those in cash-strapped states suffering deficits from overly generous unionized state-employee salaries and benefits. All one has to do is remember Obama's promise of "shovel-ready" jobs, a promise echoed by all of Connecticut's Congressional delegation. It was, we now know, all a lie. Only 6% of the money went to construction projects. The same lie was peddled in Democrat districts all over the country in an effort to buy votes. That's your modern Democrat Party. You have to stop peddling your party line. It's not working.
Bill Cash August 05, 2012 at 08:56 PM
I could have sworn you called Axelrod a name. Kendall, Kendall, Kendall, the private insurance companies are running the ACA. The government has laid down some guidelines, like they have to spend 80 cents of each dollar on healthcare rather than million dollar salaries and bonuses. They won't be able to turn down people for pre-existing conditions, it eliminates lifetime limits. These are rules to help people who are powerless before these companies. The people still have complete freedom to choose doctors and what care they want. Where in the world did you get the number 990 executive orders. He's actually done 134 and Bush did 291. Go read Kendall and don't just read the right wing. I didn't think we were talking about Cambodia and Pol Pot but I scanned the Nation and just about everything referred to him as a mass murderer. I know Chomsky attacked our government for our actions there. My facts are not wildly inaccurate. I can back up everything I say. Bill Maher is a comedian, wake up!
Kendall Svengalis August 05, 2012 at 09:01 PM
For a great expose of Barack Obama's communist mentor by historian Paul Kengor, go to: http://www.heritage.org/events/2012/07/the-communist You can hear his speech at the Heritage Foundation. This IS the man sitting in the White House.
Bill Cash August 05, 2012 at 09:04 PM
Ah, Kendall you are fun. Krugman had predicted just about everything that happened. The reason so little went into shovel ready jobs is because the Republicans demanded a large percentage be tax breaks. Most economists estimate that the stimulus saved or created over 2 million jobs. You can look that up Kendall, some estimates are higher. By the way here's how the stimulus was spent: Just over $200 billion in tax cuts, about $300 billion in direct spending on projects and other aid to states, and just under $300 billion in social safety-net spending through items such as extended unemployment benefits and health insurance subsidies.
Kendall Svengalis August 05, 2012 at 09:20 PM
Bill, Bill, Bill, wake up. You have been brainwashed by left-wing propaganda. Obamacare, will do nothing to lower the cost of health care and everything to lessen access to care, and drive physicians out of the practice. Are you aware that 80% of doctors have considered getting out of the profession? It failed to solve the problem of third party payers which is driving health care costs upwards, address the inability to purchase polciies across state lines, enact tort reform, or fix the unfairness of the tax code that puts those buying health insurance with after-tax dollars at a disadvantage. For years, the latter was one of the first things health care reformers were calling for and it was ignored by this legislation. It also mandates overly inclusive coverage and unconstitutionally forces people to buy health care. Obama's solicitors couldn't even figure out whether it was a tax or a fee. And, you may remember, it was going to pay for itself. It took plundering Medicare and the doctor fix to fabicate that charade initially and force it through Congress with all sorts of crooked payoffs to Senators in individual states. Now, the 10-year cost is estimated at $1.76 trillion. Other estimates based on CBO estimates put it at $2.6 trillion. The fact that it fixed a few problems, does not mitigate its disastrous consequences. It must be repealed and replaced. You have been led along a primrose path of self-deception. You're only fooling yourself.
Bill Cash August 05, 2012 at 09:26 PM
You have bought into all the right wing propaganda. Nothing is all good or all bad but you guys on the right present everything you disagree with as all bad. I can't reason with that type of logic. The CBO has predicted that it will bring down costs and they are highly respected by both side of the aisle.
Kendall Svengalis August 05, 2012 at 10:53 PM
This IS fun, Bill, sort of like shooting fish in a barrel. You’re the perfect example of the old adage that a little knowledge is dangerous. In your effort to defend an indefensible economic record, you are missing the big picture. Not only has the nominal unemployment rate gone up to 8.3%, but the long-term unemployment rate has risen 100% from January 2009 to June 2012 (2.6 million to 5.3 million), according the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Look it up. At a time when he should have been focusing on job creation, Obama pushed his ideological agenda instead, including wasteful stimulus, failed “green” jobs, Obamacare, regulatory overreach. Even his cap and trade plan, which was rejected by Congress, was implemented through the regulatory process. Higher energy costs and compulsory unionism added to the weight on the economy. He has exacerbated the situation by extending unemployment benefits which has the negative consequence of causing the unemployed to wait until their benefits to run out to rejoin the labor force (just as the European experience has demonstrated for years).
Kendall Svengalis August 05, 2012 at 10:56 PM
Employment gains are anemic under Obama. Moreover, the percentage of adults employed is at its lowest level since 1981. The real (U6) unemployment rate is 15%. In CT, unemployment is headed back up, from 7.8% to 8.1% (May to June). At this stage in his presidency, Reagan was creating jobs at a rate double that of Obama (3.3 million between Jan. and Oct., 2004, or about 300,000 per month). Both started with a bad economy, but Reagan also had inflation of over 11% (the misery index was 19.5% when he took office). Under Reagan, the economy grew by an average of 5.6% for the first three years from the bottom of the recession. In addition, unemployment dropped by 3.8 points, and inflation was by two-thirds. Under Obama, the three years of economic growth have yielded only a 2.2 average growth rate, and trending downwards to 1.5% in the 2d quarter. With the current size of our economy, we should be creating jobs at the rate of 400,000 to 500,000 per month at this stage of the recession. All this adds up to continued economic malaise. Obama can no longer blame Bush. It’s HIS economy now. The big difference is that Reagan pushed policies to spur the economy, including 23% across the board tax reductions, and indexed tax rates to inflation, and was business friendly. None of this is surprising. Obama was raised by Frank Marshall Davis (look it up) to hate capitalism and, when off teleprompter, his real sentiments emerge for all the world to hear.
Bill Cash August 05, 2012 at 11:00 PM
Kendall, you are so misinformed,it's impossible to have a dialog with you. If you ever want to have a discussion about finding a common ground, let me know but my experience with the right wing is that there is no middle ground. Have you ever looked at a chart about how many jobs were being lost? You display no knowledge about it at all. You think it's like shooting fish in a barrel because you sre so misinformed from the right wing echo chamber. Like i said, if you ever want to find a common ground, let me know. You look at everything in black and white when I see many shades of gray but I suspect I've lived a lot longer than you and have experienced much more of life.
Bill Cash August 05, 2012 at 11:01 PM
BTW is that your real name?
Bill Cash August 05, 2012 at 11:07 PM
Randall, as usual your facts are wildly skewed into some story of how wonderful Reagan was,. He tripled the deficit. Prior to the current recession, the deepest post-World War II economic downturn occurred in the early 1980s. According to the accepted arbiter of the economy's ups and downs, the National Bureau for Economic Research, a brief recession in 1980 -- lasting only six months -- and a short period of growth, were followed by a sustained recession from July 1981 to November 1982. The unemployment rate hovered between 7% and 8% from the summer of 1980 to the fall of 1981, when it began to rise quickly. By March 1982 it had reached 9%, and in December of that year the unemployment rate stood at its recession peak of 10.8%. The jobless rate slowly receded over the next few years, falling to 8.3% by the end of 1983 and to 7.2% by the 1984 presidential election. The unemployment rate did not fall below 6%, however, until September 1987.
Bill Cash August 05, 2012 at 11:51 PM
Randall, do me a favor. You are obviously a very smart guy. Go experience the world with an open mind. Visit Europe with the goal of having a good time. Go to Turkey and enjoy the people. Go to Malta and see history and understand what happened there. Read the other side with an open mind. I have learned things from the Kagans and the Krystols. Read and experience but keep your mind open to what everyone is saying. Don't get locked in by the right wing. Their fuel is hate and they hate things that are different or have different beliefs or look different. Please, don't get locked into that. Read Thomas Jefferson. His mind was incredible, much better than anything I see now. Look at science with an open mind. the scientists are doing wonderful things and aren't out to rip us off. Do you really believe any of these conspiracy theories could withstand a peer review? Of course, they couldn't which is why they don't try. You are very smart, use your mind. Bill
dave August 07, 2012 at 09:35 PM
ivan ivan ivan, clinton wanted to do exactly what obama has done, but was stopped by the american people by voting out the dems is congress. clinton then moderated and worked with the republican congress who held the line on spending, welfare reform and balanced budgets. dont you remember the govt being shut down over spending levels. as far as mr reagan, he more than doubled revenues but had to deal with a democratic congress. you do know how our govt works? congress spends the money, of course mr reagan did sign the bills and compromised with tip oneal. reagan set the table for the growth we saw in 80s 90s and 2000s. can you please show me how mr bushs policies caused the housing bubble to burst? the bankruptcy of lehman brothers and the price of energy to rise? you do know mrs pelosi and mr reid were the heads in congress by then, right?

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something