|

Gallup: By 10-point margin, Americans say Obama is better than Romney for the middle class

Why am I not surprised at THIS?

Notice, too, that Obama and Romney are tied on the question of which would be better for small-business owners.

More Americans believe middle-income earners would be better off in four years if President Barack Obama is re-elected than if Mitt Romney wins, by 53% to 43%. The public also says lower-income Americans would be better off under an Obama presidency, while, by an even larger margin, they say upper-income Americans would do better under Romney.

Other groups that Americans believe stand to do well under Obama are racial and ethnic minorities, women, young adults, and senior citizens. Anywhere from 53% to 67% of Americans name Obama as better for these groups, compared with fewer than half picking Romney.

In addition to upper-income Americans, respondents to the Sept. 24-27 USA Today/Gallup poll believe that investors and men would fare better under a Romney presidency. Americans are evenly divided as to which of the two candidates would be better for small-business owners.

(Snip)

[I]t is not clear whether these strong special-interest-oriented associations are more helpful or harmful to either candidate. For example, some may consider Romney’s potential aid to investors as undesirable, while others could see it as a positive — believing that what is good for investors is in turn good for the overall economy. Similarly, the view that Obama would help lower-income Americans is likely considered positive by many, but could be interpreted as more negative by those who are leery of increased government involvement in redistribution of income.

Small business ranks as one of the most well-respected institutions  in the U.S. according to recent Gallup polling, and thus it’s notable that Obama and Romney are tied in perceptions of whose presidency would most benefit small-business owners.

Perhaps the most important of these groups for the candidates is “middle-income” Americans, as this represents the broad core of the electorate and, among income groups, is least strongly supportive of one candidate or the other. The fact that Obama has a 10-percentage-point edge over Romney in perceptions of the candidate who would be better for this group may help explain his current advantage in registered voters’ preferences for president in Gallup Daily tracking.

Share:

16 Comments

  1. Do you think they know about this?

    http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/01/pf/taxes/fiscal-cliff-tax/index.html?iid=Lead&hpt=hp_t3

    — American households face an average tax increase of $3,500 if Congress doesn’t act to avert the fiscal cliff, according to a new analysis from the Tax Policy Center.

    Overall, 88% of households would end up with higher taxes.

    That’s because a record number of tax increases — due mostly to the expiration of temporary provisions put in place since 2001 — are set to take effect starting in January.

  2. doc: And I suppose you think that none of this is the fault of the obstructionist Republicans in Congress, right?

  3. Do the Republicans in Congress hold some responsibility for the state of the economy?

    Sure.

    But what about the first 2 years of his term, where the President controlled both houses of Congress? Obama chose to make the irresistible power play for control of health care rather than focusing on the economy and jobs. The American people did not like the overreach and delivered control of the House back to the Republicans. That was undoubtedly a political (and economic) mistake by the Democrats and Obama.

    The President’s job is to lead. Leadership demands working with all of those at the table. If he was unable to get things done he is responsible. He is very good at passing the buck and blaming others.

    He is so good at the blame game that somehow(to date) he has convinced the American people that some small time, You-Tube movie maker is responsible for the deaths of American citizens, including a well respected ambassador in Libya last month. I wonder how long he can keep up that charade?

  4. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444592404578030202508251578.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

    The more serious question is why the administration alighted on the idea that the attack wasn’t a terrorist act at all. Also, what did the White House think it had to gain by adopting the jihadist narrative that a supposedly inflammatory video clip was at the root of the trouble?

    Nobody can say. All the administration will acknowledge is that it has “revised [its] initial assessment to reflect new information that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack.”

    That’s from James Clapper, the director of national intelligence. It suggests that our intelligence agencies are either much dumber than previously supposed (always a strong possibility) or much more politicized (equally plausible).

    No doubt the administration would now like to shift blame to Mr. Clapper. But what happened in Benghazi was not a failure of intelligence. It was a failure of policy, stemming from a flawed worldview and the political needs of an election season.

    Let’s review:

    The U.S. ignores warnings of a parlous security situation in Benghazi. Nothing happens because nobody is really paying attention, especially in an election year, and because Libya is supposed to be a foreign-policy success. When something does happen, the administration’s concerns for the safety of Americans are subordinated to considerations of Libyan “sovereignty” and the need for “permission.” After the attack the administration blames a video, perhaps because it would be politically inconvenient to note that al Qaeda is far from defeated, and that we are no more popular under Mr. Obama than we were under George W. Bush. Denouncing the video also appeals to the administration’s reflexive habits of blaming America first. Once that story falls apart, it’s time to blame the intel munchkins and move on.

    It was five in the afternoon when Mr. Obama took his 3 a.m. call. He still flubbed it.

  5. Your silence on many topics is deafening. But if you want me to say I disagree with the opinion you linked, then I do.

    Apparently most physicians agree with me as well.

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/01/survey-doctors-choose-romney-over-obama/

    new survey shows Mitt Romney with a commanding lead over President Barack Obama among doctors, with Obamacare helping to sway their votes.

    If the election were held today, 55 percent of physicians reported they would vote for Romney while just 36 percent support Obama, according to a survey released by Jackson & Coker, a division of Jackson Healthcare, the third largest health care staffing company in the United States

    Fifteen percent of respondents said they were switching their vote from Obama in 2008 to Romney in 2012. The top reasons cited for this change was the Affordable Care Act and the failure to address tort reform.

    (snip)

    Fifty-five percent of physicians said that they favored “repeal and replace” Obamacare, while 40 percent said “implement and improve”.

    A Gallup poll from July found that 46 percent of Americans feel Obamacare is more harmful than helpful to the economy; 36 percent responded the opposite.

    Obama has not emphasized his signature piece of legislation on the campaign trail.

    Romney has said that he will work to repeal Obamacare on the first day of office.

  6. doc: None of that crap has anything at all to do with the fact that Obamacare is based on ideas initially advocated by conservatives (who then turned against it because Obama was for it).

    The fact that most doctors oppose Obamacare also has nothing to do with anything. Lots of doctors are political dimwits. You’re living proof of that. For example, you’re supposedly a man of science, yet you enthusiastically support the most anti-science political party in the Western world.

    As for the lack of strong support for Obamacare among the general public, I’m not surprised, considering the falsehoods on this issue peddled by you and your Obamaphobic friends.

    Obama’s going to get re-elected, and efforts to repeal the ACA will wither on the vine as the law takes full effect and Americans find that they actually like it.

  7. Pat Cunningham finally admits that America is by it’s very nature a country of conservative values.

    Victory is mine.

  8. Neftali

    Pat is blaming Republicans for spreading falsehoods about ObamaCare. And yet, he overlooks the many falsehoods spread amongst the very Democratic leaders with stuff like:

    – ObamaCare will not increase the deficit
    – You can keep your existing insurance plan
    – It won’t raise taxes on the middle class.

    It still makes me cringe that there are people that actually still believe those statements.

  9. doc: Lunacy is yours, not victory.

    Where did I say that “America is by it’s very nature a country of conservative values.”?

    Answer: Nowhere did I say any such thing.

    You need a remedial course in reading (as well as a refresher course on all the science your party-mates so foolishly reject.

  10. I feel just that much smarter every time you call me stupid Mr. C.

    It is an absolutely sure sign that you have gotten under the skin of your friendly neighborhood liberal.

    YOU are the one who trumpeted the link that claims that Obamacare is really a conservative solution to health care reform (a bunch of bunk by the way).

    YOU are the one who claimed in this thread that “efforts to repeal the ACA will wither on the vine as the law takes full effect and Americans find that they actually like it.” (They won’t like it at all by the way).

    Well then, you are the one who has inferred that the American people are conservative by their very nature.

  11. doc: How obtuse can you get?

    My prediction that Americans eventually will embrace Obamacare was by no means a concession that “America is by it’s very nature a country of conservative values,” as you put it, despite the conservative roots of Obamacare.

    You’re just being silly.

    By the way, you’re misusing the word “inferred.” The reader or listener infers; the writer or speaker implies. I could not have implied that Americans “are conservative by their very nature” when I don’t believe they are. But you mistakenly inferred that such was my implication.

  12. I can only hope that I will be as smart as you someday. Thankfully I have decades to accomplish my goal.

    Or should I say build my skill set?

  13. Luke Fredrickson

    News flash for the “doc”… Health is a promise made to no man. Smarten up today.

  14. Liberals are so smart.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>