Obama is Losing Independent Voters

[Skip to the end]

this is telling:

Obama is Losing Independent Voters

By Scott Rasmussen and Douglas E. Schoen

Nov. 16 (WSJ) — A look at more detailed data shows why Mr. Obama’s ratings are likely to drop even further.

A CNN poll released Nov. 6 found that 47% of Americans believe the top issue facing the country is the economy, while only 17% say its health care. However, the bulk of the president’s efforts over the past six months have been not on the economy but on health care, an issue in which he continues to draw negative ratings.

In a Rasmussen Reports poll taken after the House of Representatives passed health-care reform by the narrowest of margins last Saturday night, 54% of likely voters say they are opposed to the plan with only 45% in favor. Furthermore, in the all-important category of unaffiliated voters, 58% oppose the bill. That’s one of the reasons why so many moderate Democratic House members opposed it.

The CNN poll also shows that in addition to health care, a majority of Americans disapprove of how Mr. Obama is handling the economy, Afghanistan, Iraq, unemployment, illegal immigration and the federal budget deficit. Put simply, there isn’t a critical problem facing the country on which the president has positive ratings.

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll conducted from Oct. 22-25 found that the president’s personal ratings have suffered a similar decline. His rating for being honest and straightforward has fallen eight points from January to 33% and his rating for being firm and decisive has fallen 10 points to 27%.

Even more fundamentally, a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted from Oct. 15-18 shows that the president has now reached a point where less than a majority of Americans believe he will make the right decisions for the country.

Deficit reduction and reining in spending are critically important priorities for the vast majority of the electorate. Indeed, according to a Rasmussen Reports Poll conducted at the end of last month, voters say deficit reduction is most important and health care is a distant second.

Moreover, according to a poll released by the Kaufman Foundation in September, a plurality of voters (32%) think the federal government should cut tax rates on payrolls and businesses to stimulate employment, particularly at a time when unemployment is at double-digits. Mr. Obama campaigned on tax cuts for 95% of the American people, but according to a Rasmussen Reports poll released in mid-August, just 6% of likely voters expect to get a tax cut. Over 40% of respondents believe that they will get a tax increase.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Obama is Losing Independent Voters

  1. Winslow R. says:

    Geithner and Summers saved Obama from Wallstreet.

    Who will save him from Mainstreet?

    As to the upcoming Job Summit this December….

    “Krugman has not yet received his invitation from President Obama to be part of the Job Summit but indicated that it would be “revealing” if he didn’t get an invitation. ”


    I wouldn’t expect Warren to be given an invite given his challenger status in 2012 :)


  2. Vipul says:

    “voters say deficit reduction is most important and health care is a distant second.”

    “just 6% of likely voters expect to get a tax cut. Over 40% of respondents believe that they will get a tax increase.”

    So basically voters have no idea what’s going on, or what’s good for them. 95% of voters did already get a tax cut in the stimulus (albeit pathetically small). Tax increases in the pipeline look to affect only the top few percent of the income spectrum and are years away. And of course, we need more deficit spending, not reduction.


    zanon Reply:

    VIPUL: Obama has shown he does not give tax cuts to the little people, instead he heaps money on those connected to him, such as Goldman Sachs, and unionized autoworkers, etc.

    Have sympathy for those who did get a tax cut not notice. I think it was about $250 per household, which comes out to $20 a month or so.

    Obama has also been very clear that taxes will increase in the future.


    vipul Reply:

    Nothing I said contradicts what you said, or vice versa.

    Obama is clueless, the Bush administration that started the Goldman Sachs giveaway was also clueless, the Senate which shrank an already too small stimulus was clueless. Voters who are more worried about deficits than reforming a deranged and inefficient health care system are also clueless.


  3. warren mosler says:

    “And so I think that the federal reserve, who understands how things work, should be buying assets like stocks, bonds, REITS, commodities etc. inorder to get money into people’s hands. Inferior but doable!”

    buying finanical assets at market prices doesn’t do that.

    quantitative easing does nothing for demand.

    and while you haven’t defined free banking based on the definitions i’ve seen they are all dysfunctional at best.


    Floccina Reply:

    Wouldn’t the Fed buying stock, bonds and other assets push up asset prices which will make people richer and spend more?


    Floccina Reply:

    This is purely theoretical and academic but it seems to me that in a free banking system where the money has the bank’s name on it would people would not try to hoard cash in a crisis? (I am assuming broadly asset based money rather than metal based money as it seems to me that was the direction that Scottish free banking was evolving.) If the bank who’s money I hold is found to have made bad loans I will try to spend that money and get money from other banks. If all banks made bad loans I think that the money stays relative to the value of underlying assets. I might try to buy assets but since money is very useful wouldn’t I be forced to accept the money of relatively strongest banks. Today with the full faith and credit of the federal government behind it people think of USA money as a real asset rather than just pieces of paper. They even hoard cash in a crisis (except for the few gold bug who are now buying gold). They think of demand deposits the same way, solid as the federal government and so hold more cash that they should. In free banking things would be more relative. Land petroleum and metals might take the place as a low risk store of wealth. In the current system people are badly confused about money and wealth.

    Could it not be possible that the relative strength of people faith in cash is problematic. People seem to have too strong a belief in little pieces of paper. Consider that people seem to think that we can borrow from the future if we use too much little pieces of paper and leave a debt of little pieces of paper to our grand children. The pieces of paper do not matter real wealth matters. As for me I will take shares in KO and KO’s ability to obtain real wealth in the future over pieces of paper but I at least have thought about these things most people have not.

    Again this is very theoretical as there is practically zero chance that we move to free banking. There is a better chance that we move to Post-Keynesianism.


    warren mosler Reply:

    when the money has the bank’s name on it there is no deposit insurance and if the bank fails the depositors and note holders lose as well.

    this has proven to be far to chaotic in theory and practice.

    warren mosler Reply:

    yes, if they drive the financial asset prices up prices higher than they would have been, the extra fed spending due to the higher prices the fed paid might help some through that channel.

    But the fed also earns interest on those financial assets that the private sector used to be earning when it held them, so private sector interest income drops by that amount.

    I think that may be the larger force and it’s a negative.


  4. Floccina says:

    Seeing that macro economics and banking is not easy to understand and seeing that the politicians must please the median voter (that same voter who is very worried and resentful about Government debt). Government in the USA, the first major democracy, should never have gotten involved in money and banking and we could have had a free banking system. But seeing where we are today, I think that the federal reserve and quantitative easing, as inferior a tools as they may be, is the better hope. People are more accepting of randomness in the market rather than in Government that they see as funded with their tax dollars.

    Now we could say a FICA tax cut would be good, but the Democrats have prospered by the fraud that SS is some kind of retirement investment and they see a lowering of the FICA tax as politically weakening the program. Republican have prospered by convincing people that SS is underfunded and will somehow go broke, that is laughable but people believe it and vote on it! On they other hand since lower income people do not pay the income tax, you will lower the income tax only over the Democrat’s dead bodies. Other taxes are also untouchable Democrats love the corporate tax and any tax seen as being on business, Democrats love the tobacco tax and both parties love the alcohol tax, Democrats adore the gasoline tax and always want to raise it.

    The politicians would not do what you propose even if they undestood that it was teh best thing to do.

    And so I think that the federal reserve, who understands how things work, should be buying assets like stocks, bonds, REITS, commodities etc. inorder to get money into people’s hands. Inferior but doable!

    BTW There are plenty of reasons for people to resent Government spending in hard times. Government jobs are highly sought after (e.g. 12% of letter carriers have college degrees – a US Post Office job is like very highly paid semi retirement) they often go to those with some kind of political pull. Government jobs pay well and deliver date of hire to grave security with great hours, great benefit, longer vacations and great working conditions. People see government employees not working hard (my service at the post office is almost always bad and forget the IRS) and so the resent that in bad economic times the government employee do even better their wages never fall even in an inflation. Further much of Government spending is wasteful and corrupt.

    And so non-government workers will say we have to cut back, Government should have to cut back.


    Matt Franko Reply:

    The Feds latest z.1 shows that the “Household Sector”‘s ownership of MBS has shrunk from a peak of over $800B last year to just $129B as of the end of June, while the Fed has been buying $1T+ of MBS. So maybe in this way the Fed has been buying investors assets.


Leave a Reply

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


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>