......................................
Voters blame Bush more than Obama for the economy
By Holly Bailey
Voters are increasingly displeased with President Obama's handling of the economy, but a new poll finds most Americans still think George W. Bush is responsible for the nation's dismal financial state.
According to a new Quinnipiac poll, 54 percent of those surveyed say Bush is responsible for the "current condition" of the economy, compared to just 27 percent who blame Obama. Among self-described independent voters, a key 2012 voting bloc, the number shifts slightly: 49 percent point the finger at the former GOP president, while 24 percent blame Obama.
Supporters of Obama's re-election will no doubt view the number as a good sign for the president's bid for a second term. But they shouldn't get excited yet.
Polls over the last year have consistently found that voters continue to blame Bush more than Obama for the struggling economy. Yet Obama and Democrats have consistently struggled to translate that displeasure with Bush into a vote against GOP candidates.
But that could be changing. While Obama's approval rating on the economy is nothing short of dismal—just 38 percent approve—the Quinnipiac poll finds more Americans trust the president on the issue than the GOP congress, 45 percent to 38 percent. Meanwhile, 48 percent of those surveyed say they will blame the GOP congress if a debt deal isn't approved, compared to 34 percent who say they will blame the Obama administration.
Those aren't great numbers for Republicans who are likely to face just as much political peril as Obama in 2012 if the economy doesn't improve over the next year.
The Quinnipiac poll also finds major support for one of the concessions Obama has called for in the debt deal: 67 percent say any deal on the deficit should also include tax increases on the wealthy and corporations, in addition to spending cuts.
......................................
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Personally, I would like to see a third party boil up to the surface that combines principles from both of the current brands. It would be better to have things split essentially three ways, but the herd is tough to redirect. I must say that I do find it awfully suspicious the way that election results are always consistently so close.
Bush started the fire but Obama isn't the gifted firemen we could all use right now. What are the odds that any people of that caliber would even be offered up for vote in the first place? The way I saw it before he was elected was even if he fucked up as bad as Bush he would at least sound a deal better doing so.
Nothing?
I finally started talking some turkey.
I am legitimately interested in your opinion even if it's that you think I'm an asshole.
We are among friend here.
My concern is that if a third party emerges, we'll end up with yet another brainless "Tea Party", whether it's to the right or to the left, legitimate or illegitimate.
*I* think we need an honest political party. I believe that the close election results that bother you are due to party dishonesty, especially Republican dishonesty. As long as this dishonesty exists, why would a decent person want to become a candidate?
If the TEA Party is truly an independent party, why are their votes counted with the Republicans in Congress?
If they dispute the Republicans, should their not be a separate vote count and if the Democrats out-total each the GOP and the TEA, then the Democrats win?
Post a Comment