Rasmussen: Public Now Virtually Split on Stimulus; Support Among Independents Craters

"I won," he miscalculated.

Forty-two percent (42%) of the nation’s likely voters now support the president’s plan, roughly one-third of which is tax cuts with the rest new government spending. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 39% are opposed to it and 19% are undecided. Liberal voters overwhelmingly support the plan while conservatives are strongly opposed. Last week, support for the President’s plan was at 45% and opposition at 34%.

...

Over the course of the past week, there has been little change in the views of either Republicans or Democrats towards the legislation. Seventy-four percent (74%) of Democrats support the plan along with just 18% of Republicans. Both those figures are up just a single point from the previous poll.

However, support among unaffiliated voters has fallen. A week ago, unaffiliateds were evenly divided on the plan, with 37% in favor and 36% opposed. Now, 50% of unaffiliated voters oppose the plan while only 27% favor it.

The Democrats were out of the White House long enough the public began to forget why they had long mistrusted them. They're being reminded.

Needless to say, full steam ahead on Republicans finally acting like Republicans. The polling is good political news, obviously. People tend to become invested in their opinions, so if a lot of independents currently feel that the "stimulus" is a waste of money and won't help the economy much and might hurt it, they will be resistant to changing that opinion when the economy recovers, as it of course will (at least at some point). Obama's going to have a hard time persuading them that resodding The Mall did the trick.

Republicans can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh? Okay. How about Democrats can't just listen to Robert Reich and Paul Krugman?

I had mixed feelings on Republicans proposing their own alternative -- hey, the Democrats usually didn't, preferring simply to snipe, so why break tradition? But they did, and they seem pleased with their work:

House Republicans have proposed an alternative that leaders say would create 6.2 million jobs for only $478 billion.

"What Member can't go back his or her District and explain: Rather than voting for a bloated bill, ... I voted for an alternative that would create twice the jobs at half the cost, and faster?" a House Republican leadership aide said. "That's why we didn't lose a single Republican and picked up 11 Democrats."

Here's Obama's counteroffensive:

Pushing back against the unanimous House Republican vote against President Obama’s stimulus plan, the White House plans to release state-by-state job figures “so we can put a number on what folks voted for an against,” an administration aide said.

“It’s clear the Republicans who voted against the stimulus represent constituents who will be stunned to learn their member of Congress voted against [saving or] creating 4 million jobs,” the aide said.

Not really all that effective. The public already knows we're in an economic catastrophe to rival the Great Depression (!!11!!!ELEVENTY!!!). This is known. This is baked into the cake.

What is not known is whether the Reid-Pelosi-Obama Budget Blowout Bonanza will help or hurt. Simply underscoring the dimensions of the greatest financial crisis of almost one hundred years does not do anything to advance the argument that the Reid-Pelosi-Obama plan is better.

I don't know the figures -- but with a trillion dollars to play with, what kind of a temporary break could the government give to businesses as far as their contribution towards the payroll tax? What percentage? It seems to me that if we want to create (or "preserve") jobs, jobs, jobs it might be smart to do so fairly directly by reducing the costs of hiring or keeping workers, at least for a few years.

Both items ripped from the headlines. Of Hot Air, of course.

Welfare for Illegal Aliens? Why Not? How does this help Michelle Obama's children?

posted by Ace at 01:46 PM

| Access Comments