WN: The Data Behind Romney's 47% Comments - Wall Street Journal

[WorthyNewsBot]

In his comments to fundraisers captured on video, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said 47% of Americans would almost automatically vote for President Barack Obama because they were "dependent" on the government, in part because they received government benefits and paid no federal income taxes.

http://www.worthynews.com/top/blogs-wsj-com-washwire-2012-09-18-the-data-behind-romneys-47-comments-/

[nebula]

Romney needs to speak these things himself.

The mainstream media won't, and few people read this resource.

[Steve_S]

The original story is by the Wall Street Journal. Worthy needs to make that clear or else this is plagarism,

http://blogs.wsj.com...ys-47-comments/

I personally have no desire to see combat troops pay taxes on their combat pay. The elderly have already been taxed on many of their benefits. Romney is correct that there are 47% that pay no income taxes....tho a good chunk of those people do pay federal payroll taxes.

And what party is it that is the one who always wants to cut taxes?

I think Romney should also see who these people are and where they live. A large number of them are retirees living in the swing state Florida. The red states/republican voting states have higher concentrations of the 47% than the blue states. Way to secure your base Mitt.

See the map of which states the 47% are living....aka...red states.

http://www.theatlant...e-taxes/262499/

The link takes you directly to the Wall Street Journal story, so no, it's not plagiarism.

Also, he has a valid point. If you receive any sort of social benefits from the government you are more likely to vote for a candidate that is going to keep your benefits coming. This is at its base wealth redistribution. This is one reason that the government shouldn't be in the business of passing out benefits OF ANY SORT, because politicians are basically buying votes by promising to keep giving them money or to increase their benefits. What's the difference in a politician literally saying "if you vote for me I will give you money out of my own pocket" and "if you vote for me I will give you money that the government taxed?" There doesn't seem to be much of a difference to me at all.

[Burning_Ember]

Romney needs to speak these things himself.

The mainstream media won't, and few people read this resource.

Doubling down on comments like this is going to lose him the election. He should start saying smart things instead. Insulting your voting blocks is not a good way to win.

[Steve_S]

The original story is by the Wall Street Journal. Worthy needs to make that clear or else this is plagarism,

http://blogs.wsj.com...ys-47-comments/

I personally have no desire to see combat troops pay taxes on their combat pay. The elderly have already been taxed on many of their benefits. Romney is correct that there are 47% that pay no income taxes....tho a good chunk of those people do pay federal payroll taxes.

And what party is it that is the one who always wants to cut taxes?

I think Romney should also see who these people are and where they live. A large number of them are retirees living in the swing state Florida. The red states/republican voting states have higher concentrations of the 47% than the blue states. Way to secure your base Mitt.

See the map of which states the 47% are living....aka...red states.

http://www.theatlant...e-taxes/262499/

The link takes you directly to the Wall Street Journal story, so no, it's not plagiarism.

Also, he has a valid point. If you receive any sort of social benefits from the government you are more likely to vote for a candidate that is going to keep your benefits coming. This is at its base wealth redistribution. This is one reason that the government shouldn't be in the business of passing out benefits OF ANY SORT, because politicians are basically buying votes by promising to keep giving them money or to increase their benefits. What's the difference in a politician literally saying "if you vote for me I will give you money out of my own pocket" and "if you vote for me I will give you money that the government taxed?" There doesn't seem to be much of a difference to me at all.

All that may be true. The point is you don't win elections by insulting half the electorate, especially when they live in the states you need to win.

Personally, I don't have a horse in this race so I am pretty much an interested onlooker.

All I have left to say is that the Republicans had better candidates to choose from and they ended up with Romney. They are paying the price for this situation. Look at how many Republicans are distancing themselves from Romney.

I think that those 47 percent were highly unlikely to vote for him anyway. If you follow the daily tracker on sites like rasmussen you'll see that. Romney and Obama are battling for about a 7 or 8 percent swath of middle class swing voters who generally DO pay federal income taxes. I'm not saying that this was his most intelligent comment or any such thing as that, but I am saying that I don't think it will cost him in the end. He's been dead even with obama on the most reputable polling sites for the past 3 months (rasmussen has been within a percentage point of accuracy in the past 3 general elections, this is an exemplary track record and this is why I follow them almost exclusively for polling purposes).

The real crux of the matter is that we aren't going to have a really good idea of anything until the debates. We haven't seen these two directly contrasted with each other on the same stage yet and I think it's important to hold judgement until that point unless a major scandal were to break (this is definitely not one). Historically, obama should lose (8 percent unemployment alone is a death knell for a president, not to mention sub 50 point approval ratings, a sitting president has never overcame these sorts of numbers). Having said that, history only usually repeats itself, but not always, so we'll see.

[Steve_S]

The original story is by the Wall Street Journal. Worthy needs to make that clear or else this is plagarism,

http://blogs.wsj.com...ys-47-comments/

I personally have no desire to see combat troops pay taxes on their combat pay. The elderly have already been taxed on many of their benefits. Romney is correct that there are 47% that pay no income taxes....tho a good chunk of those people do pay federal payroll taxes.

And what party is it that is the one who always wants to cut taxes?

I think Romney should also see who these people are and where they live. A large number of them are retirees living in the swing state Florida. The red states/republican voting states have higher concentrations of the 47% than the blue states. Way to secure your base Mitt.

See the map of which states the 47% are living....aka...red states.

http://www.theatlant...e-taxes/262499/

The link takes you directly to the Wall Street Journal story, so no, it's not plagiarism.

Also, he has a valid point. If you receive any sort of social benefits from the government you are more likely to vote for a candidate that is going to keep your benefits coming. This is at its base wealth redistribution. This is one reason that the government shouldn't be in the business of passing out benefits OF ANY SORT, because politicians are basically buying votes by promising to keep giving them money or to increase their benefits. What's the difference in a politician literally saying "if you vote for me I will give you money out of my own pocket" and "if you vote for me I will give you money that the government taxed?" There doesn't seem to be much of a difference to me at all.

All that may be true. The point is you don't win elections by insulting half the electorate, especially when they live in the states you need to win.

Personally, I don't have a horse in this race so I am pretty much an interested onlooker.

All I have left to say is that the Republicans had better candidates to choose from and they ended up with Romney. They are paying the price for this situation. Look at how many Republicans are distancing themselves from Romney.

I think that those 47 percent were highly unlikely to vote for him anyway. If you follow the daily tracker on sites like rasmussen you'll see that. Romney and Obama are battling for about a 7 or 8 percent swath of middle class swing voters who generally DO pay federal income taxes. I'm not saying that this was his most intelligent comment or any such thing as that, but I am saying that I don't think it will cost him in the end. He's been dead even with obama on the most reputable polling sites for the past 3 months (rasmussen has been within a percentage point of accuracy in the past 3 general elections, this is an exemplary track record and this is why I follow them almost exclusively for polling purposes).

The real crux of the matter is that we aren't going to have a really good idea of anything until the debates. We haven't seen these two directly contrasted with each other on the same stage yet and I think it's important to hold judgement until that point unless a major scandal were to break (this is definitely not one). Historically, obama should lose (8 percent unemployment alone is a death knell for a president, not to mention sub 50 point approval ratings, a sitting president has never overcame these sorts of numbers). Having said that, history only usually repeats itself, but not always, so we'll see.

You might want to fact check your Obama approval rating info.

Also, check the swing states polls. Those are the ones that count.

Also, people like my 86 year old WWII vet father typically vote republican. My father was shocked to learn that although he worked over 50 years, served in all 5 major European campaigns in WWII including Normandy and the Battle of the Bulge, he is a moocher who needs to take responsibility. Guess who he has decided to vote for?

Individuals change their mind back and forth frequently so I typically tend to discount any given individual with regards to this sort of thing.

Also, as a matter of fact, as far as the swing state tracking, rasmussen does a daily swing state tracking poll as well (as I stated before, they were right on bush both times and obama, within a percent) and they currently showing romney at 47-46 in that poll as well. I'm not a republican or a democrat and I don't believe romney would be much better than obama, so I don't really have a dog in this hunt, I do enjoy elections for pure historical insight, though, and it would be incredibly shocking if obama were to win in the end unless unemployment were to turn drastically. This is in and of itself one of those issues that people have historically blindly voted on and it's a gigantic red flag. Generally, at this point in a race, before the debates and after both convention bounces, a strong incumbent candidate should be in the vicinity of 5 to 7 points ahead. Obama clearly isn't in any poll you look at. This should be a huge red flag to. I realize you're an obama supporter and you do want him to win. But let's be pragmatic here, realistically he has, at best, a 50 50 shot, and purely historically based on unemployment and approval rating it's 0 percent (but again, i realize that history doesn't always repeat itself).

[Steve_S]

Obama clearly isn't in any poll you look at. This should be a huge red flag to.

You need to check the AP poll, WSJ Poll, CNN Poll etc etc.

Here is poll from the Pew Research Center. Obama 51% Romney 43%.

http://pewresearch.org/

Polls like this generally use registered voters instead of likely voters and a lot of them have a bent towards one or another candidate. Pew has a terrible track record. I understand that you want to feel better about obama, but history is history. Arguing over poll numbers doesn't change it. There were several polls that had mccain up significantly at different points in 2008 and several polls that had kerry up significantly at several points in 2004, but none of them ever panned out. I've so far known rasmussen to be incredibly accurate and thus have a greater trust in it's accuracy.

[Steve_S]

We will see what happens in November.

All I know for sure is that

1. the Dems hope Romney keeps running his mouth

2. the Repubs running for state election are distancing themselves from Romney

3. the Repubs should have nominated someone else

4. I am about to go out for dinner.

Have a great night.

That's all irrelevant. Incumbent elections are always about the incumbent. Obama will win or lose based on his record unless romney makes a gigantic error, which has not happened yet.

[georgedrw81]

4. I am about to go out for dinner.

This should have been number one in the list.

Blessings

[AnotherSinner]

That remark he made really offended me. Not voting for him or Obama as both do not like either the disabled or the poor. Not proud of being on government assistance, but am not lazy either. Doing 15 credit hours in school right now while my husband works. Then as I have told my friends an family, if these programs are to stop...might as well go back to the days in which only the rich could go to school. No more grants and student loans. Those hand outs should be too good for us 'lazy people' too....

Sorry for the rant...this is a very sensitive subject for me....as those remarks in terms of my financial status affect me on a personal level.