Posted on 07/12/2012 3:43:18 AM PDT by tobyhill
One in five registered voters, largely Democrats and independents, say that Mitt Romney’s wealth makes it less likely that they will support him for president, according to a new poll out Thursday.
Indeed, while 75 percent of voters said that Romney’s riches made no difference in their voting preferences, 20 percent said that it made them less likely to vote for him, reports Gallup.
A small percentage - 4 percent - said that Romney’s wealth made it more likely that they would vote for him.
“As you know Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has a net worth of over 200 million dollars. Does the fact that he is this rich make you more likely or less likely to vote for him, or does it make no difference?” the question from Gallup read.
The bulk of those who were less likely to support Romney due to his wealth comes from Democrats and independents. 37 percent of Democrats and 19 percent of Democrats said that Romney’s wealth made them less likely to vote for him.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Why should we be concerned about what Mitt does with his money? We should be more concerned about what Obama does with our money.
Apparently, I`m supposed to be more outraged by what Mitt Romney does with his money than what Obama does with mine .
I notice the media didn’t commission any polls like this when Kerry was running even though Kerry is four times as wealthy as Romney.
How can the likelihood fall to less than zero chance? There was zero chance any part of this 20% would vote for Romney before wealth entered the picture.
Maybe it’s better for Presidents to have personal wealth. That way, they’re not in politics for the money.... like Billy Boy and others who went into office nearly skinned and came out everyone’s whores and with their pockets stuffed!!!
More likely. What's wrong with being successful? I'd like to think we can have a President who can at least balance a checkbook, and doesn't need 20 years to pay off loans for an Ivy league law education. By electing Obama, voters gave a thumbs-up to fiscal stupidity and incompetence. And it shows.
Apparently, I`m supposed to be more outraged by what Mitt Romney does with his money than what Obama does with mine .
“One in five registered voters, largely Democrats and independents, say that Mitt Romney’s wealth makes it less likely that they will support him for president, according to a new poll out Thursday.”
Obama’s sons; they would NOT vote for Romney in any case.
The pollsters are just Obama’s little dogs doing a trick for him.
I’m less likely to vote for Obama for a million and one reasons. No need to poll on all of them.
In the subject title, does “troubled” mean “jealous?”
I would ask those 20 percenters, “Are you saying that a successsful man should never run for president?”
I wouldn’t expect an intelligent answer, but I’d ask anyway.
I thought Romney stole all his money from poor people. /s
One wonders if anyone is troubled by Mr. Obama’s riches, Mr. Biden’s riches, Mr. Clinton’s riches, or any other of those rich Progressives’ riches.
Just asking.
It is not about money. It is about conservative principles.
Mr. RomneyCARE is a pauper regarding conservative principles.
Kerry's money was never an issue because he didn't earn it, he just married it.
With the jackass party, money which you marry, inherit or confiscate from your fellow Americans is not tainted, only money you earn.
That is also to do with how people respond to poll questions. Where it hurts us is that if he does beat Obama it will be very difficult or impossible for him convince voters that spending needs to be cut, if he even tries, which is doubtful.
The very sentiment expressed here in Grand Junk Colorado ,when
Romney came to shake hands (don’t know if he kissed any babies here)In the local coverage I noticed when he stuck to the script he sounded just like his opponents,or any other mere
politician— when he got off script a bit during the Q&A my
guestimation of his character improved dramatically.He may not be the perfect candidate— but is an American-can’t say the same about the Beguiler in the White House.
“like Billy Boy and others who went into office nearly skinned and came out everyone’s whores and with their pockets stuffed!!!”
I believe bammy’s pockets are becoming rather stuffed as of late too.
I am supposed to be outrages by what Romney does with his personal money but not what Obama does with mine?
Sorry, I could care less about his personal finances.
His wealth creating ability is his most attractive quality in my view. I favor a candidate who not only understands how the economy works but has demonstrated his ability to work successfully within it. It’s a whole lot better than a community organizer who never earned an honest dime in his life.
He must have been her first fifty cent piece.
That's an interesting counterpoint. I found this slideshow, dated January, 2012:
10 Richest US Presidential Candidates
John Kerry is #4, at $240M. Romney is #3, at $250M.
During the 2004 election, I don't remember the Democrats being concerned that Kerry was "out of touch" with the middle class.
OTOH, they are putting Bill and Hillary Clinton tied at $85 million each. So maybe JFK has a prenup and Hill & Bill don't.
FWIW, their list is interesting reading, but very focused only on recent candidates. Herbert Hoover was a billionaire on a fortune accumulated more than two generations ago. In today's dollars, I think he'd even knock H. Ross Perot ($3.58 billion) out of the #1 spot.
The Forbes 400 survey estimated in 2004 that Teresa Heinz Kerry had a net worth of $750 million. However, estimates have frequently varied, ranging from around $165 million to as high as $3.2 billion, according to a study in the Los Angeles Times. Regardless of which figure is correct, Kerry is the wealthiest U.S. Senator. Kerry is wealthy in his own name, and is the beneficiary of at least four trusts inherited from Forbes family members, including his mother, who died in 2002. Forbes magazine (a major business magazine named for an unrelated Forbes family) estimated that if elected, Kerry would have been the third-richest U.S. President in history when adjusted for inflation.[15] This assessment was based on the couple's combined assets, but Kerry and Heinz signed a prenuptial agreement that keeps their assets separate. [16] Kerry's financial disclosure form for 2002 put his personal assets in the range of $409,000 to $1.8 million, with additional assets held jointly by Kerry and his wife in the range of $300,000 to $600,000.[17]
BTTT!
Is it is coinkydink that just about 20% of the public identifies themselves as leftists?
That’s my thought too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.