More 'Like' Obama Even As They Admit Romney Better For Economy, Gallup Finds

Tyler Durden's picture

With the polls apparently seeing it all tied up at 46-46 (and heading into the period when McCain and Obama diverged so strongly in 2008), a recent Gallup poll brings up the age-old question of whether the electorate will vote with their hearts or their wallets. Only in a Facebook-world; but 54% 'like' Obama versus 31% 'like' Romney but this huge social-network-factor disappears when asked who will better handle the economy - 52% believe Romney will be better for the economy as opposed to 43% believing in Obama. Of course none of that matters if the market remains up here.

Like vs Love?



And it is this time of year when these differences start showing up... In 2008, McCain and Obama were also tied...


Charts: Gallup

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
bank guy in Brussels's picture

Not a dime's worth of difference

- George Wallace, American Presidential Candidate, long-time racial extremist and populist, speaking about candidates from the US' two major parties

francis_sawyer's picture

 "A nickle ain't worth a dime anymore"

~ Yogi Berra

climber's picture

always upvote yogi berra quotes as a matter of principle.

Precious's picture

There isn't an ounce of altruism in Obama's body.  It's all about him.  He can't even be bothered with his own siblings.  Does anyone really believe they matter to this guy?

malikai's picture

When it comes to these elections, I don't take any polls for shit. Instead, I look at where people put their money. Such as it is, the current "real poll" shows Obama in the lead.

I'm not sure if you guys stateside can view it, but the odds are as follows:

Obama: 1.59

Romney: 2.84

Paul: 140

The lower the better.

Kitler's picture

I wonder how much more money Sheldon Adelson could make if he was actually placing massive bets on Obama and then outed Romney as a Neo-Nazi transvestite?

Precious's picture

Obama's campaign message is essentially, "I'm just like you.  I'm broke too.  Lets stop those evil forces that are keeping us all broke."

Take a minute if you can bear, and listen to his speeches.  All the same "poor little me" rhetoric.

madcows's picture

Nah, that's just the addicted gamblers opinion.  I'm putting a dollar on Ru Paul.  It's paying out at a trillion to one.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Your premise depends on the assumption that the typical American can actually discern what should be obvious. The typical American is meaningfully handicapped in 3 ways:

1) It is highly likely they are directly dependent on at least one, and probably multiple, direct transfer payments from FedGov.

2) The MSM is actively covering up the truth about Obama.

3) the k-12 and higher education systems have programmed them with socialist values for the last 50 years.

Spastica Rex's picture

The American public school system has programmed citizens to be uncritical, fearful, conformist, and insatiablly materialistic. If those are "socialist" values, I agree with you. I tend to think that these are the values desired by the marketing establishment.

LMAOLORI's picture



Judging from this report the public school system has trained them to be morons

Like vs Love?


More like Like vs Stupid if people think romney is better for the economy they would be stupid to vote for obama


Michael's picture

A commenter from yesterday had some great insight on this subject;

Political implications of the future currency crisis:

 FACT IS >>>>> WE ARE GOING OFF A CLIFF WITH EITHER OBAMA OR ROMNEY.  It is too late to change course.  And Repubs endorsing a gold standard is laughable.  We are looking at a currency collapse in the next few years.  As soon as we loose our reserve currency status, our rates will spike and we will be TOAST.

Given that a majority of the US public is very uneducated from an economic standpoint, they are very likely going to blame this collapse on the politics on who is currently in office.  I think we can agree that neither Obama nor Romney are going enact measures that will prevent this collapse.

Therefore, we need to ask our selves the following:  Do we want an economic collapse under an “Overt Socialist” i.e. Obama?  Or do we want the collapse during the administration of a RINO that supposedly (at least in the minds of the ignorant US public) stands for Free Market Capitalism?

I am scared of a back lash against Free Market Capitalism if the Economic Collapse happens during Romney’s administration.  This could very well lead to the government enacting much harsher economic controls and lead to a totalitarianism state. 

 But if the Economic Collapse happens during the Obama administration, then the US public will more likely see the actual writing on the wall and finally return to Free Markets.

Therefore I will be voting for the man that is the furthest from my point of view.  Obama.  I think a collapse in his term would be better, he will get the blame and rightly so.

madcows's picture

I blame every politician that voted yes on an unbalanced budget, abstained on that vote, or didn't even develop a budget to vote on.
Blaming only the current president, past president, etc... based on political bias is worthy of losing the right to vote.

Watauga's picture

Are you saying he is Black Narcissus?

Of course he is.  He has been since Day One, back in the van smokin' "the good stuff."  He is a liar, a cheater, and a master deceiver.  How else could he have become President?

A puppet manipulated by his puppet masters, but willingly so because he truly is all about Barack.

Anybody who votes for this fool is, unfortunately, insane.

Ruffcut's picture

Do you lose sight that all these politicos are attention whore bad actors?

They have use "two sides" like a competitive match. 

"Hey moron, you are always supposed to pick sides."

And for those who actually feel that bad vibe can opt out of the bullshit, which they really prefer.

Fuckers, are really good at this.

Random_Robert's picture

Obama has only one half-sibling... Maya Soetoro

That George guy over in Africa shares no DNA with the President (unless he also happens to be another red-diaper baby of Frank Marshall Davis)



Stackers's picture

"Vote for whoever you want to. This is a free dictatorship"

Moon Over Parador

Offthebeach's picture

Greeks and Romans voted in official dictators. After taking power as Fuhrer he held a confirming, open election and won it.

Uncle Remus's picture

Met the man once. Looks just like his picture.

timbo_em's picture

But soon a Nickel will be worth more than five cent.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Actually I think it already does.

BooMushroom's picture

It's a fraction of a cent off.

$1.96 per $2 roll of nickels.

Check back tomorrow, though ;)

WatchnSee's picture

If you can't see any differance, please stay home on Nov 2. The current regime needs to go.

Anusocracy's picture

Like there's a difference between evil and stupid and stupid and evil.


Uncle Remus's picture

Does order of operation matter?

Watauga's picture

There is.  Evil is intended.  Stupid is simply stupid--inadvertant.  But the question for so many ZHers is which of the two is more evil and which is more stupid and, in the end, does it matter which is elected?  

I won't support Barack Hussein Obama for a thousand reasons, all of which have been noted here and on other sites over the last 5 years (yes, well before the electorate imposed him on us).  I won't support him with my direct vote, and I won't support him by voting for a third party or write-in candidate.  

My question, personally, is whether I cross into the realm of voting for Romney in order to rid the nation of Barack Hussein Obama?  That is a much tougher call.  As of now, I think it is very important to do so, but I cannot say that I support him or believe in him or think that he will make a huge difference.  But I live in a major swing state and every vote will make a difference, so I likely will vote for Romney, as much as I despise the Republican and Democrat histories of failure and destruction.  

In the end, a failure to vote becomes a vote for Barack Hussein Obama, and I could not live with myself if I did not do all that I could to defeat the Socialist, Statist, Collectivist tyrant.

Anusocracy's picture

Evil and stupid are both wired into your head.

If you vote, you are letting the evil and stupid dictate your actions.

sgt_doom's picture

"52% believe Romney will be better for the economy "

This is the debt queen who offshores jobs (and a piece of the GDP with each job), and destroys companies to enrich himself and his gang?

Must be the same members of the electorate, or their spawn, who voted for Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes (and Clinton, et al.).

It's either Dr. Jill Stein or doom.....

Watauga's picture

So, Sarge, you vote for Bammy and he runs the country into his infinitely expanding black hole of debt, regulation, and collectivism?

I don't care if the guy is the Second Coming of Reagan or even W (Heavan forbid)--he ain't Barack Hussein Obama and he ain't pure, unadulterated evil.

madcows's picture

You're right, it would have been better to let the companies go bankrupt and let ALL employees lose their job.  Please stop following Chris Matthews and Rachel Madow.

Boilermaker's picture

I love the fact that people actually think it's going to make a difference to thier lives.

The financial elite wear the pants.  Who the puppet is matters little.  It's amazing that people actually get sucked into the red/blue or donkey/elephant camps like braindead asswipes.  Then, cheer like it's a football game and their candidate is scoring TDs.


njdoo7's picture

Feeling good is what it's all about.  You cannot feel good when you seriously assess this reality.

Unfortunately, I forsee this continuing to ellude humanity as a species (not just in this country).

Anusocracy's picture

Feeling good is certainly what it's all about: "but subjects got a blast of activation in circuits involved in reward -- similar to what addicts receive when they get their fix"


Emory study lights up the political brain

When it comes to forming opinions and making judgments on hot political issues, partisans of both parties don't let facts get in the way of their decision-making, according to a new Emory University study. The research sheds light on why staunch Democrats and Republicans can hear the same information, but walk away with opposite conclusions.

The investigators used functional neuroimaging (fMRI) to study a sample of committed Democrats and Republicans during the three months prior to the U.S. Presidential election of 2004. The Democrats and Republicans were given a reasoning task in which they had to evaluate threatening information about their own candidate. During the task, the subjects underwent fMRI to see what parts of their brain were active. What the researchers found was striking.

"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," says Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory who led the study. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts." Westen and his colleagues will present their findings at the Annual Conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Jan. 28.

Once partisans had come to completely biased conclusions -- essentially finding ways to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted -- not only did circuits that mediate negative emotions like sadness and disgust turn off, but subjects got a blast of activation in circuits involved in reward -- similar to what addicts receive when they get their fix, Westen explains.

"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," says Westen. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."

During the study, the partisans were given 18 sets of stimuli, six each regarding President George W. Bush, his challenger, Senator John Kerry, and politically neutral male control figures such as actor Tom Hanks. For each set of stimuli, partisans first read a statement from the target (Bush or Kerry). The first statement was followed by a second statement that documented a clear contradiction between the target's words and deeds, generally suggesting that the candidate was dishonest or pandering.

Next, partisans were asked to consider the discrepancy, and then to rate the extent to which the person's words and deeds were contradictory. Finally, they were presented with an exculpatory statement that might explain away the apparent contradiction, and asked to reconsider and again rate the extent to which the target's words and deeds were contradictory.

Behavioral data showed a pattern of emotionally biased reasoning: partisans denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate that they had no difficulty detecting in the opposing candidate. Importantly, in both their behavioral and neural responses, Republicans and Democrats did not differ in the way they responded to contradictions for the neutral control targets, such as Hanks, but Democrats responded to Kerry as Republicans responded to Bush.

While reasoning about apparent contradictions for their own candidate, partisans showed activations throughout the orbital frontal cortex, indicating emotional processing and presumably emotion regulation strategies. There also were activations in areas of the brain associated with the experience of unpleasant emotions, the processing of emotion and conflict, and judgments of forgiveness and moral accountability.

Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning (as well as conscious efforts to suppress emotion). The finding suggests that the emotion-driven processes that lead to biased judgments likely occur outside of awareness, and are distinct from normal reasoning processes when emotion is not so heavily engaged, says Westen.

The investigators hypothesize that emotionally biased reasoning leads to the "stamping in" or reinforcement of a defensive belief, associating the participant's "revisionist" account of the data with positive emotion or relief and elimination of distress. "The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data," Westen says.

The study has potentially wide implications, from politics to business, and demonstrates that emotional bias can play a strong role in decision-making, Westen says. "Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and politicians may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret 'the facts,' " Westen says.




NotApplicable's picture

Reminds me of Chris Rock's observations on the OJ acquittal, and all of the "We won!" cheering in the streets of the black community.

"We won? What did we win? There's no prize in my mailbox."

ParkAveFlasher's picture

...and while they cheer the football game, their wealth is Sandusky'd in a steamy bank back office.

madcows's picture

The angry black man that blames the white guy for everything. 

BooMushroom's picture

And then they tell me I'm racist.

HardAssets's picture

Many probably have already seen this talk by George Carlin - - but it always makes me smile. George had it right:

Watauga's picture

I have grown weary of this standard, sheep-like baahing on ZH.  It doesn't make a difference.  They are both puppets and the puppet masters remain the same.  Baaahh.  Baaahh.  Talk about a herd mentality.

I almost hate to say it, but I think that most of ZH has become a place for whiners to come and offer one-liners they believe to be some kind of intellectual zingers that prove how smart and with-it they are.  

Never any hard work on analysis.  Never any attempt to look at the record and analyze exactly why Romney and Ryan, whle far less than perfect, may be better for the country, and our lives, than Barack Hussein Obama and senile, sad Joe Biden.  

Obama--double the debt in 3 and 1/2 years; trillion dollar deficits all years; "stimulus"; regulations that stifle business and crush liberty; rule by fiat (Executive Order), defying the Consitution and the laws he has sworn to execute; will raise taxes across the board, in spite of his lies to the contrary; appointment of federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, who are collectivist, Statist tools of the Left; destruction of civil liberties day-by-day-by-day; identity and divisive politics; constant lies and propaganda; and a plan to do more, and more, and more to bring about his vision of collectivist, totalitarian State.

Romney--will attempt to arrest the growth of government, or at least slow it down; will NOT raise taxes; will not destroy the 1st and 2nd Amendments; will NOT appoint the Sonia Soto-Mayors of the world to the Supreme Court (yes, yes, I know all about Breyer. . .); likely will bring about some semblance of stability and predictability whereby business can plan and predict, resulting in growth, jobs, and massive increases in revenue without raising taxes.  

If we want to help bring about effective change, I suspect the best thing to do is not lie on our mother's sofas in the basement whining on ZH about how Romney is Obama is Ryan is Biden.  Maybe better to get active, kick the Tea Party's ass and get it back into full-speed operations, shift it to an emphasis on greater liberty, greater respect for private property, and greater commitment to reduce the federal government dramatically, and hope to force Romney-Ryan to represent what you say you want.


madcows's picture

Yeah, I dunno.  I'm not buying that Obama is more likeable than Romney.

Obama is a lying, cheating, conniving Chicago thug and that's more likeable than Mormon or Rich detached guy?

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

You forgot: Marxist and Muslim.

mr1963's picture

Like = afraid to be seen as a racist...

Dr. Engali's picture

I don't suppose the fact that Holder is suing Gallup polling has any sway on the outcome of this poll. Not that it makes a difference anyway they're both one and the same.

mrktwtch2's picture

doesnt really matter which one wins as they are both "establishment" just sure we will somehow get stuck paying more taxes as we watch our freedoms get eroded away..more..

Let The Wurlitzer Play's picture

The average person does not give a crap about Barry, when they are polled they are compelled to say they like him for fear of being called racist.  Its utter nonsense.  I dont "like" Barry but I also dont "hate" him.  In fact if he disapeared tomorrow I could care less. 


_ConanTheLibertarian_'s picture

I got one word to summarize Americans: hypocrites

A Lunatic's picture

Let's have a DWTS Presidential candidate edition to decide this election.............

pbracken's picture

Only fuckwit Yanks would vote for Romney. It's no suprise well over half of Americans still believe in Genesis - because only that level of credulity could elect an intellectually challenged candiate.


Obama's your man.