Poll: The public kinda likes Occupy Wall Street protesters

posted at 4:45 pm on October 5, 2011 by Tina Korbe

A plurality of the American people don’t have an opinion about the Occupy Wall Street protesters, but, of those who do, slightly more have a favorable view than an unfavorable view of them, according to a new poll from Rasmussen Reports.

Thirty-three percent of those polled said they look favorably on the protesters, while just 27 percent said they look unfavorably at them. Forty percent said they had no opinion.

The overarching theme of the protests, far more than any specific demands or proposed solutions, seems to be driving what approval the protesters enjoy. An overwhelming majority of Americans — 79 percent — agree with what has come to be the slogan of the movement: “The big banks got bailed out, while we got left behind.” But while many of the protesters seem to favor the idea of increased government regulation, the American people understand that less regulation, rather than more, is essential to the elimination of government favors to preferred companies:

Many of the protesters seem to want a larger government presence in the economy. But when it comes to helping the middle class, just 20 percent of Americans believe that more government regulation will do the trick. In fact, three times as many (60 percent) believe that free market competition would do more to help the middle class. Many look to Washington and see a system where regulators make favorable rulings for companies and then walk through a revolving door to get a big paycheck from those same companies. Voters overwhelmingly want to see such behavior outlawed.

Regulation is also a key way the federal government punishes the industries it doesn’t favor. Take a look at what’s happened in the Gulf ever since the Deepwater Horizon oil spill last April, for example.

Almost always, tightened federal oversight of industry results in unintended consequences that hurt consumers.

Clearly, the American people understand the problem of crony capitalism better than the protesters themselves. While the protesters fall for the populist spirit the administration professes, the American people recognize the crony capitalistic spirit it actually possesses. Apparently, the protesters are unable to see through the president’s class warfare rhetoric to glimpse his own commitment to Big Business, perhaps best exemplified by his continued defense of the federal government’s risky loan to solar company Solyndra.

Townhall.com’s Erika Johnsen pointed this out the minute the protests broke out: The way to eliminate the sort of Big Business that sticks it to consumers is to eliminate Big Government. Ordinary Business serves consumers as it seeks to make a profit — because the surest way to make a profit is to please customers. When the government interferes, business becomes more concerned about currying favors with those in power than with providing a worthwhile product to meet an actual market demand.

The raging anti-capitalists occupying Wall Street have repeatedly been compared to the Tea Party. What’s sad is, the two groups actually do want the same thing: A thriving, prosperous economy. But whereas the Tea Party did its due diligence to discover the true cause of the country’s current economic troubles (a.k.a. out-of-control government spending), the Occupy Wall Street protesters took to the street without discerning the source of the nation’s economic anxiety. Consequently, the solutions the two groups propose could not be more different. Unfortunately, whereas the Tea Party’s solutions would actually please the Tea Party, the Occupy Wall Street protesters are destined to be dissatisfied — because the very solutions they propose will only exacerbate the problem they oppose.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

No principled conservative is advocating for more corporate influence in elections. None.

MeatHeadinCA on October 5, 2011 at 6:21 PM

How can that be? You advocate for loosening restrictions on campaign spending! How can looser restrictions curtail such influence?

ernesto on October 5, 2011 at 6:25 PM

As was asked before, does this include the Sierra Club and the ACLU?

blink on October 5, 2011 at 6:24 PM

I feel it does. The ACLU or Sierra Club can do all they want to organize people, but I’d gladly impose restrictions on their ability to spend money on elections if such restrictions would include corporations as well.

ernesto on October 5, 2011 at 6:26 PM

And lobbying?

blink on October 5, 2011 at 6:27 PM

Again, if it would keep monied interests out of Washington, yes. Not that I equate the ACLU with Exxon Mobil, but if that’s what it takes to get you to get on board with keeping monied interests out of Washington, so be it.

ernesto on October 5, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Obama benefited much more from campaign laws governing corporate donations.
blink on October 5, 2011 at 6:30 PM

citation needed

ernesto on October 5, 2011 at 6:31 PM

blink on October 5, 2011 at 6:32 PM

And what about the rest there? That stuff you so diligently left out? That’s the answer, huh?

ernesto on October 5, 2011 at 6:34 PM

blink on October 5, 2011 at 6:35 PM

It’s not a fact; it doesn’t impact anything.

ernesto on October 5, 2011 at 6:36 PM

I always find it amusing that anarchists participate in organized protests of anything…

Danny on October 5, 2011 at 6:40 PM

ernesto…you might start by viewing the John Allison vid on CSPAN

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/301535-1

about the financial collapse.

I assume that you’d agree that Freddie/Fannie should have been prohitted from donating money (and positions) to Dims (yes, and Rs)

And you hate that the largest donators are unions donating to Dems. And you hate that GS employees were the largest single source of Obama’s stash last election.

We can all argue about that…but the errors of this country are so endemic (pls see vid) that this money business is fighting around the margins.

Large/vast amounts of money and command/control systems attract people interested in money and power. Like billy the kid…Leviathan government is where the money is.

r keller on October 5, 2011 at 6:41 PM

Now, tell me again why Americans don’t want their gasoline and heat oil expenses reduced?

blink on October 5, 2011 at 6:38 PM

Because corporatist Republicans suck!!!1! (or something)

BlueCollarAstronaut on October 5, 2011 at 6:42 PM

No lack of diversity there. Just came back from a big protest out on the exact same strip that the 1st NY tea party was held – lots more diversity at the occupywallstreet gathering than at that the tea party.

ernesto on October 5, 2011 at 6:01 PM

Well, thanks to your participation, we can assume the ‘Dumb A$$’ faction was well represented.

Oh, wait…that pretty much covers everyone there…

BigWyo on October 5, 2011 at 7:05 PM

That 33% is probably mostly democratic base anyway.

MeatHeadinCA on October 5, 2011 at 6:01 PM

more likely blue collar dems

unseen on October 5, 2011 at 7:10 PM

The media is deliberately hiding the unsavory parts of this “protest”. I see no coverage of the anti-semitism and communist elements. They are trying to represent this as cute unemployed college grads. I have not read of one of the big outlets publishing the “protesters” demands. More media malpractice.

clnurnberg on October 5, 2011 at 7:24 PM

So Obama is giving up on the Jewish vote?

Dr Evil on October 5, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Part of this might be to terrify the jews.

clnurnberg on October 5, 2011 at 7:26 PM

lots more diversity at the occupywallstreet gathering than at that the tea party.
 
ernesto on October 5, 2011 at 6:01 PM

 
And hotair’s outspoken bigot only sees skin color. Imagine that.

rogerb on October 5, 2011 at 7:53 PM

I feel it does. The ACLU or Sierra Club can do all they want to organize people, but I’d gladly impose restrictions on their ability to spend money on elections if such restrictions would include corporations as well.

ernesto

We get it…you reject freedom and liberty, like the good little Communist that you are.

Just came back from a big protest out on the exact same strip that the 1st NY tea party was held – lots more diversity at the occupywallstreet gathering than at that the tea party.

ernesto

Which simply means that stupidity is colorblind. And make no mistake about it, these occupy wall street morons are as stupid as it gets, as you prove time and again, lol.

xblade on October 5, 2011 at 7:57 PM

When are y’all going to stop believing these unaudited polls?

J.E. Dyer on October 5, 2011 at 8:57 PM

When are y’all going to stop believing these unaudited polls?

J.E. Dyer on October 5, 2011 at 8:57 PM

I don’t believe it. It’s something the media uses to try and give an appearance of legitimacy and validation.

There is an old saying, who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes.

I honestly wonder if those OWS people are even registered voters and actually vote. That’s probably not part of the criteria for Adbusters for rent a mob.

Dr Evil on October 5, 2011 at 9:12 PM

Not that I equate the ACLU with Exxon Mobil…..

ernesto on October 5, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Neither do I. The latter actually produces a usable product that benefits the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

Red State State of Mind on October 5, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Good. This means they’ll get more attention from the drive-bys which will only end badly for them and their cause. These people are borderline anarchists.

Doughboy on October 5, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Not with the spin the MSM is giving it. These people are saints who are much more grassroots than the Tea Party, fighting for a just cause, not racist or antisemitic, etc. etc.

The MSM wants this to be the Progressive Tea Party even though it’s no where near as big or as sane to put it mildly.

Yakko77 on October 5, 2011 at 9:57 PM

How can that be? You advocate for loosening restrictions on campaign spending! How can looser restrictions curtail such influence?

ernesto on October 5, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Let me repeat. No principled conservative is advocating for more corporate influence in government.

MeatHeadinCA on October 6, 2011 at 1:47 AM

The public doesn’t realize that the big banks and AIG repaid all the emergency funding they got, with all due interest. Unlike the smoke and mirrors accounting we get on the TARP funds used to bail out the auto unions.

They also don’t realize these protestors are trying to duplicate the Arab Spring, which mean overthrowing the government.

Arm yourselves and be vigilant.

Adjoran on October 6, 2011 at 2:40 AM

So 40% don’t have any idea who “the 99 percent” are; and 27% look unfavorably on the actions of “the 99 percent” now?

Weird… you’d think as they’re the 99 percent and all and represent the will of 99% of the people that they’d have better numbers.

Unless of course you think that “99%” stuff was a bunch of crap like I do… but I figured I was just the 1% who thought they were lunatics asking for unreasonable crap while having a big party, vandalizing property, and stealing what they wanted…

gekkobear on October 6, 2011 at 12:16 PM

The cars are white, an obvious racially discriminating undertone is simmering at the NYPD.

Bishop on October 5, 2011 at 5:19 PM

ROFLMAO. I Love this.

Hammie on October 6, 2011 at 9:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 2