Daily Kos/SEIU State of the Nation Poll: Huge support for Buffett Rule

[pampango]

Q: Do you support or oppose ensuring that people who make over a million dollars a year pay the same percentage of taxes or more on their total income as those who make less than a million dollars a year?

Support: 73%

Oppose: 16%

Not sure: 11%

That's some of the strongest support I've ever seen for a proposal which would, of course, raise taxes. Though the Beltway press never discusses it, the idea of increasing taxes on the rich invariably polls very well, but here support is stratospheric. I think the Buffett Rule's explicit appeal to fairness is the key factor — as the president says, it's just hard to argue against.

Indeed, every demographic sub-group favors the idea. Republicans back it 66-17. Hell, even self-identified tea partiers, the weakest supporters, are at 52-29. Oh, and those making over $100,000? 73-16.

Of course, we all know that Republicans in Congress don't care what Republicans in real life think, and they'll block anything that even resembles a tax hike. But this poll demonstrates that the genius of the Buffett Rule is in its value as a political weapon. Obama is putting some serious rhetorical screws to the GOP, and both he and they know it. This is a great example of how pushing a seemingly "hopeless" idea can pay political dividends by showing ordinary people that you're fighting for them — and by showing exactly how Republicans are fighting against them. It's the kind of thing many progressives would like to see more of, so I'm heartened that the president is on the offensive here. All I can say is: More like this, please.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/27/1020632/-Daily-Kos-SEIU-State-of-the-Nation-Poll:-Huge-support-for-Buffett-Rule

[Marr]

1. This sort of puts the lie to the who old "he didn't have a supermajority line", doesn't it?

I mean, we've been told countless times that Obama didn't push for this or that legislation because there was no way it could get through Congress. But here he is, arguing for something that Republicans will never pass, because it's a valuable rhetorical tool. It makes the opposition line up along a very unpopular line, puts them on the defensive, and frames the debate.

So clearly he understands how this works, and agrees that arguing for the politically impossible (or unlikely) is effective and necessary. This looks to me like another example of the difference between Campaign Obama and President Obama.