AP-GfK Poll: More people think life improves under Clinton

[webfact]

AP-GfK Poll: More people think life improves under Clinton
By CATHERINE LUCEY and EMILY SWANSON

WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans have mixed feelings on which presidential candidate will do better on health care, trade, the economy, terrorism and other important issues. But when they simply consider whether they personally would be better off, they prefer Democrat Hillary Clinton.

The latest Associated Press-GfK poll shows that Americans are more likely to think people like themselves would benefit more from a Clinton White House than one run by Republican Donald Trump, by 36 percent to 29 percent.

They also are much more likely to think women, LGBT people, Hispanics, Muslims and blacks would be better off under Clinton, while they largely think men and whites would be better off under Trump.

Miles Kafka, 43, of Brooklyn, New York, said his life would "definitely" be better under Clinton "because Donald Trump's policies are gibberish." A registered Republican who works in computer programming, he supported Gov. John Kasich, R-Ohio, in the primary.

"She'll get the best done that she can," Kafka said, adding that both Trump and Clinton were too aggressive on foreign policy for his taste.

Sydney Sullivan, 21, a college student from Lynbrook, New York, echoed those sentiments.

"I definitely think she'll support women and minorities a lot better than Trump would. I think she has a better idea of the oppression that women and minorities face," Sullivan said. "To me, he's a racist, he's a bigot. I'm not his biggest fan. I'm worried about his comments and how people can support comments like that."

On major issues in the race, voters are divided over which candidate they trust more, reflecting the deep divisions in the electorate.

Clinton has a clear advantage on handling health care, the U.S. image abroad, filling Supreme Court vacancies, working with Congress and improving race relations, according to the poll. The numbers on race relations were particularly stark, with Americans more likely to trust Clinton than Trump to make improvements, 45 percent to 17 percent.

The former secretary of state also has a slight advantage on handling international trade.

But Trump has a slight advantage on handling the economy and creating jobs, and on handling the threat of domestic terrorism — issues that rank among the most important for Americans.

"He talks like he can deal with China and different countries in the Middle East. I think he can do better with foreign relations," said Stewart Van Sickle, 75, a retiree in High Ridge, Missouri.

Van Sickle said that Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton "are mostly interested in what will make money for them."

People are closely divided over who would better handle immigration, protecting the country, gun laws and making America great. On making America great — Trump's campaign slogan — 31 percent thought he would do a better job, 28 percent favored Clinton and 34 percent said neither.

Some 55 percent thought Clinton would be better for Muslims, while just 9 percent thought Trump would be. White people and men were thought to do better under Trump, with 41 percent saying men will fare better under him, compared with 20 percent for Clinton.

Still, about one-quarter of those polled think people like themselves wouldn't be better off under either candidate.

Ronald Knope, a 69-year-old retiree from Glencoe, Minnesota, said he was supporting Trump and thought he would do better with Trump as president. But Knope also acknowledged dissatisfaction with his options.

"To tell you the truth. I don't think we have a good choice, but I think he's probably a better choice," Knope said. "I like the fact that he's not from the political machine."

__

The AP-GfK Poll of 1,009 adults was conducted online July 7-11, using a sample drawn from GfK's probability-based KnowledgePanel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 3.3 percentage points.

Respondents were first selected randomly using telephone or mail survey methods and later interviewed online. People selected for KnowledgePanel who didn't have access to the Internet were provided access for free.

___

Online: Poll results: http://ap-gfkpoll.com


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-07-15

[phantomfiddler]

Yes, I daresay all the freeloaders and parasites could very well be better off. The greatest flaw is that these bums will vote for whoever promises them the most for doing the least. In mathematics this is called an "unstable equation", as eventually you will run out of other people,s money to give away

[ggt]

They also are much more likely to think women, LGBT people, Hispanics, Muslims and blacks would be better off under Clinton!

They need to take a poll for this? These groups have been courted and firmly committed to the Dems and the Clintons for years...

This is a no brainer...no news here...just more attempts at political posturing by the lefties...

[shirtless]

I bet this has been cherry picked for desired result , This is just more pro Clinton Media rubbish.

[Pinot]

I can't believe that 29% of the people surveyed actually believe they'd be better off under Trump. It will all be over very soon.

Trump supporters are extreme, dim and intolerant, as you can tell from the above...

The lefties

[Ken Khomdee]

All those sheeple supporting HRC better get out and vote because I'm thinking there's a tsunami of voters just ready to silently voice their low opinion of the PC idiots running the country into the toilet and willing to quietly support anyone on the outside.

[Ken Khomdee]

All those sheeple supporting HRC better get out and vote because I'm thinking there's a tsunami of voters just ready to silently voice their low opinion of the PC idiots running the country into the toilet and willing to quietly support anyone on the outside.

[sgtsabai]

Neither "candidate" is worthy of my vote, much less the presidency. America continues it's downhill slide into a 3rd world plutocracy.

[Publicus]

Yes, I daresay all the freeloaders and parasites could very well be better off. The greatest flaw is that these bums will vote for whoever promises them the most for doing the least. In mathematics this is called an "unstable equation", as eventually you will run out of other people,s money to give away

all the freeloaders and parasites could very well be better off

In the 2008 election 69 million Americans voted to elect Barack Obama Potus and in 2012 the number was 66 million who voted to reelect Barack Obama.

The rightwhinge needs to provide data on the number of Americans in each election that fit the characterisation myth endlessly huckstered and manufactured by the eternal whingers. The bogus 47 percent Romney prattled about turned out instead to be a 1% klatch of core supporters which wasn't enough to swing the election for him either.

The economy did very well under Clinton 42 and it will surpass that with Clinton 45. Conversely, Bush 41 lost reelection because he tanked the economy and Bush 43 the war president threw the economy into an abyss. Reagan wrote his budgets with a red pen. It has always been the case the whingers can't stand prosperity which is why they always vote Republican.

[ozyjon]

Hey Ken, you beat me too it,,,, sheeple,,,

there will be a civil war soon and Obama

will stay another term, did you see the report.

Let's start the bets.

[Boon Mee]

I bet this has been cherry picked for desired result , This is just more pro Clinton Media rubbish.

Of course it was. Anything to try and keep the Beefy Elderly Drunken Crazylady alive.

It's the beginning of 'Flop Sweat' time for the Clintonistias...

[thairay]

monica did well under her husband

[tomwct]

What a load of crap! Yes, they purposely interviewed the freeloaders. Clinton & Socialists Dems pamper there core

supporters. Just imagine the debt going from $20 Trillion to $30 Trillion under a Clinton Administration.No, I

just can't imagine the Real Americans would let that happen.

[sgtsabai]

There aren't "freeloaders". That is just right wing crap. Nobody gets "free stuff", except big corporations. No doubt you right wingers want kids to starve. The debt has shrunk under Obama and he wasn't the one that ran it up. Try Cheney/Bush et al. There no freeloaders, there are people working 2 even 3 jobs trying to by. Tax payers pay the employees of Walmart because they make so little they qualify for assistance. Maybe if Walmart paid them a living wage taxpayers wouldn't have to foot Walmart's bill...........I rather suspect any polling company that pays people to take a poll. http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=1478216........... I don't suspect all but the right wingnut racists will NOT be happy under a orange monster fascist government.

[Pimay1]

There aren't "freeloaders". That is just right wing crap. Nobody gets "free stuff", except big corporations. No doubt you right wingers want kids to starve. The debt has shrunk under Obama and he wasn't the one that ran it up. Try Cheney/Bush et al. There no freeloaders, there are people working 2 even 3 jobs trying to by. Tax payers pay the employees of Walmart because they make so little they qualify for assistance. Maybe if Walmart paid them a living wage taxpayers wouldn't have to foot Walmart's bill...........I rather suspect any polling company that pays people to take a poll. http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=1478216........... I don't suspect all but the right wingnut racists will NOT be happy under a orange monster fascist government.

The debt has shrunk under Obama and he wasn't the one that ran it up.

Correction. The debt has nearly doubled under the Obama administration.

When Mr. Obama took over in January 2009, the total national debt stood at $10.6 trillion. That means the debt will have very nearly doubled during his eight years in office, and there is much more debt ahead with the abandonment of “sequestration” spending caps enacted in 2011.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/1/obama-presidency-to-end-with-20-trillion-national-/

[PTC]

There aren't "freeloaders". That is just right wing crap. Nobody gets "free stuff", except big corporations. No doubt you right wingers want kids to starve. The debt has shrunk under Obama and he wasn't the one that ran it up. Try Cheney/Bush et al. There no freeloaders, there are people working 2 even 3 jobs trying to by. Tax payers pay the employees of Walmart because they make so little they qualify for assistance. Maybe if Walmart paid them a living wage taxpayers wouldn't have to foot Walmart's bill...........I rather suspect any polling company that pays people to take a poll. http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=1478216........... I don't suspect all but the right wingnut racists will NOT be happy under a orange monster fascist government.

The debt has shrunk under Obama and he wasn't the one that ran it up.

Correction. The debt has nearly doubled under the Obama administration.

When Mr. Obama took over in January 2009, the total national debt stood at $10.6 trillion. That means the debt will have very nearly doubled during his eight years in office, and there is much more debt ahead with the abandonment of “sequestration” spending caps enacted in 2011.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/1/obama-presidency-to-end-with-20-trillion-national-/

Here come the Debt Size Queens and their hysteria about debt levels. Now we will get endless rubbish stats on Obama increasing the debt level 100 x more than George Washington. Boringly predictable from those twits who think that public financial management is the same as managing mommy's milk money.

If Obama has increased the debt by $9.4 Trillion, and your figures are as crap as your economics, then he has injected $9.4 Trillion into the US and World economy through investment. That's called stimulus for you silly supply siders. Take away debt and who will pay for your pensions eh?

[Pimay1]

There aren't "freeloaders". That is just right wing crap. Nobody gets "free stuff", except big corporations. No doubt you right wingers want kids to starve. The debt has shrunk under Obama and he wasn't the one that ran it up. Try Cheney/Bush et al. There no freeloaders, there are people working 2 even 3 jobs trying to by. Tax payers pay the employees of Walmart because they make so little they qualify for assistance. Maybe if Walmart paid them a living wage taxpayers wouldn't have to foot Walmart's bill...........I rather suspect any polling company that pays people to take a poll. http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=1478216........... I don't suspect all but the right wingnut racists will NOT be happy under a orange monster fascist government.

The debt has shrunk under Obama and he wasn't the one that ran it up.

Correction. The debt has nearly doubled under the Obama administration.

When Mr. Obama took over in January 2009, the total national debt stood at $10.6 trillion. That means the debt will have very nearly doubled during his eight years in office, and there is much more debt ahead with the abandonment of “sequestration” spending caps enacted in 2011.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/1/obama-presidency-to-end-with-20-trillion-national-/

Here come the Debt Size Queens and their hysteria about debt levels. Now we will get endless rubbish stats on Obama increasing the debt level 100 x more than George Washington. Boringly predictable from those twits who think that public financial management is the same as managing mommy's milk money.

If Obama has increased the debt by $9.4 Trillion, and your figures are as crap as your economics, then he has injected $9.4 Trillion into the US and World economy through investment. That's called stimulus for you silly supply siders. Take away debt and who will pay for your pensions eh?

Do you have a link to back up your claim then he has injected $9.4 Trillion into the US and World economy through investment? Obama's 800 billion dollar stimulus package was a failure as pointed out in the Wall Street Journal article below.

But after the failure of the stimulus the same liberal economists who had enthusiastically supported the plan would claim that its main flaw was that it was too small.

Shortly after the passage of the Recovery Act in 2009, Vice President Joseph Biden urged local politicians not to spend the money on "stupid things." They ignored his advice, and so did Mr. Biden. The federal government poured billions into the government and education sectors, where unemployment was low, but spent only about 10% on promised infrastructure, though the unemployment rate in construction was running in double digits. And some of the individual projects funded by the law were truly appalling. $783,000 was spent on a study of why young people consume malt liquor and marijuana. $92,000 went to the Army Corps of Engineers for costumes for mascots like Bobber the Water Safety Dog. $219,000 funded a study of college "hookups."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579387692278347858

[Pinot]

I bet this has been cherry picked for desired result , This is just more pro Clinton Media rubbish.

Of course it was. Anything to try and keep the Beefy Elderly Drunken Crazylady alive.

It's the beginning of 'Flop Sweat' time for the Clintonistias...

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

What's going to happen when the final election results are announced in November? Will that be just more Clinton Media rubbish when Trump gets the severe electoral drubbing he has coming?