Last week a NBC News/Marist poll showed President Obama and Mitt Romney locked in a tight race in Florida and Virginia while Obama led by six percentage points in Ohio, another swing state.The top issue: the economy; voters told pollsters the economy trumped social issues by a wide margin, and that was before today’s devastating jobs report. Pennsylvania is another crucial state, and last weekend I held one of CJR’s ongoing “Town Halls”—this one at a Walmart in the Poconos near the town of Honesdale—to hear a bit of what ordinary people are thinking about the issues.
Our sample was far from scientific, of course, but it showed that these Walmart shoppers, at least, are indeed worried about the economy. Also that they are disappointed in the president and have little enthusiasm for either candidate. Some insisted they were not political. But as they began talking, it became clear they were intensely political and had strong views:
Jorge
I met 32-year-old Jorge Jaramillo, who lives in nearby Tafton. He’s a customer service manager at the store and was walking the aisles. Were the presidential candidates answering his concerns? Jaramillo thought for a while
and then answered: “not really.” What’s bugging you, I wanted to know? “It’s probably the job situation,” he answered. “That’s really getting to me, especially here [in northeast Pennsylvania]. It’s hard to get work. Building is down and has been for two or three years.” Jaramillo said he is working four hours a week less than he used to work. “I can tell you in this store, Walmart is making drastic cuts in hours employees can work.”
We talked about other hot button issues in the political mix, including Medicare and healthcare. Jaramillo said he did not worry about Medicare, but he had some opinions about the health reform law. “I am not crazy about any healthcare plan,” he told me. “I am not a fan of what was passed.” The plan, he said, was “like forced on us. It wasn’t what I had hoped for.” What was he hoping for? I tried several variations until I asked if he had been hoping for a system like in France or Canada? “Yes,” he replied, “that’s it.”
“I’m an Independent, but leaning Republican,” Jaramillo said. “The last four years haven’t worked out as well as I had hoped.”
Helen
Helen, who works in Walmart’s bakery, was taking her break when I stopped to chat. She, too, was uneasy about Obama’s health reform law and all the talk about the financial health of Medicare and Social Security. Helen, who is 62, said she would have to keep working for several more years to pay off the mortgage on her house in the town of Beach Lake. She said she was “getting nervous” that Social Security and Medicare may disappear: “Is it going to be there for us?”
Helen went on: “One thing I don’t like about Obama is healthcare.” What in particular does she dislike?—making people buy coverage and penalizing them if they don’t. “If you can’t afford healthcare, how are you going to afford the penalties?” she said. “Why punish them?”
She is also troubled by the high deductibles that people with insurance now pay for their policies. High-deductible insurance is becoming the norm, both for coverage offered by employers and for those who have to buy insurance on their own. Helen told me one lady she knew had to pay $2500 before her insurance paid anything. “She’s not going to take care of herself because she has to pay for some of these things,” she said. “It’s amazing to me to hear how people have to pay $300 for this or $800 for that. Health insurance should be ‘you have it, they pay.’” I asked why she thought this was happening: “It’s what the insurance companies can get away with,” she said.
Helen said she was conflicted about the presidential election. “I’m from the party Obama is from. But I’m not sure I will vote for him. I am not as with him as I was four years ago. And we’ve been diehard Democrats for twenty some years.”

Oy, this piece illustrates how confused and ill-informed people are about the issues and the candidates' positions and accomplishments. You've got a couple of people who want a single payer system or want to protect Medicare and Social Security and they say they're leaning Republican??? Or they don't like high-deductible health care plans and they're thinking of voting for Romney, who favors even higher-deductible plans? And they want more money for education and they're going to vote Republican? Or they're a staunch union member and they call themselves Libertarians? Social Security is "mismanaged"? This lack of accurate information among voters worries me about the future of the country.
#1 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Fri 1 Jun 2012 at 01:16 PM
The consensus seems to be that Obama had better reserve a U-Haul next January....
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 1 Jun 2012 at 02:33 PM
"Oy, this piece illustrates how confused and ill-informed people are about the issues and the candidates' positions and accomplishments."
Know how republicans run campaigns. Especially when the pinch is on and people feel disconnected with their politics and politicians (thanks anti-populist DLC/DNC for sucking all the emotion out of the Democratic message) they base their decisions on impressions and not on specifics. Old link ahead:
http://blog.buzzflash.com/interviews/035
"BuzzFlash: Could Karl Rove have been as successfully politically as he’s been without television?
James Moore: No, absolutely not. Karl understands completely the value of that medium. In fact, he commented to one of our sources for Bush's Brain that he runs all of his campaigns as if people were watching television with the sound turned down. What you end up with, then, is image over substance. Consider the couple having dinner with their children at the kitchen table with the TV on across the room and the sound turned down. They look over and see a smiling President on board an aircraft carrier with "Mission Accomplished" behind him. They might think, "Oh, good. That problem’s over. We can get on with our lives." They tend to compartmentalize and put that away, trusting that if the President of the United States is saying something to them, he’s speaking the truth, and not that it’s the latest of a series of messages to sustain a fiction.
And when one sound bite or image runs out, they come up with another one. That’s what Karl has done so effectively. He simplifies and encapsulates, and distills things to black and white, and right and wrong, and portrays people who are interested in subtlety and nuance and detail and a complete discussion of an issue, as dumb asses. And the American public, because they are busy with their lives, because they’re so worried about their mortgages and their retirement, and the future of their children, and everything else -- their default position is not to read the 3,000-word story in the newspaper, but to look at the thirty-second commercial and say: okay, I get it. I’m going to vote this way. To me, that may be the Achilles heel of our democracy -- if we don’t find a way to stop Karl Rove and his ilk from doing that."
So without a series of positive images of Democratic achievements for the public, and republican PAC's saturating the public with negative ones, voters get very confused very quickly.
Especially when the media is avoiding words like filibuster and obstruction when it talks about what republicans are doing to the country.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 1 Jun 2012 at 02:53 PM
According to the charts, the media isn't helping.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/the-charts-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-media-bias/257961/
When it takes a guy from AEI to point out the problem, and he gets blacked out because of it:
http://mediamatters.org/print/research/201205180007
The media is not being neutral, it is assisting the other side.
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 1 Jun 2012 at 03:00 PM
I'd sure like to see more news organizations do less horse-race coverage and a lot more explaining of what Romney and the Republicans are offering as their alternative to the Affordable Care Act. See my recent article on this, as well as an excellent earlier piece by Noam Levey in the LA Times.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/764555
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/23/nation/la-na-romney-healthcare-20120423
#5 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Sun 3 Jun 2012 at 08:01 PM
Yep, the best way to "protect Medicare and Social Security" is to print more money. When will those dumb Republicans get it? Money is free, deficits are a mirage.
In fact, just quadruple the payouts and there goes your recession. Why are people so confused and ill-informed? Thimbles is right - it's all Karl Rove's fault.
#6 Posted by JLD, CJR on Sun 3 Jun 2012 at 11:08 PM
"When it takes a guy from AEI to point out the problem, and he gets blacked out because of it:
http://mediamatters.org/print/research/201205180007 "
Once again, Chris Hayes is doing some of the best journalism on tv:
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/up-with-chris-hayes/47664014#47664014
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 3 Jun 2012 at 11:08 PM
Why stick with tweedle-dee or even try tweedle-dum when there are clearly other choices who will represent the 99%.
Before anyone should scoff at this concept understand that this nation has never been more ready for a third party. The two-headed war party D & R represent only the 1%.
See Jill Stein's "People's State of the Union"...
http://www.jillstein.org/text_psou
#8 Posted by William Fields, CJR on Mon 4 Jun 2012 at 02:29 PM