I don't think that is quite true. To help win 2010 election Republicans took the position that they are Defending medicare from cuts while defending all tax payers including the rich, from tax increases. That is a very unifying position ('we are in this together') that gets votes but doesn't cut the deficit. By not proposing any specific cuts, and defending Medicare benefits, many 2010 voters assumed they could balance the budget cutting ACORN and legal fees for terrorists and child molesters.
Now Republicans having some power are trying to actually cut spending (or sending up test probes anyway) appear to be saying “ America is so broke we have to take away your entitlement (while still taxing you for it), and it is necessary to cut tax rates further especially on ‘the rich’ to fix the economy.“
The second position is not nearly as popular as the first and would have polled just as badly last year as this year, especially with Democrats assault. In fact we might be better off now if Republicans had run on their actual position (the second one) and didnt do as well 2010 election cycle.
I know certain hosts on talk radio claimed that ‘tax cuts/increases on the rich’ is a subject that the majority of people will consistently agree with them on, leading listeners to be shocked like now when the issue is bundled with entitlement cuts, (or elimination to some degree). But I am not.
I’ve only seen polls of “adults” on the “soak the rich” topic. And, since half of “adults” aren’t even registered to vote, I really don’t know why anybody pays attention to that sort of poll.
Sounds like pure manipulation of public opinion through misleading polling.
I think it is quite likely that misgivings about perceived (real or imagined) entitlement changes/cuts could weaken or even punish poll responses about tax cuts for "the rich." It's also likely that union members/sympathizers who didn't think GOP govs. had the nerve to actually do something about pensions, benefits, etc. now see them as a real threat. Personally, I think federal and state reforms actually save the future benefits, but what do I know?
This view pretty much agrees with your statement: I know certain hosts on talk radio claimed that ‘tax cuts/increases on the rich’ is a subject that the majority of people will consistently agree with them on, leading listeners to be shocked like now when the issue is bundled with entitlement cuts, (or elimination to some degree). But I am not.
Unfortunately, the donkeys have had some success bundling tax cuts for small business with loopholes for crony capitalists like GE.
But at this point, I don't think neither side has a decisive advantage.