I can understand that, if one is annoyed at the Democratic Party, and they would want to vote for an alternative.  Maybe they would feel that they have to pick the other party.  But, leaving this out, which is understandable, why would someone struggling economically even remotely consider voting for the Republican party?

Words I have seen from the GOP is they want to cut benefits to those on the lower end, cause those who aren't paying taxes now pay taxes (and also raise taxes on the lower end), and speaks of the answer being lower taxes for the wealthy.  In the end, the theory is that the successful will end up investing more, and this will somehow result in positive impact on the bottom.  Outside of the belief that somehow, the economy gets better by doing this, and a byproduct is that people who are struggling economically will do better, why else would any American believe GOP has any answers specifically for them?

It's the usual belief that the GOP is conservative, which people identify with as less gov't, less taxes = more money in the pocket, and they are also able to sell a religious agenda. There is also weird fear of education, change and progress, and the GOP panders to that very well.

Maybe they realize Obama isn't exactly a frugal spender and they believe Mitt Romney's experience in the private sector will help make the US more economically responsible and efficient? I don't know what experience in the private sector will translate to his presidency, but I definately feel better about having a business man become president in these tough times than Obama even if the two share nearly the exact same views on most everything.

I ask myself this question everyday. Republicans (President Bush and 6 years of Republican congress with him) took a surplus and ran this county's money supply into the ground. Why would anyone think giving power back to that party would FIX anything?

Because everyone knows the best way to heal a sprained ankle is to shoot yourself in the foot.

The president before Obama was also a businessman.  GW Bush was in the oil business, and had experience in the private sector.  Dick Cheney also did with Halliburton.  Not sure how well that worked out.  Of course, one may end up arguing that, unlike GW Bush, Romney was a successful business man.  But, in this economy jobs are a top issue.  And on that, Romney doesn't have a record.

Anyhow, beyond this, it has more to do with the GOP itself, rather than a candidate in particular.  Why would someone suffering economically, poor or lower class, or lower middle class, find any answers from the GOP for them?

Jon Huntsman, who ran in the GOP primary, is also looking to challenge the GOP on coming up with answers, and is now planning on skipping the convention to make this point:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/06/huntsman-challenges-party-will-not-attend-gop-convention-2/

Huntsman said that despite being asked repeatedly about his attendance, this year's convention will be the first he has not attended since serving as a delegate for Ronald Reagan in 1984.

"I will not be attending this year's convention, nor any Republican convention in the future, until the party focuses on a bigger, bolder, more confident future for the United States – a future based on problem solving, inclusiveness, and a willingness to address the trust deficit, which is every bit as corrosive as our fiscal and economic deficits," Huntsman said in a statement, reported first by the Salt Lake Tribune.

The economics of the situation is far removed from the private sector or personal experience (thats just a selling point for you to identify with); they are working with a global market. Which one of these guys do you think is going to surround themselves with a team of proven academics and specialsts that truly understands and embraces the global community? Neither one of these candidates will publicly address the inherent destructiveness of our modern imperialistic policis, but as we continue down this path do you believe one candidate will seek trade over domination, understanding over consequence? (these are decisions that will affect us for the rest of our lives)

Personally, I think only one candidate is even remotely aware and interested in addressing these issues on the scale in which they exist. I don't like a lot of the decisions and compromises he has made, but to choose the other would be an embarrassment. 

The GOP has lost its way for quite a while. They answer to big corporations and the banks (More visibly than other parties). The republican party used to be about keeping taxes low, small government intervention, job growth and incentives, but has become a wing of the Christian right. Religion should never affect the way a nation deals with its politics. Last time we did that not only was the level of control over the people stringent in a dictatorial fashion, but also the level of learning was also slowed and science challenged. The democrats are a social organization so I can see where the money goes for the "public good", but they spend too much for their own good, especially on people who wont pay taxes. Both parties are owned by corporate and bank lobbyists. At the end of the day, we aren't paying them six figures for the smallest decision. You don't even have to be the smartest anymore to be in a government position, just hungry for power.

I'd guess because republicans have traditionally gotten us out of dicey economic times.

The last 6 or so recessions have stopped under Republicans outside the most recent one, though despite being "technically" over I doubt many people feel it's actually over.

Reagan fixed Carters mess.

Bush Senior had a recession that he stopped after the cold war ending caused spending in that regard to fall apart.  (Who's debt crisis was actually quite like the crisis today.)

Hell, even before the Sub Prime Mortgage crisis happened, Bush Junior got us out of the .com crash/9/11.

Nixon even got us out of a recession i believe.

So really... the reason people would think that is recent historical precedent.  For a lot of people alive, practically any recession they've experienced as been "fixed" by a republican.

Sr. Bush ended up leaving a recession that Bill Clinton arguably got America out of.  If you want to end up saying that Jr. Bush inherited a recession, then he also produced one far worse.  By standards of recovering, things are better off now than they were when Jr. Bush left office.

If there was an ongoing mess with Carter, it was also a linger over from Ford.  You had the Fed jack up interest rates a lot, and fought inflation.  OPEC playing politics didn't help either.

Anyhow, a key would be to look at the GOP the way it is now and then try to answer why it, the party itself offers any answers to anyone who is struggling financially.  Need to look an the entire party and not just one person, or one office.