Posted on 08/10/2015 2:10:24 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
So much for continuity. Recently, Barack Obama bragged that he could win a third term in office if the Constitution didn’t prohibit it, but a new Monmouth poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly want a change of direction and approach. Only 27% would support a hypothetical Obama re-election, and more than two-thirds would vote for someone else if Obama appeared on the ticket:
The poll also looked at Pres. Barack Obama’s overall standing with the public. In a recent speech, Obama said that he could win a third term if the Constitution didn’t limit him to two. The poll’s results suggest this may be a bit of wishful thinking. Just 26% of American voters say they would vote to re-elect Obama if he was allowed to run for another term while fully 68% would vote for somebody else. It’s no surprise that Obama would find little enthusiasm for another four years in the White House among Republicans (5%) or even independents (23%) at this stage. However, his support among Democrats is not particularly strong either – just 53% would back the incumbent for a third term while 43% of his fellow partisans would vote for somebody else.
“Well, it was worth a shot,” said Murray. “It’s not like the president’s claim could ever be tested for real.”
Pres. Obama’s job rating has dropped after temporarily poking its head above water last month. He currently has a negative 45% approve to 50% disapprove rating with the American public. That’s lower than the 47% positive to 46% negative rating he held in July, but it is similar to his job ratings from earlier in the year. Currently, 79% of Democrats approve of the president’s job performance – similar to 80% in July – whereas 85% of Republicans disapprove – up from 80% in July. Independents give Obama a negative split at 39% approve and 52% disapprove, which is slightly worse than last month’s rating of 42% approve and 48% disapprove.
Part of this might be the Iran deal, which reminds Americans why term limits in this office are a good idea. While a large number of people remain unsure about the deal, a narrow plurality (27/32) opposes it, with independents breaking almost exactly with the public at large (27/33). However, 61% say that Iran cannot be trusted to abide by the deal, which means that any progression among the undecideds (41%) will probably tilt heavily negative. The argument that opposition is tantamount to support for war certainly hasn’t made a dent in the public’s opinion, at least according to Monmouth’s sample.
This poll shows the danger for Democrats contemplating a Hillary Clinton nomination, which would necessarily rely on continuity as an argument in the general election, especially on foreign policy. Chris Cillizza points this out at the Washington Post, in an update on an article from last week on a similar result from a WSJ/NBC poll:
A new national poll from Monmouth University reaffirms why Clinton has to avoid being cast as a third term for Obama. Just 27 percent of registered voters say they would vote for Obama for a third term if he could run for one; among Democrats, 43 percent said they would not support Obama in a third term and would prefer someone else. …
There’s a nugget buried deep within the new NBC-Wall Street Journal national poll that speaks to the challenge for Hillary Rodham Clinton as she tries to follow President Obama into office next November.
Just 30 percent of people polled said that the next president “should take an approach similar to that of Barack Obama” while two thirds preferred a “different” approach than the one of the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
That’s not just a warning about Hillary Clinton, but about the latest idea of a Plan B, Joe Biden. The only possible reason to nominate Biden would be as a continuity candidate. Even more than Hillary, Biden is firmly attached to Obama’s record on practically everything, and lacks any real raison d’être as a candidate except to extend Obama’s policies and political approaches.
What would that leave? America’s most famous socialist, who’s appealing to those who want an even more extreme turn to the Left. And it’s undeniably attractive to progressives, as the turnout for Bernie Sanders’ events are approaching stadium-rock levels, but that would be a disaster for Democrats both in a national election and all the way down the ticket.
A change after Obama...????? What took so f’ing long? I wanted a change after his election the first time!
So, 68% now want a change from the fundamental change? What a fickle lot.
That is racist not think like Barry.
Only an idiot would want to repeat the lost decade we have been in.
2016 version of Hope and Change.
It’s going to take a hell of a lot more than just “a change”.
None of the GOPe candidates come anywhere close to offering a change.
Run the damn liberals out of the country!
Too bad. The hundreds of thousands of illegals Obama has invited into the country think he’s just wonderful and have no plans to change direction.
***************************************
And who the heck among Republicans would that 5% be? It should be "zero" .... oh wait .... Boehner, McConnell ...
I wanted a change before he was elected. Brain dead are waking up a bit after 6+ years of damage right before their face! They must be so proud of themselves.
This is interesting information as we look toward the 2016 election.
First, I see the Colin Powell/Donor class wing of the R party is down to 5 percent of Republicans. That’s good—if we could send them off on a cocktail cruise for the next year or so and not have to think about them, it would be a relief.
Second, the 23 percent of Independents who would vote again for O (the mental illness wing of American voters) can continue to hallucinate about the nobility of independent thinking while waiting for the 3pm meds nurse.
The chunk of the D party that is disaffected with Hillary (the “I want to be a rich child” wing of the D party—nearly all D’s and all of whom want more parenting and lots of free treats) are never going to vote like responsible citizens and will never get the attention they crave. I think the trauma of losing J Stewart will keep them depressed for a while.
The portion of the D party that is activist (the moonbat wing—that segment of society that is 50, a pub school teacher, and couldn’t do math more complex than counting change) will continue to cheer for Hillary and wish they had more love. Smile at them and they will be happy.
The people I care about are in the “conservative” camp. They are really just working Americans who are tired of being the funding source and butt of abuse to all the other groups who can’t seem to negotiate regular life, that is, balancing freedom and responsibility day-to-day. They are receiving help from an unexpected source (Trump) who is showing how ineffectual the ruling class and other groups can be if challenged, who has taken the propaganda system by the tail, and who is using it to open a communication path to Americans with the message that we don’t have to give up. He may not become President and may have very different ideas than many Americans but his accomplishment is not in being Presidential—his accomplishment is opening up the opportunity for a better gov’t and leadership, whomever that might be (e.g., Cruz). That is his contribution and I credit him with that.
“That is racist not think like Barry.”
Just the white half.
The a##wipe half breed posing as an american born black man has failed! He’s so smart he f’d himself. Just think if he had a brain and was a patriot, but he chose to be small minded if there is one a there at all
The repubs should be hammerin Obama and tie Hillary to him.
Ineresting, that means the elites are only 1 in 20.
A shame not one ‘journalist’ (aka dim shill) asked Il Douché what the fundamental change entailed when he was campaigning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.