Posted on 11/07/2014 8:04:53 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Should the reaction here be “that many?” Or “that few?”
Not where Hopenchange expected to be six years into America’s new golden age, I’m guessing.
The amazing thing about that? When people are asked whether they like Obama personally, 59 percent overall still say they like him either a lot or somewhat. Among Democrats, it’s 88 percent. And yet, the only group among the many different demographics here — age, race, party, region, gender, income, you name it — that shows a majority wishing Obama could run again is black voters at 64 percent. No other group reaches 40. For a guy who won two landslides and who’s favorable rating is durably healthy, that strikes me as a surprisingly low number.
But there’s an obvious explanation, isn’t there?
Granted, that’s the word cloud for people who view him unfavorably, but if incompetence looms that large for them, it must be in the mix even for people who still say they like O personally. His job disapproval, in fact, is nearly the mirror image of his favorable rating — fully 58 percent either somewhat or strongly disapprove versus just 38 percent who approve. (Democrats, liberals, and blacks are the only demographic groups showing majority approval.) The public wants him to succeed; there’s just not enough “there” there to say that he has.
The good news for Democrats, though, is that Obama’s loss is Hillary’s gain. The more disaffected Dems feel from Hopenchange, the more they’ll start turning to Clinton as the de facto leader of the party. And the nice thing about that, since she doesn’t hold office, is that there’s no way for her to disappoint them (yet). Every time O fails, they can assure themselves that Hillary would have made the right call. Logically, then, I’d expect excitement for her be sky high compared to O. And yet:
Only a very slight preference for Hillary overall, and among Democrats, it’s Obama who’s slightly preferred. Black voters, who prefer O to Hillary 61/20, are probably the difference-makers there, and of course they’ll vote overwhelmingly for her in 2016 over whoever the GOP nominates (sorry, Rand). The worry here for Hillaryworld isn’t that she’s going to lose the black vote, it’s that blacks may prefer Obama to her so sharply that they simply won’t turn out for her in the numbers that they did for O. That’s a Democratic nightmare waiting to happen, a potentially decisive blow if the election is close. And the worst part for lefties, given how badly Obama himself failed to turn out black voters to try to stop Tuesday’s GOP wave, is that even the endorsement of The One himself in 2016 might not boost turnout for her to the levels he saw. That’s a key subplot of the next election. This is one of many data points to come.
The 39% number is OF Democrats. I find 39% even among Dems hard to believe after the wreckage he’s wrought upon their electoral fortunes. Course being Dems, they’re in perpetual denial, so they don’t acknowledge that he and his policies are the problem, I guess.
One thing Bill Clinton proved this fall.
He is as toxic a campaign endorser as ever.
I think darn near every one he appeared with lost.
Chels is probably thinking...when I make my run...how do I keep Mom and Dad away...
Which explains much of what is wrong in country. 40% of our citizens think this turd of a _resident deserves another 4 years speaks volumes of how ignorant and wicked our nation has become.
I am not amazed at all. Obama has never fallen below 39% approval... my opinion is that 39%/40% is the stupid/hopeless liberal mark in this country. It has been this way for at least 25 years (look at Clinton/Bush/Perot race of 1992).
And what of Hillary’s 2016 campaign? Could it be that the Clintons time has come and gone? Is there really great enthusiasm in today’s Democrat party for another rerun of the Clintons???
I was referring to question 26, near the end, where they asked people whether they supported Hillary, Barack, or neither, and broke it down by age groups and by party identification.
And so is the IQ of that group. This is the low end of the Bell curve we’re talking about here.
I dunno. I might have voted yes to 'wish he could run for a third time'.
I pulled the lever to flush him the first two times. Maybe this amount of dung needed three flushes.
My view:
Hillary’s gigantic ego is telling her to run.
Highly paid consultants are telling her “you could easily repeat the embarrassment of 2008 when you were “inevitable” and an unknown guy from Kenya snuck in and stole the kishka”.
We’ll find out probably in the fall.
39%?
He’ll listen to the 100% who didn’t participate in the poll.
Think about how much money he would suck out of the election cycle. Who cares if he isn't eligible to serve - as long as the other candidates have less megabuck$.
2/5 of the population are clinically insane.
The thrill is gone.
Quoting Milwaukee's Sheriff David Clarke: "When the horse is dead.....dismount!" It won't take a large percentage of black voters to get off the dead horse of the Dem party to make a difference.
That’s enough for obama to declare a mandate, he will serve a third term, and cancel elections by executive order, anyone think he is not so delusional as to attempt such a thing.
I want to see the kenyan bastard IMPEACHED, REMOVED and INCARCERATED, but when the proceedings start. he needs to be removed under the 25th Amendment because there is already speculation he would commit some radical act in reprisal.
wish = primacy of emotionalism over reason. Typical of libtard concrete bound anti-reality mentality.
Well .. actually, Obama was elected to fulfill the left’s pipe-dreams from the 60’s .. a utopia called “America”.
We, who did not spend most of our youth doing drugs, realize that utopia doesn’t exist. Eventually, the lies are so out of control, the people begin to see the truth.
When it hits you in your own pocketbook, you take much more notice; graduates cannot find a job and they’re deeply in debt for their education; it doesn’t matter what the admin says, the students are living the destruction of America.
Just today, the admin is saying the unemployment is at 5.8% (????) with 92 million out of work ..????? When, the real number is more like 13-14% (because the 92 mil are not be counted as “unemployed”). You cannot have that many people out of work and then claim you have a number like 5.8%. What they’re trying to fudge is the fact that when Bush left office, the unemployment was at 5.4%.
This admin’s obsession with all things Bush is sickening.
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.