Including a whopping 91% of RepublicansTwo-thirds of likely voters say President Obama has kept his 2008 campaign promise to change America — but it’s changed for the worse, according to a sizable majority.
A new poll for The Hill found 56 percent of likely voters believe Obama’s first term has transformed the nation in a negative way, compared to 35 percent who believe the country has changed for the better under his leadership.
The results signal broad voter unease with the direction the nation has taken under Obama’s leadership and present a major challenge for the incumbent Democrat as he seeks reelection this fall.
Conducted for The Hill by Pulse Opinion Research, the poll comes in the wake of last month’s Supreme Court decision that upheld the primary elements of Obama’s signature healthcare legislation.
It found 68 percent of likely voters — regardless of whether they approve or disapprove of Obama — believe the president has substantially transformed the country since his 2009 inauguration.
The feeling that Obama has changed the country for the worse is strongest among Republicans, at 91 percent, compared to 71 percent of Democrats who support Obama’s brand of change.
How can 44% be so stupid??
Common Sense
hi, the 44% are not concerned about their neighbor, no
they only think about their own little self,
and don’t care for their COUNTRY EITHER,
THEY HAVE BECOME A BIG BOLDER IN THE BALANCE OF CITIZENS
AND REGRETTABLY ARE VOTING THE WRONG WAY,
SHAMELESSLY
@Common Sense: It’s not quite that doom and gloom. It’s the 35% that believe he changed the country for the better who are a lost cause. The 9% who don’t have an opinion yet are just slow learners. : )
The only poll that counts is the one taken on election day, Curt.
I keep reading about these polls that say Americans are firmly against most forms of abortion, yet when it comes to election day they vote for the person who is most pro-abortion.
Isn’t that odd?
All that matters is the Electoral College results. Romney must win Fla. and Ohio. Both are tossups. Rubio or Portman need to be the Veep choice. Senate fight also close.
Ivan Many people like myself abhor abortion but feel the woman has the final say. Education and improved adoption proceedings are needed.
@Richard Wheeler: Richard, as usual well said. I believe abortion should have should be restricted but available. To say the choice should always be the woman’s, from my perspective, has some weakness. If the woman ultimately made the correct choice regarding the subject of pregnancy then abortion would be a procedure rarely needed. There is a process which is 100% effective against pregnancy except maybe in the case of rape, this would be an exception and if a serious health risk was created due to pregnancy then I would allow such a choice. Sadly abortion has become much much more.
@Richard Wheeler: Of the 43 presidential elections, the winner of the popular vote won the presidency over 90% of the time. Basing a strategy on the Electoral College has less of a chance of success than focusing on winning the popular vote. Win the popular vote and the Electoral college will take care of itself. Just a different way of looking at things.
In agreement on abortion except I don’t have an issue with it in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother’s life is at stake. Paying for it for with tax dollars is a no go as well. The best way to reduce it is through #1 abstinence and #2 contraception, which shouldn’t be paid for with tax dollars either.
AnotherVet In 2000 “w” lost poplar vote by approx 500,00o but was elected through wins in Ohio and Fla. He won popular vote by over 2 million in 04 but if Kerry had got just 110,ooo votes more in Ohio he’s POTUS. A Repub must win Ohio to be Prez. Concentrate there and in Fla and the rest will work it’s way out.
@Richard Wheeler: The candidates shouldn’t waste their time in certain states, i.e Romney in California/Illinois and Obama in Texas/S. Carolina. Bush won in 2004 because he won the popular vote. Had he not won the popular vote, he would have lost the election unlike 2000 which was one of three exceptions. The best indicator of how well a President will do in the election is his approval on election day. If Obama stays at 46-47% like he is now, that is roughly the percent of the popular vote he will get. There is no way he will win the Electoral College if he loses the popular vote by that big of a margin. As a matter of fact, the College wouldn’t even be close. If those numbers were to reverse, the same would go for Romney.
Another Vet Reality ck. shows current popular vote polls very close and within margin of error.At this point election is a tossup. Any other “analysis” is wishful thinking.
Gotta be “It’s the economy stupid” over and over for Mitt to win. Last heard Mata believed Romney couldn’t win. Does she still believe that? I’ll say again he needs Portman or Rubio. Condi would insure a win but she’s pro-choice and won’t be picked.
My gut says Obama survives— barely. Rubio/Rice 2016
While there is time for other events to make it play out differently, if the election were held this month, no… still don’t think Romney can win. I’ve said it before, this is the worst pick of a candidate the GOP could run for this year, this economy and this moment in time in history. They should have been grooming and recruiting a candidate since 2009, but they didn’t. This might be their greatest mistake as a party in their history.
Problem for Romney is – despite the fact that 59% (see poll below) of his voters are an ABO vote – it won’t be enough for his last name not to be Obama to carry the day because the ABO voters are not going to be those that decide the election. And no… the Veep slot ain’t going to do the trick either, much as you think it will. Unless the guy in the top slot can cut the mustard with the swing Indy voters, it won’t make an iota of difference save for enthusiasm in getting the voters out to the polls.
Both liberals and conservatives know we have a problem with the economy and jobs. Both, of course, see widely diverse solutions to deal with that problem. However what both sides have in common is that neither substantially believes their guy has got a clue.
i.e. the poll commissioned by Fox News, conducted jointly by Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R), (915 LV) shows that 36% think Obama has “a plan”, 61% don’t and only 4% don’t know if he has a plan. As for Romney, he fares worse with only 31% thinking he has a plan, 58% thinks he doesn’t, and 11% can’t figure out if he has a plan at all. You can chalk that up to messaging, or you can chalk it up to the fact he’s never been definitive about much of anything.
Add to that, Romney shares the common trait with Obama that they have virtually been campaigning since the 2008 election. While Obama’s favorability ratings go up and down with national events, Romney pretty much stays static, neither gaining significant traction, nor losing much.
As I mentioned above, only 59% of Romney voters are devotees, and are merely casting their vote ABO per a WaPo-ABC poll. On the flip side, 75% of Obama’s registered voters are devotees. Despite the fact that only 41% approve of Obama’s handling of health care, he still beats Romney by 1% of who can better handle the health care issue. That’s because, as I’ve said over and over, Romney has no moral high ground.
Here’s something that will bother conservatives in the wake of the opinions dumped by SCOTUS in the past couple of weeks. Future appointees are not high up on the voters radar, with only 49% of them considering it extremely or very important. To make it worse, among registered voters, Obama still leads Romney for future SCOTUS appointee picks, 48 to 40%. Again this may come back to Romney’s own MA record and his wishy washy response to the O’healthcare ruling, agreeing with Obama that it was a penalty and not a tax (much to the chagrin of the GOP establishment).
Of those polled in the WaPo/ABC, the highest ideological political affiliation was independents with 36%. 33% considered themselves Democrats and 24% considered themselves Republicans. The Indys will, as they usually do, decide the election.
Now I don’t put much stock in polls, but I do observe the nation’s response in general. Romney’s problem was, is and remains that he isn’t seen as a strong leader, hasn’t got an enthusiastic following, and even less of the nation thinks Romney has “a plan” compared to Obama. Even I believe Obama has more of a plan than Romney… it’s not one that I like, mind you. But he does have a plan.
@Richard Wheeler: Richard, you are correct in your assessment. The economy needs to be front and center with respect to this election cycle. The rest of the issues are distractions that 0-bama will be happy to discuss. 0-bamacare is relevant, our national debt is relevant, fast and furious relevant, and the list goes on. 0-bama will focus on the distractions of marriage, abortion, taxes, race, and Romney’s wealth. The rest of his strategy will be to make excuses and blame others for his failures. Sadly our MSM will drink his Kool Aid which makes reality of his failures even more difficult to point out. I do believe America feels duped by the MSM and 0-bama and that will have some relevance. At the end of the day though Ohio and Florida are must win for Romney.
Common Sense
look how OBAMA IS BEGGING FOR THE PEOPLE TO GIVE HIM MONEY
CONSTANTLY, AND HE SPENDING IT OUTRAGELY, HE GET A KICK TO SPEND IT,
JUST FOR THE SAKE OF NOURISHING HIS MANIC OF SPENDING ANY MONEY,
WHERE EVER IT COME FROM, THE UNIONS, THE TAX RETURN FROM THE PEOPLE, THE THUGS HE PAID JUST TO MAKE SURE THE MONEY IS GIVEN, THEY USE CONVINCING WORDS TO GET PEOPLE TO DIG IN THEIR POCKET,
compare to MITT ROMNEY WHO DOESN’T ASK FOR MONEY, IT SHOW THAT HE HAS CLASS NOT TO SEND PEOPLE TO CONVINCE THE PEOPLE, THEY COME FROM THEIR FREE WILL AND GIVE HIM TO HELP THE ELECTION FOR HIM, BECAUSE THEY SEE THE DIFFERENCE AND PREFER A PRESIDENT WHO IS NOT HUNGRY TO SPEND THE PEOPLE’S MONEY, MITT ROMNEY HAS THE MONEY, AND IS FOCUS
ON WHAT TO DO TO HELP THE PEOPLE COME BACK TO WORK AND RETAKE THEIR PRIDES,
WHICH OBAMA HAS CRUSHED BY KEEPING THE PEOPLE UNDER HIS IRON CLAD
COMMUNIST AGENDA,
BY THE WAY, WHAT WAS THAT HUSH HUSH SECRET, HE TOLD THE RUSSIAN PRIME MINISTER TO WAIT TILL AFTER HIS RE-ELECTION TO DEAL WITH THE COMMUNIST RUSSIA, IS THERE A COMMON AGREEMENT TO EXPAND THE COMMUNIST FURTHER ALONG THE RUSSIAN EXCHANGES TO INSTAURE MORE SOLID BASES IN AMERICA HELPED BY RUSSIA?
MATA
OBAMA DOESN’T HAVE THE CROWD TO MAKE JOBS FOR AMERICANS,
THEY ARE THE WEAKLINGS AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE WEAKLING IF HE WIN,
THEY ASPIRE TO FIND JOBS BY FORCING THE COMPANIES BY SENDING HIS THUGS TO GRAB THEM
BY THE THROAT AND ORDER THEM TO MAKE JOBS THE COMPANIES DON’T WANT TO.
BUT ON THE SIDE OF THE OTHER CANDIDATE MITT ROMNEY IS NOT USING THOSE RADICALS PERSUASIVE TACTICS, BECAUSE THE COMPANIES KNOW HIM NOT TO FORCE BUT TO ELEVATE THEIR POWER OF CREATING JOBS , UNDER THEIR FREE WILL, JUST WHAT IS AMERICA HAS DONE SO WELL IN ALL WALK OF SOCIETY, A BEEHIVE IN MOTION CAPTURING THE SWEET OF THE MOST PERFUMED FLOWERS FREELY RETURNING TO CREATE THE PRODIGIOUS HONEY OF AMERICA, FOR THE PEOPLE TO EAT, FOR THE WORLD TO BUY AS A TREASURE FROM AMERICA.
@Richard Wheeler: At his point the race is a toss up and Obama, being the sitting President, is still the favorite. If you look at historical trends since 1932, when a President runs for re-election he either wins or loses by a comfortable margin and if he wins, he does better than when first elected. Even though Bush’s victory in 2004 was closer than those of years past, it still fit that trend.
A lot of folks, especially the pundits, want to make this a close race because it produces more drama and hype which of course makes people listen to them more. Remember how we were being told up until the election itself, that the Wisconsin recall election was going to be too close to call when in fact, the not so close election hadn’t been close well prior to the election itself. But it did produce lots of drama.
We need to keep in mind that this race has changed. A few months ago they were ready to call the race and swear Obama in. Pundits were claiming he had a ‘lock’ on 252 electoral votes and it would be just a matter of time before he locked in the other 18. This election may very well buck historical trends and be a close race but I wouldn’t be surprised either, if one of the two pulls out in front before the election and stays there.
Another Vet You’re suggesting BHO could win big. Don’t think so.Romney could get sizable victory if all goes against BHO in next 4 months. Also doubtful. As you stated he has advantage of incumbancy and a favorable press– in spite of what some posters proclaim at F.A the guy is likeable.
Romney is outraising him substantially.Will be a factor.
Mata suggests Romney was a bad choice. Sad cast of characters. Rubio/Rice 2016
@Richard Wheeler: If Obama were to win a close race, he would buck a historical trend. It’s not impossible especially given how divided this country has become. If Romney fails to win this year, there won’t be a Romney/Rubio ticket in 2016 because Romney will be damaged goods. Losing against someone with Obama’s record makes that person an even bigger loser. As for Obama’s favorability/likeability, that is probably the only reason his approval rating isn’t lower than what it is. His negative campaign ads may backfire on him in that regards as will his fact checked distortions of Romney’s Bain record. People will quit believing what he says. Going negative this early is not an encouraging sign.
MITT ROMNEY DON’T NEED TO SHOUT, he know the people understand, that it’s the economie,
but OBAMA AND BIDEN shout at people just like unions thugs, as if they take people as dumb ,
NOT a good way to treat the VOTERS, they will shout back in NOVEMBER,
BTW, in between the doin’s of the day, I stopped by Breitbart’s Big Government site, and saw that Mike Flynn is protesting the WaPo/ABC poll I linked to above.
First, the WaPo/ABC poll gave two different results… one for all the responders, and a second one for the LV only. But more importantly, the thing about traditions is that they only remain traditions when honored. However political affiliations have changed quite a bit since 2008. The Dems experienced an injection of party registrants while the GOP lost a lot of Republicans to undesignated party Independent status.
A January 2012 Gallup poll has the new tradition…
If the GOP is skewed down at 24%, than the Independents are skewed down even more if they are closer to representing 40% of the nation.
Kinda looks like a “None of the Above” party is already forming as the predominate political party in the nation.
@MataHarley: This may have been a good year f0r a third party to take a stab at it like Perot in 1992. A good showing would have shown our two parties that we are sick of having the can kicked down the road.
Technically, another vet, we don’t need an “official” third party to do that. Sort of a “we don’t need no stinkin’ badges” moment. You can be registered in any Party, but when you cast your ballot, you are free to vote the way you want.
On a smaller scale, Lisa Murkowski launched a write in campaign in Alaska, got herself back in the Senate and beat the Tea Party candidate. If there was such a viable alternative with the strength of support, they could do the same. But most fear that route since the “Party”, and their Party faithful, would punish them for eternity. And the Party represents both power and money.
@MataHarley: An independent could make a splash but it would be harder for them than someone who had an actual organization to go out and get the vote. Perot was able to do it but he had the bucks. I’m thinking that the Libertarian Party, if they modified their views on National defense, would have a half way decent shot. Their candidate this year has more executive experience than Obama had in 2008. No doubt that party or no party, the two in control now would do everything in their power to prevent someone else from stealing some of that power. If you don’t mind me asking, what are your thoughts on the Libertarian Party?
Used to be a registered Libertarian back in the 90s, another vet. It’s rather like every other political party.. there are just some platform issues that I can’t agree with. But I doubt I’m alone in that. Most of us are a mix of political stripes. Then there’s the personal traits many exhibit… much like a cult mentality amongst too many of them for my tastes. I don’t do “group think” well.
So ideologically, I’m pure independent, and don’t pay attention to the letter behind the candidate’s name. I’d rather not register as any party member, however since I live in a state with closed primaries, I registered here as a Republican just so I can have some say in a candidate for local and State level elected officials. Our primary is too late in the season to be worth a grain of salt in a POTUS nomination. Funny how that works, tho… none of my chosen “republicans” are ever picked. That’s because most “republicans” in Oregon are of the RINO/moderate variety.
Mitt should fare well here, save for the fact that the liberal progressives who control the urban centers will drown out their numbers… even if they all showed up to vote in November. Looking at the political dynamic map of Oregon is amazing… so much red across the territorial landscape. But the few blue spots just happen to be the heaviest concentration of voters in our few major city centers. I sometimes joke that Oregon’s strict residence-per-acreage zoning regulations are designed to keep those pesky conservative rural folks limited. LOL