Barack Obama

Majority Disapproves of Obama's Job Performance, Support Slips Among Young Americans

|

The latest Reason-Rupe poll finds President Obama's approval rating has declined from 50 percent in May to 43 percent in September; disapproval has shot up to 51 percent. Obama's support has also slipped among young Americans, a critical group in his reelection coalition. Since May, Obama's approval among 18-29 year olds has declined 8 points from 62 percent to 54 percent. Nevertheless, the president still enjoys support from a slim majority of young people, and administration critics may find that young people perceive criticism of the president as really opposition to societal progress rather than simply an assessment of the president's policies.

Young Americans Still Like the President, Disappointed with Un-kept Promises

While Obama's approval among young people has declined, it's important to note that disapproval for the president has not exceed 40 percent since last year, standing at 38 percent in September. This suggests that while enthusiasm for the president has subsided since his 2012 reelection campaign, young Americans do not despise the president. Anti-Obama memes are unlikely to be successful in changing hearts and minds within this age group.

While young people do not dislike the president, they are disappointed in what they perceive to be his un-kept promises. For instance, the President has contended his administration is the "most transparent administration in history;" however, a majority (54 percent) of young people disagrees, while 44 percent agrees.

Considerably more young people disapprove of President Obama's handling of foreign policy (48 percent) than of his general job performance (38 percent), while 42 percent approve of his foreign policy handling (54 percent approve of general job performance). Moreover, only a third (35 percent) believe Obama has handled foreign policy better than predecessor George W. Bush. In contrast, 25 percent say his foreign policy handling has been worse, and 37 percent say it is no different. In sum, 62 percent of young Americans don't perceive President Obama's handling of international affairs to be any better than President Bush's.

Presidential Approval Declines Among Young White Americans, Remains Constant Among Young Nonwhite Americans

The Pew Research Center reported in 2009 that 61 percent of young Americans 18-29 were white and 39 percent were nonwhite, including African-Americans (14 percent), Latinos (19 percent), and Asians (5 percent). (In contrast 80 percent of seniors are white and 20 percent are nonwhite). The increase in diversity among today's young people prompts further analysis of millennials' attitudes taking into consideration differences in race and ethnicity. Doing so reveals young Americans' complex set of attitudes toward President Obama.

A slim majority (52 percent) of young white Americans disapproves of Obama's job performance, and 39 percent approves. In contrast, more than two-thirds of young nonwhite Americans approves of his performance, while a quarter disapproves. However, in January, Obama also had near majority support of young white Americans, when 50 percent approved of his job performance and 44 percent disapproved. Since January, support for the president has declined 11 points among young white Americans. In contrast, young nonwhite Americans support the president in roughly equal proportions in September as they did in January. It is necessary to keep in mind margins of error are considerably wider for these smaller subgroups; however, even assuming a 10-point margin of error barely coalesces these groups.

One may have expected a decline in support for the president since May amidst the IRS and Department of Justice scandals and controversial revelations of NSA surveillance and the situation in Syria. However, these data suggest that the aforementioned events had a differential impact on perceptions of the Obama administration between white and nonwhite Americans under 30.

Perceptions of the Obama administration's transparency also diverge when accounting for race and ethnicity. Young nonwhite Americans are significantly more likely than young white Americans to say President Obama has overseen the most transparent administration in history by a margin of 54 to 34 percent (assuming a 10 point margin of error barely coalesces responses).

Among young nonwhite Americans, 44 percent believe Obama has improved upon Bush's foreign policy handling compared to 26 percent of young white Americans.

A larger difference in perception emerges among young nonwhite Americans comparing general approval with Obama as president and his handling of foreign policy specifically. When asked about the president's handling of foreign policy, young nonwhite Americans' disapproval doubles that of general job performance (rising from 25 to 39 percent). In contrast, disapproval increases relatively less among young white Americans, rising from 52 percent (general job performance) to 58 percent (foreign policy handling).

Conclusion

These data indicate that the president is losing support among young Americans. However, recent controversies and foreign policy crises have had a differential impact among young nonwhite and white Americans in how they perceive President Obama. The President has lost support faster among young white Americans than nonwhite Americans. However, young nonwhite Americans were significantly more likely to disapprove of Obama's specific handling of foreign policy than they were his general job performance overall. While not all young people may agree with the administration's policies, many view the President as a symbol of positive change in the country—an indicator of greater inclusivity in politics and in society more generally.

Critics of the president would be wise to recognize that many young people may perceive critiques of the administration's policies as resistance or opposition to societal improvement. Therefore, critics should be careful they are clear that their disagreement is with policy not progress.

FULL REASON-RUPE POLL RESULTS HERE

Nationwide telephone poll conducted September 4-8 2013 interviewed 1013 adults on both mobile (509) and landline (504) phones, with a margin of error +/- 3.7%. Columns may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Full poll results found here. Full methodology can be found here.

NEXT: Democratic Congressman Tells GOP To Wake Up From Their "Wet Dream"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Lets stop lying. When people say they “still like the President” but “are disappointed” or “disprove” or whatever, they are saying “if he were any other President I would hate him with the heat of a thousand suns but I can’t do that since I would feel like a racist hating the first black President.” There is nothing likable about Obama. The only reason people don’t hate him is because he is black and American turned to not be ready to have a black President.

    Sorry, but when your fear of being called a racist prevents you from treating a black President like you would any other President, you are not mature enough to handle a black President.

    1. Worst president ever or just worst in the last 100 years? Definitely the worst administration in a very long while.

      1. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financialy rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $7439 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $74, per-hour. visit this site right here http://www.Pow6.com

    2. Or maybe you have a propaganda-fueled irrational hatred of the man and can’t understand why anyone could possibly approve of him? You need to put up or shut up with this mass diagnosis of the racial motivations of people, because actual evidence suggests that, on balance, Obama suffered more than benefited because of his race in his elections. (Polling indicates that in specific districts in the South, race was a major factor in votes against him.) Because if you don’t offer any evidence then it’s you who are being obnoxious and racist. But I suppose this goes into the right-wing narrative that being black is some giant leg up in this country.

      1. Tony you are a perfect example of what I am talking about. If Obama were white, even you would have turned on him long ago. There isn’t a single group of American’s whom Obama hasn’t managed to betrey in some way or another. But you are, like many white people in this country, so immature and so unable to treat black people like you would another white person, you are unable to honestly asses Obama in your own mind much less hold him accountable the way you would a white politician.

        So instead you pretend up is down and black is white and project all of your racial immaturity on Obama’s critics. Yeah Tony, it is all of us who object to Obama doing things we don’t like who are the ones who can’t get over his race. People like you who are totally unable to judge him by any reasonable standard and are terrified to think much less voice even the most obvious and reasonable criticism who are the ones who have moved on beyond race in this country.

        Sorry Tony, you will never see another black President in your life time. And that won’t be because of anything Obama did. You and people like you have proven so immature and so incapable of getting past race, that no one on either side is, if they are honest, going to want to have another President about whom honest conversation and criticism is prevented by the fear of being called a racist by various twits who can’t get over race as a way to judge people.

        1. John it is clearly you who are totally obsessed with Obama’s race. There’s no need to fear being called a racist. Just don’t be racist. It’s not that hard. Lesson 1: Claiming that the only reason Obama has any support at all is because he’s black IS RACIST. Implying that being black is some kind of advantage in this country IS RACIST.

          Just because you’re using the racist language of the 1980s instead of the 1960s doesn’t mean it’s not racism.

          You aren’t even saying anything specific Obama has done that is supposed to turn me into a ranting lunatic Obama hater. I generally support his policy positions. I understand that he’s dealing with an insane, irrational, and plain evil political opposition who thinks the country’s top priority is cutting SNAP (but not farm subsidies). What am I supposed to be mad about? Furthermore, what am I supposed to be mad about that wouldn’t be 10 times worse under a Republican?

          I’m sorry you’re obsessed with race, but not all of us are, even if you need us to be to justify your irrational hatred.

          1. You generally support his policy positions? No I’m pretty sure you allow a large man named Bruno to twist your nips while a toothless badger licks peanut butter off your balls to heighten the pleasure as you fondle yourself to Obama’s and the lefts policies.

            1. And I’m pretty sure you fuck your relatives.

          2. You aren’t even saying anything specific Obama has done that is supposed to turn me into a ranting lunatic Obama hater.

            I seem to remember you being pretty upset about wars, drone strikes, government spying, income inequality, unemployment, wall street and a lot of other things when Bush was in office. Yet, none of those things matter when it comes to Obama.

            You again prove my point. I never said you were supposed to be a lunatic hater. I said you were unable to even voice a reasonable criticism of Obama. You heard that and took it to mean lunatic hater. To you, any criticism of Obama is because you are some race hating lunatic.

            Again Tony, you and people like you have proven to be totally incapable of handling a black President. You can’t have a President that well over half the country won’t even think about criticizing out of fear of thinking themselves racist. And that is exactly what we have with Obama.

            1. If you don’t want to be accused of being a racist, don’t be a racist. You’ve spewed some of the most ridiculous racist vomit on this very thread, and you’re whining that you can’t criticize the president out of fear of mistakenly being called a racist? How about you stop being a fucking racist? Plenty of liberals manage to criticize the president on grounds that have nothing to do with his skin color.

              I care about the issues I’ve always cared about. But to the extent they haven’t been dealt with to my satisfaction, it’s really not the president’s fault. He hasn’t failed to reduce unemployment because of incompetence or malice: he is working with a Congress that has no interest in such things (there are, after all, poor people to take food away from).

              1. Yes Tony,

                You think any criticism of Obama is racism. You are so afraid of being called a racist, you can’t even have a rational conversation about him. Meanwhile, he is doing all sorts of things that you should find appalling. But you sit here defending him, calling everyone who is honest enough to point out reality ‘racist’.

                It is a shame. But people like you were not ready for a black President. You just can’t get over your guilt over being unable to view black people as equal human beings. You just can’t do it. In the end, you have to grade Obama on a curve because you can’t think of him as being worthy of being held to the same standards you would hold a white politician. And that is sad.

              2. I care about the issues I’ve always cared about. But to the extent they haven’t been dealt with to my satisfaction, it’s really not the president’s fault.

                So he has been in office for going on five years now and nothing is his fault? And since when is malice the standard for judging a President? You only judge a President on whether he means well not how good of a job he does?

                Could you possibly come up withe a more condescending and demeaning way to judge the President? Don’t you see what you are doing?

                  1. Yeah Tony, you so judged George Bush by his intentions not results. But Bush was white and thus a full human being in your eyes and worthy of actual condemnation. Obama is black and thus unworthy of such.

                    1. Sorry, I meant yes I can think of a more condescending and demeaning way to judge a president. I can point to a few examples on this page.

                      Bush deserved condemnation because he was a fuckup of epic proportions. I was a middle-of-the-road independent when he was appointed as president. He radicalized me against Republicans, probably forever. I really do try my best to judge things that matter. You are the one obsessing over race here. FTR I was a Hillary supporter till the bitter end.

                    2. Middle of the road independent who favors:

                      Nationalized Health Care
                      Hard Green Agenda
                      Punitive Taxation and Redistribution of Wealth
                      Increased Minimum Wage
                      Hate Speech Laws
                      Gun Control

                      What do you consider to be the radical Left? Everyone sleeping in one giant bed?

                      You were radicalized long before Bush came along.

          3. You are a shabby rationalist, and you mutilate your consciousness in order to evade reality.

            In order to be consistent to whatever your pragmatic “stance” is today, if a black person were to attack you with a knife while you held a gun, you would have to stand there and watch him disembowel you, for fear of somehow being “racist” by acting in self-defense.

          4. Implying that being black is some kind of advantage in this country IS RACIST.

            I guess acknowledging affirmative action is racist. Noting that many people voted for Obama because he is black is racist. Noting that people are often afraid of being called racists is racist.

            It’s racism all the way down.

          5. There’s no need to fear being called a racist. Just don’t be racist.

            You’re an addict!

            No I’m not.

            You’re just in denial!!

            No I’m not.

            See?!!! Denial!!

            Conversations involving the word ‘racist’ go the same way. Tony isn’t making an argument, he is trying to guilt people into not arguing with him.

        2. I contend that it’s not immaturity but their inherrent racism that doesn’t allow them to express their dislike of him. If you treated every other president in your life time one way but don’t do the same thing for the first half-black president, that is straight-up racism.

          1. 43% approval is not stellar… why the need to bring race into it at all? His numbers seem to be about where they should be given the state of things.

            Realize that not everyone is in the right-wing bubble in which Obama is the devil incarnate.

            1. 3% approval is not stellar… why the need to bring race into it at all?

              Because white liberals like you refuse to have an honest conversation about Obama. You defend him only because he is black. You force race into the discussion by being so dishonest. Start treating Obama like you would a white politician and race won’t be part of the discussion.

              You and people like you are the ones who made such a big deal about his being black. If you want to take race out of the discussion, stop calling everyone who criticizes Obama a racist.

              1. I defend him because he’s a liberal and a Democrat and I’m glad he’s in the White House and not some idiot warmongering Republican fucknut like his predecessor.

                Am I going to claim that race is completely irrelevant? No. It’s meaningful to people who care about racial progress that he’s black. But you are the one who brought up race. You always bring it up. You are positively obsessed with his race, and you are diagnosing the country of having a pro-black bias with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and, yes, it makes you come across as a racist idiot.

                The reality is I’ve never, ever, not once read anyone or heard anyone say anything along the lines of “I only support Obama because he’s black.” On the other hand, when I follow literally any link from the Drudge report to a page with a comments section, it’s always bursting at the seems with the most vile racism you can possibly imagine in this day and age. Even if it’s an article about a fucking toaster.

                I submit that the right–that’s you–is more obsessed with Obama’s race (and Obama in general) than anyone else. He literally makes you insane. It’s like there’s nothing else going on in the world other than Obama keeping you down.

                1. I defend him because he’s a liberal and a Democrat

                  Except that he has done things like pay off Wall Street, abuse the NSA to spy on Americans, and started wars that are anything but liberal. You are a liberal Democrat Tony. Fine. But Obama has done any number of things that you should be angry about. But you are not angry and get on here and pretend it wasn’t his fault because he is black. If he were a white President, you and people like you would have ran a primary challenger against him or voted 3rd party like you did to Gore in 2000. You didn’t do any of that because you are unable to treat him like you would a white politician. That is racism.

                2. “…and not some idiot warmongering …”

                  Careful… there thar be dragons.

                3. No one is saying Obama is evil Tony. You are just hearing that because you think any criticism of a black President is racism. The point is that he has done a great number of things that you should be offended by and are not. Who cares what we think. Of course we don’t like Obama. We are not liberals. What is important is how can a President who has betrayed so many liberal ideals still be defended by people who claim to be liberals?

                  1. Because the alternative is 10 times worse. It’s not that difficult.

                    1. Yeah Tony, liberals have never said that about any other President. It couldn’t be that you can’t be honest with even yourself about Obama. Naw couldn’t be that.

                      And if he is such a liberal Democrat, why then are you so shocked Libertarians hate him? I thought the only reason anyone didn’t like him was racism?

                      You are so neurotic. It is so sad.

                    2. I’m not shocked libertarians hate him. I am amused when they hate him in exactly the way the Republican political operation tells them to hate him.

                4. he’s a liberal and a Democrat

                  Since when? Have you ever really looked at his policies and/or proposed policies? I don’t think you have.

                  1. He’s an opportuniarian like the rest. In that way he is unremarkable. As an indicator of racial progress, he is certainly an important figure in American history. However, he masquerades as a “progressive” because that is where the money, votes, and power are for him. I don’t particularly like or dislike the president. I do dislike the effect he has a putatively rational people.

                    1. Hopfiend,

                      I pretty much agree with you. I am happy we had a black President. But I am very disappointed that white liberals proved so craven and immature, they have been unable to allow an honest conversation about him. People like Tony are so invested in the idea that Obama must be great, they will go to any lengths to deny the obvious fact he is not.

                5. Re: Tony,

                  The reality is I’ve never, ever, not once read anyone or heard anyone say anything along the lines of “I only support Obama because he’s black.”

                  What I’ve heard MANY times from close colleagues, friends and Chris Matthews is that the only reason (the ONLY reason) people don’t like Obama is because he’s black, which tells me that the only reason my friends and colleagues and Chris Matthwes can stomach his prevarications and clumsy demagoguery (worse than a Latin American politician’s) is because he is black.

                6. Warmongering Republican

                  Have you already forgotten what Obama spent the last month trying to do?

            2. “…Realize that not everyone is in the right-wing bubble in which Obama is the devil incarnate.”

              I don’t believe he’s the “devil incarnate”, he’s merely a chronic, habitual fuck-up who’s been in way over his head since day one.

              1. With more legislative accomplishments than any president in recent history, despite facing more strident opposition than any in recent history. What exactly are you referring to?

                1. With more legislative accomplishments than any president in recent history,

                  Those would be Obamacare and ??? He can’t pass a single thing and hasn’t since 2010. Every single thing he has tried has died in Congress and he has never once moved public opinion about an issue.

                  Why do you tell yourself these lies? I actually think you believe this even though it is objectively untrue. It all goes back to your terror at the thought of criticizing a black President.

                2. Re: Tony,

                  With more legislative accomplishments than any president in recent history

                  Presidents don’t pass legislation, that’s the job of the Congress. To what are you referring?

                  1. Google Obama accomplishments, read lists.

                    1. They are there. You just can’t name them. Yeah right Tony. There are none Tony. Nothing of significance has come out of Congress since Obamacare and maybe Dodd Frank, but I doubt he would want to take credit for that.

                    2. Hey, now, you’re forgetting the Holder memo. Finally, palpable reversals of the War on Drugs, left to the discretion of federal prosecutors who heretofore have only been too happy with charging under the mandatory minimums guidelines, and future administrations who can revoke it. Change is in the air!

                    3. Re: Tony,

                      Google Obama accomplishments, read lists

                      Is that what you did, Tony? Google his accomplishments to see what they were? Did you compare them then to those Google lists of accomplishments from his predecessors, so you could be confident in your assertion that Obama has had more legislative accomplishments than any of his predecessors?

                      I asked you a specific question: Only CONGRESS passes legislation, not the president, so to WHAT are you referring?

                3. Budget? Cap-n-trade? Obamacare? AGW legislation? Gun control? Libya/Justice for Benghazi? Syria? Egypt? What accomplishments? He had a super majority for two goddammed years, and accomplished jack shit. What legacy is going to out live his presidency? Two mediocre SCOTUS picks, and nothing more. Face it… he a complete wash-out with the Midas shit touch…

            3. I wasn’t talking to you fuckhead.

              But yes, having a set of rules and standards for one group of people, but then lowering those rules and standards for another group of people because you don’t think they can live up to the higher ones is fucking paternalistic. And if the two groups are different races that makes you a fucking racist shithead.

              Oh and nobody here has said he’s the devil incarnate. Fuck, I don’t even think he’s any worse than Bush, but he sure as fuck isn’t any better either.

              1. Then you’re delusional.

                1. Major legislative achievements != good news for most Americans. Even landmark accomplishments, like saddling Americans with a new tax fee tax to encourage buying into ever-pricier insurance policies.

                  1. We’ll have to agree to disagree that the prior status quo, in which the US paid far more than any other country for healthcare (including both private and public costs!) is preferable than an alternative already showing signs of stabilizing those costs.

                    1. Apples to oranges, Tony. You’re comparing vastly superior quality of care (including time metrics, which single-payer advocates conveniently forget) to its cheaper alternatives. But you won’t find me shedding any tears for pre-ACA healthcare, only that we’re embracing less rather than more of the private enterprise that makes it successful.

                    2. I should have added “without better healthcare outcomes” to show for it. It is not apples and oranges. Money is money, and healthcare outcomes are measured the same way in each country.

                    3. healthcare outcomes are measured the same way in each country.

                      Actually, they aren’t.

                    4. Tony,

                      Healthcare costs and insurance costs are exploding. Even Obama care’s defenders admit that. Good God, I would call you a liar. But I think you really are that delusional.

                    5. He actually thinks that the metrics are measured the same everywhere.

                      Worse still, he thinks you have a right to a service provided by another human being. That’s not just delusional. It’s evil.

                    6. You mean the costs that were starting to decline before BarryCare? The costs that have been falling because of the increase in high deductible plans? You know, those plans that Barry hates? Yeah, take credit for the actions in the previous administration yet again. Nothing new with this president doing that. TARP, Iraq Withdrawal, etc.

        3. IMO, John, you’re focusing too much on race and not enough on partisanship. Tony would support anyone as long as they had a D next to their name

      2. Ya the poor guy suffered something fierce, all those blacks that mindlessly turned out and voted for him only because he was black. And gasp, racism in the south, Impossible.

        http://mobile.nytimes.com/blog…..-strategy/

        1. The other funny thing is that culturally at least, Obama is white. He is not black. He grew up in Hawaii raised by white parents. The only thing he experienced of being black in America was the experience of stupid white liberals people being being condescending to him and pretending he was smarter than he was.

          1. “But I’m ALL Milhouse Obama…plus my mom says i’m the handsomest smartest boy in school…”

          2. He went to Columbia and lived in Harlem.

      3. Speaking of “put up or shut up”, where’s your “actual evidence” to back up any of that tripe you just posted?

        1. I can’t find the study, I think I heard it on the radio. My claim is simply that his race hurt Obama more than it helped in his elections. John can quickly disprove that by showing a shred of evidence that his being black helps him with voters.

          But he’s not going to because he doesn’t think he needs evidence. Just an innate feeling that black people are so damn lucky to be black in this country.

          1. Actual evidence which you think you heard on the radio, of which you can’t find the study.

            (Slow clap)

          2. “I can’t find the study, I think I heard it on the radio…”

            Fair enough, but without context to that study… i’ll have to assume that in many districts, his race was no particular liability.

            “John can quickly disprove that by showing a shred of evidence that his being black helps him with voters…”

            Well, here’s one way of looking at it.

            “Just an innate feeling that black people are so damn lucky to be black in this country.”

            Black people in general? Maybe not… Barry? Absolutely… all 50% of him….

          3. Oh, baloney. There’s plenty of liberals who get energized by supporting someone because he or she is the “First” of something. Anything. First black president, first Hindu BMX champ, whatever. And I can tell you that people like this aren’t an anomaly.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SOnQ80Ch-Y

            Do you honestly think that Latinos who voted for Obama feel any natural affinity towards blacks, Asians, and other non whites? You don’t think Latinos and Asians don’t vote for a candidate of their ethnicity without really knowing what they stand for?

            When I ask liberals when they actually invited a non white into their homes (outside of some obligatory social mingling), the answer is almost zero. It’s so comically funny to see liberals insist that Kwanzaa is a real holiday or ask me if it would be offensive in Asian culture if a white person dipped Tofu in BBQ sauce.

        2. I’m extremely dubious that people responded in a poll that they didn’t vote for Obama because he was black. The South in people’s minds versus the actual South, too.

          1. I think the polling asked whether race was a major factor in respondents’ votes, and in certain precincts this skewed heavily against Obama, and comparing Obama’s numbers to Kerry’s, it showed that overall race slightly hurt him more than it helped.

            1. And other precincts went the other way. If people didn’t vote for him because he is black, why did they make such a big deal about being a part of history?

              1. People voted for him because he was black and voted against him because he was black, but the latter was slightly more the case than the former. Most people who would vote for him because he is black would vote for any Democrat in his place anyway.

            2. Sure, Tony, Obama doesn’t benefit from people being unwilling to criticize him because of his race.

              Fair enough, but then the so-called liberal cited race as the reason why his Hollywood peers aren’t speaking out in droves.

              According to Asner, “A lot of people don’t want to feel anti-Black by being opposed to Obama.”

              1. Nobody calls Rachel Maddow a racist when she criticizes Obama. Why? Because she isn’t a racist and doesn’t criticize him in a racist way. It’s not that hard not to come across as a racist. You don’t really have to fear being considered anti-black. Just don’t be anti-black.

                1. Tony| 9.20.13 @ 4:00PM |#
                  …”It’s not that hard not to come across as a racist”…

                  It’s true; you’re a stinking bigot and it’s constantly obvious.

                2. Tony,
                  are you missing the point on purpose or just too obtuse to see it? Ed Asner spoke volumes for folks like you; he uttered THE malicious truth about the left.

                  In recent weeks, the MSM has been a fever swampt of Obama-bashing, now that he can’t run again and they can honestly appraise his performance. The low-water mark may well have been teh post-Navy Yard shooting where he mentioned the incident for ten seconds before returning to his usual damn-the-Repubs theme.

                  Benghazi alone would have torpedoed any other candidate, and people would be howling about the clusterfuck that is ACA, never mind the train wreck of will he or won’t he regarding Syria.

                  1. So you’re claiming that the terrorist attack in Benghazi would have somehow destroyed any other president? Yet Bush saw a terrorist attack of some proportion on US soil and only benefited from it. Obama’s the one getting a pass? His terrorist attack was 750 times less deadly than Bush’s.

                    Ah the days when terrorists were blamed for terrorist attacks.

                    1. Re: Tony,

                      So you’re claiming that the terrorist attack in Benghazi would have somehow destroyed any other president?

                      The cover-up should have, not the attack itself. Nixon was impeached not because some thieves entered a hotel room but because his administration engaged in cover up and obfuscation.

                    2. You don’t get to claim to be an independent minded nonpartisan and engage in Darrel Issa leg humping at the same time, OM.

                    3. Re: Tony,

                      You don’t get to claim to be an independent minded nonpartisan and engage in Darrel Issa leg humping at the same time, OM.

                      Next thing I know, you will be calling me a racist for insinuating there is a cover up despite the fact that there has been a cover up.

                    4. Yet Bush saw a terrorist attack of some proportion on US soil and only benefited from it.

                      yup, because Bush fucking RESPONDED. Now you can quibble about his response but he didn’t immediately go to a fundraiser, nor did he send out the UN Ambassador a week later to claim it was all because of a movie.

                      Obama lied TO YOUR FACE and you still want to kiss him.

                    5. You’ve got to be fucking kidding, right?

                    6. Bush responded? Yeah, he responded by lying to our face about WMD in Iraq, then starting one of the longest wars in US history at the cost of a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives for no purpose whatsoever. Gold stars for “responding,” though?

                    7. Bush responded?

                      with majority support from both parties in both chambers. And had Gore won, we would have had war then, too, because most of the country wanted to blow someone up. Regardless, you raising Bush – and you brought him up – is a huge straw man since folks like you told us how Obama was going to be teh anti-Bush. Then he co-opted W’s entire anti-terror manual and added some new pages of his own.

                      Obama brazenly lied about Benghazi and sent out his administration water carriers to perpetuate the lie long after it was known to be a lie. And he went to a fundraiser.

                    8. Bush responded? Yeah, he responded by lying to our face about WMD in Iraq

                      Same old crap from Tony. Bush’s statements on WMD in Iraq matched Clinton’s statements. Were they both lying?

                  2. Re: Tony,

                    Nobody calls Rachel Maddow a racist when she criticizes Obama. Why?

                    Because she is really not criticizing Obama. At all.

                    Because she isn’t a racist

                    Oh, so you read minds! Wow!

                    and doesn’t criticize him in a racist way.

                    Which is what I said above: She isn’t really criticizing him. At all.

                    It’s not that hard not to come across as a racist.

                    Of course. All you have to do is say “This guy is criticizing Obama. He must be a racist!” and presto! The guy is a racist.

      4. Re: Tony,

        Or maybe you have a propaganda-fueled irrational hatred of the man

        Your counterargument would be fine if it weren’t for the fact that the actual propaganda has been coming almost completely from the mainstream media and all of it has been positive towards the president-who-can’t-do-no-wrong who also has sun-glinting, chiseled pectorals.

        (Polling indicates that in specific districts in the South, race was a major factor in votes against him.)

        Besides the often-used “study after study shows” filler, yours has to be the most insanely dishonest piece of B.S. a living human could’ve ever invented.

    3. Amongst a smaller population of blacks there is a understanding that Obama isn’t that great, but they are still happy, and should be, that a black man could be president. The rest will be steadfast In their support for him no matter how bad of a job he did nor matter what scandal happens next. Hell aways be the dude. Just wait till Hillary 2016, then we can play the sexist game. I saw the Hillary 2016 bumper sticker today, it made me want to vomit.

      1. People are not as brow beat by the charge of Sexist as they are by the charge of racist. You have to remember most white people in general and certainly nearly all white liberals rarely if ever actually interact with a black person. So they are very easily cowed by the charge of racism. Everyone interacts with someone of the opposite sex. So the charge of sexism doesn’t stick as well. And also, a good number of women, at least 40% won’t vote for Hillary. So that will make the charge carry less weight.

      2. I don’t know if I can take 4-8 years of replacing racism with sexism as the go to defense to attacks on all the same policies.

        1. It won’t work as well. That is what they are going to try. But it is a pretty sorry substitute.

  2. Jack Smack Daddy Momo is not going to liek that at all man.

    http://www.Anon-Werkz.tk

    1. What the fuck? Has Breaking Bad caused anon-bot to start using meth?

      1. Pssst… it’s teh baffsaltz.

    2. This is why I cling to my guns. You never know when this fucker is going to lose his shit and look at me crossways.

  3. Wow…a poll. Been in short supply ’round these parts, haven’t they?

  4. How would a libertarian health care plan or spending cut poll?

    1. About 99.99999% amongst the 3 dyed-in-the-wool Libertarians surveyed…

  5. Critics of the president would be wise to recognize that many young people may perceive critiques of the administration’s policies as resistance or opposition to societal improvement. Therefore, critics should be careful they are clear that their disagreement is with policy not progress.

    Isn’t pretty much all opposition to Obama considered opposition to societal improvement?

    1. Emily is saying exactly what I am saying. White America can’t handle having a black President. They take any criticism of him to be a sign of racism.

  6. Another “inconvenient truth” for deranged leftoids like Tony, is the fact that many blacks are beginning to discover how horribly the left has deceived them, and to what extent their alleged protectors have actually destroyed them.

    They are talking about it in the churches, in the streets, in underground blogs. And no matter how much the lamestream leftoid media will attempt to suppress the truth they have devoted their minds and their lives to evading, the truth will spill out into the world, as it always does, and the blacks will turn on the left. On the day that the blacks re-discover self-esteem, and thus reject the anti-slavery to which the left has condemned them, the leftoids will be left with no one but ball-tucking sycophants like Tony who are deluded enough to believe that they can trade individual sovereignty for collective security or “social progress”. It’s already happening.

    1. So the big mystery remains: why don’t the Republicans capitalize on this impending rejection of the left and stop being overtly antagonistic to people of color all day every day?

      1. By any objective measure the black community has suffered horribly under Obama. They have suffered more under Obama than any President since Roosevelt. Don’t think they haven’t noticed this. They are never going to turn on Obama. But they do expect better from the Dems. And they sure as hell are not happy at how the Dems have made it clear that the gay and Hispanic vote is more important than their vote.

        Good luck getting blacks to turn out for Hillary in anything close to the numbers they did for Obama.

        1. Re: John,

          They [black Americans] are never going to turn on Obama

          Well, only those that keep drinking the Kool-Aid. Those that made the dash to the fence alive are now safe to see the light.

          1. It is going to be very interesting to see what happens in the black community after Obama is gone. Blacks are going to have to face the fact that even after they got a black President, things got worse.

  7. Re: Tony,

    He hasn’t failed to reduce unemployment because of incompetence or malice

    I beg to differ: The reason the unemployment rate is stubbornly stuck in 7% (or 13% if one counts the people that stopped looking for work) is because he’s malicious and incompetent. His maliciousness is felt through the actions of his different departments that harass and stymie producers. His incompetence comes from his complete lack of understanding of even the most basic and easiest to understand of economic principles.

    1. Cutting rich people’s taxes and loosening regulations for oil companies doesn’t increase employment. Private sector employment has steadily improved, and the overall picture would be at an almost acceptable place if not for public sector cuts–which were not Obama’s idea. If you aren’t aware that Republicans are the ones whose incompetence and malice is causing persistent high unemployment then you aren’t paying attention.

      1. Tony| 9.20.13 @ 4:02PM |#
        ‘(part time) Private sector employment has steadily improved,’
        True; Obamacare is kicking the hell out of full-time employment. Great guy you got there.

        “and the overall picture would be at an almost acceptable place if not for public sector cuts”
        Right:
        http://graphics8.nytimes.com/i…..log480.png

      2. Re: Tony,

        Cutting rich people’s taxes and loosening regulations for oil companies doesn’t increase employment.

        You’re absolutely right. Those two things by themselves do not increase employment. So?

        Private sector employment has steadily improved

        Improved compared to what? 2007? Or 2010? Don’t you remember when he promised that his stimulus package would keep unempoyment around 5% and would keep it from going above 8%?

        and the overall picture would be at an almost acceptable place if not for public sector cuts

        You keep showing your economics-ignorance bona fides, Tony. You never relent in that regard.

        I don’t know what you mean with “acceptable place” but I can only get a horrifying picture of what you think it is. The fact is that the actions taken by the Obama government have only worked to make the “recovery” much more protracted and that the only reason there is some economic investment is because the Fed keeps pumping money. A recovery should not take more than a couple of years as past experience has proven (the 1921 depression, the post-WW2 recession, etc), not 5 years.

        1. The fact is that the actions taken by the Obama government have only worked to make the “recovery” much more protracted and that the only reason there is some economic investment is because the Fed keeps pumping money.

          and that’s why it is beyond plausible to say that he sees this outcome as a feature rather than bug. This is the America he wants, fundamental transformation and all.

          We’re becoming a society of part-timers dependent on food stamps, the very people who will cede any shred of liberty to some slick-talking hustler who promises to give them something better.

          1. Re: Wareagle,

            We’re becoming a society of part-timers dependent on food stamps

            That is the exact horrifying picture I get when I think about that “acceptable place” for the economy that Tony talks about.

      3. loosening regulations for oil companies doesn’t increase employment.

        Wat? Shocking development, you’re an idiot.

        1. Now, now, Tony’s not an idiot, exactly. He’s a blind partisan who thinks he’s above blind partisanship. It’s more of a schizophrenic delusion than a lack of IQ.

      4. And yet the oil companies and fracking have actually added good jobs to the economy unlike your green fantasies that just keep sucking more and more subsidies. But hey’ll be cost competitive real soon now. Wait a sec. Let me bolt on these extra regulations to make everything “fair.”

        Labor force participation rate is at a 30+ year low. The same is true for EMRATIO. Barry has been an abject failure even after his $800BB stimulus and his perennial massive budget deficits. Obama could create jobs tomorrow by approving Keystone XL, but he won’t because he has to reward his green buddies and play King Canute. Pathetic.

    2. You know, my dislike of Obama is from what he’s done more than anything else, and I certainly don’t care at all about his race, sex, religion, whatever.

      From the beginning, I was concerned about his utter lack of experience, his background in Chicago politics, and the (initially) unclear but fairly consistent evidence that he was a pretty radical leftist.

      Once he was in office, it quickly became clear that he was all of those things and also very divisive and not a good administrator. His selection of staff is among the worst in history, and there’s very little evidence that he operates well on a strategic level. His administration seems to react to, rather than anticipate, problems, and it seems to have a truly distressing lack of understanding about economics and foreign policy.

      1. So what economically and foreign policy-competent administration are you comparing him to?

        1. Re: Tony,

          So what economically and foreign policy-competent administration are you comparing him to?

          Coolidge’s, Eisenhower’s, Chester A. Arthur’s, McKinnley’s, even Clinton’s.

        2. That’s a fair point, as most administrations aren’t great at either, but this one is bad even by that standard.

          To be sure, the system is a disaster right now, and I think we can expect a continuing decline in quality. Certainly, the trend has been downwards for some time now.

        3. So what economically and foreign policy-competent administration are you comparing him to?

          Pretty much any of them?

      2. …”his background in Chicago politics,”…

        Yep:
        “Obama Donor Made $1 Billion in Tax Credits Thanks to Solyndra Bankruptcy”
        https://reason.com/24-7/2013/09…..tax-credit
        Seriously bent.

    3. He hasn’t failed to reduce unemployment because of incompetence or malice

      I’m going to go the other way here and ask what attempt he has made to reduce unemployment. I don’t know of one. It increasingly appears as though he sees this and the growth of dependency on govt as features, not bugs.

      1. The jobs bill he proposed that Congress did nothing with.

        1. wow, that is just weapons grade derp. If all it took to cut unemployment was a “jobs bill” no one would ever be out of work. Are you serious?

          1. It had specific policy implications. The point is you’re lying: he made a strong attempt.

            But Republicans in Congress have no interest in helping Americans, and they control the House. That’s pretty much the whole story.

            You did see where they literally voted to take food from poor people (while maintaining subsidies going to mostly rich, white farmers), right?

            1. Bullshit. Obama’s lack of cooperation from Repubs is the direct and complete result of his non-stop characterization of their every argument as being in bad faith, of his questioning their motives, and of his perpetual blaming everything on them.

              Here’s a clue – if you run around telling everyone that I’m a dick and then want my help on something, I won’t be very motivated to work with you. The man is unfit for leadership. Clinton and Reagan managed with opposition Congresses.

              1. They don’t count.

            2. …”But Republicans in Congress have no interest in helping Americans,”…
              The man’s a laugh riot!

          2. It is a measure of Tony’s (and the left’s) delusions that they think jobs come from “jobs bills.”

        2. “The jobs bill he proposed that Congress did nothing with.”

          Those asshole rethuglikkkans should just laid supine so Obama could have helped ram another multibillion jobs bill union/crony tax dollar payoff to build roadz and infrastructure down our fucking throats, as his way of saying thank you for stumping and proselytizing Obamacare?, in the face of substantial public opposition. Now the unions are turning on him, because their payoff got thrashed in congress, leaving the unions (and his bundlers) high and dry… yeah, those obstructionist rethuglikkkans are a bunch of jerk-offs.

  8. The President has lost support faster among young white Americans than nonwhite Americans

    Tony said that saying things like the above that have a clear implication is being RACIST.

    Don’t believe me? Lookie here: ” Lesson 1: Claiming that the only reason Obama has any support at all is because he’s black[,] IS RACIST”

    (Emphasis mine)

    1. My point is this: deal with the white supremacist log in your side’s eye and we’ll deal with the affirmative action mote in ours. People being proud to have a black president is really something to worry yourself about too much.

      It’s not like he’s up for reelection. Soon enough we’ll have a president you guys can claim is only supported because she’s a woman.

      Because apparently the white male is the default type of person in this country, and everyone else is the beneficiary of affirmative action in some form.

      1. Tony| 9.20.13 @ 4:06PM |#
        “My point is this: deal with the white supremacist log in your side’s…”

        Stuff it, asshole. I don’t have a ‘side’ here.

      2. Re: Tony,

        My point is this: deal with the white supremacist log in your side’s eye… Because apparently the white male is the default type of person in this country

        This is not a therapy room, Tony. For your delusions and paranoia, seek medical help.

  9. So 54% of ‘young Americans’ still think ‘dreamy’ is just fine?
    Damn, that’s disappointing.

    1. The libertarian moment is upon us! Christie will lose to Biden or Hillary by a smaller margin than Rand Paul! Suderman thinks the GOP is stupid for opposing something libertarians don’t like! Suderman points out that a government shutdown will hurt the GOP even though any GOP “compromise” to avoid such a fate will be attacked by Suderman.

    2. Hey, at least 62% think he’s handled foreign policy worse than Bush.

    3. They are just afraid to admit a black man is a crap weasel. It says nothing about what they think beyond that fact that people like Tony rule the field and are able to convince them not liking Obama is racist.

      1. You right-wing types really don’t see that your entire politics is based on whining and playing the victim about everything you can possibly think of, do you?

        1. ah, yes; any critics who are not racists must be right-wing types, because no one on the left has ever criticized him.

        2. Hahahahahahahahahahaha

          deep breath

          Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

        3. Re: Tony,

          You right-wing types really don’t see that your entire politics is based on whining and playing the victim about everything you can possibly think of,

          The pot calling the kettle swarthy.

          There are no bigger whiners and victimcrats than your ilk, Tony.

          1. Yeah, that comment was weapons-grade projection on Tony’s part.

  10. Re: Tony,

    Money is money, and healthcare outcomes are measured the same way in each country.

    Sure, and I could show just how much I’ve saved in food costs compared to other households just as long as nobody cares to look at my emanciated children.

    It is the exact same thing when comparing outlays for healthcare between countries, Tony. Such comparisons are useless precisely because financial comparisons are NOT economic comparisons. People who make those comparisons are usually not well-versed in economics or have woefully inadequate knowledge. Just like you!

    1. No YOU’RE a towel!

      /Tony

      1. Ha ha ha!

        Higginsbottom = Tony

  11. I don’t think people here understand how much young people love Obama (and in general, how left leaning they are)

    I frequent a popular video game site, and during the election, probably half the place used Obama avatars. Some still do. And everyday they repost left wing talking points.

    And they even came up with a meme, “Obama’s America”, acting like it’s a joke to blame things on Obama, he can’t possibly control anything.

    And the other object of their love is Elizabeth Warren. Don’t be surprised to see her the next president.

    1. “And the other object of their love is Elizabeth Warren.”

      No one mentions her fraudulent affirmative action claims? Admitted lying is OK?

      1. Plus the plagiarized recipes. Plus the thesis one professor considered academic fraud. Plus flipping a foreclosed house for some quick bucks. Plus using her academic office for business.

        But she says the right things!

  12. There were some high-profile black conservatives and non-liberals like Armstrong Williams and John McWhorter who said publicly it would be difficult to vote against Obama because of race, making them unsure of who they would vote for. Here’s the link:

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com…..cans_N.htm

    Let’s remember, before the election how many times did Obama’s supporters say he could be the “first black President”?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.