CNN Poll: 78% of Dems want Obama renominated for a second term

[WI_DEM]

Seventy-eight percent of Democrats want President Obama renominated for a second term, the highest his support has been this year, according to a new poll.

A CNN/Opinion Research survey shows Democratic backing for a second Obama term jumped 5 percent from late October, just before his midterm "shellacking," when it was at 73 percent.


The numbers look good compared to the last Democratic president. Only 57 percent of Democrats wanted Bill Clinton renominated in the days after the 1994 Republican Revolution. Clinton went on to defeat Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.) in the 1996 presidential elections.


The level of support suggests a primary challenge against the 44th president is likely to fail.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/135249-poll-dem-support-for-obama-renomination-hits-high-mark

[robcon]

1. I will work for his re-election.

A great president.

[great white snark]

6. Same here.

GOBAMA!

[Aramchek]

2. this should be an amusing thread. Gobama!

[AtomicKitten]

3. K&R

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jefferson_dem]

7. Haha...

Reality bites sometimes.

Enjoy your little enclave of serial malcontents. The rest of us will keep working for progress... and the President.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[toddwv]

10. That's fine in a primary.

But does that mean you won't vote in the actual election? If so, then you might as well campaign for whatever dog the Republicans decide to pony up.

[angrychair]

11. Again, I just don't understand

where people develop these opinions.
Pro-war?: We have LESS committed combat troops (AND contractors in a combat or 'defensive forces' role) than we did 2 years ago. We have most troops out of Iraq and shifted focus to Afghanistan (where it should have been in the first place). We have a committed departure date from Afghanistan as well. It may be a little soft but we are on the downside of the hill regardless. Feel free to check.

anti-environment?: he has committed more tax breaks and incentives toward green technology development than any president in history.

anti-public schools?: he is working to hold schools accountable for graduation and performance results. While the approach might be a little rough around the edges (parents and kids are a accountable as teachers), the premise is sound. We, as a nation, under-perform in math and science and we have to fix it. Our graduation rates are at an all-time low and that has to be fixed. He is working out ways to fix it and make the system accountable. Might not agree with his approach but at least he is trying to address the issue.

Pro-tax? He just signed the largest tax-cut in history for those making less than $250,000 (continuation of the bush-era rates and the payroll SSI tax cut). He kept his campaign promise in that respect.

In short, while you might not have got what you wanted or in your perspective what you hoped for, he has done more in 2 years for progressive causes than any president in modern times.
Would you rather have a McPain/Falin ticket in the WH? Would that have turned out better? Not likely. Not going to vote for him in 2012? Inaction is still an action as it has an effect. The rethug alternatives are disturbing at best, catastrophic failure at worst. This president has done more for progressive causes than any elected official has in years. The list is longer than your arm. I would encourage you to do some more homework before making such a rash statement again.

[Dawgs]

13. I feel sorry for you.

It's going to hit you the hardest when it all comes crashing down.

[AtomicKitten]

14. Pffttt. You wish.

[Dawgs]

20. It has nothing to do with wish.

I'm scared to death for all of the people that will be hit hard by the actions of our government.

[AtomicKitten]

22. So you feel the need to get out ahead of what you are PREDICTING will happen?

That's the very definition of fear-mongering.

[Dawgs]

30. Not a prediction when we have thirty years of history to see what will happen.

And I'm certainly not happy about it.

[AtomicKitten]

32. It is a prediction, a prediction used to assault the president with vile recriminations.

[Dawgs]

38. Fine. A prediction that is based on historical fact.

And no assault on the President, just pity for you.

[AtomicKitten]

41. Don't flatter yourself. You're a shit-stirrer, nothing more. nt

[Dawgs]

53. Flatter myself about what? I'm going to praise Obama when he does good.

And criticize him when I think he's making things worse. Just like I've always done.

And, just like he told us to do.

[AtomicKitten]

55. You forgot the part about criticizing him for something he hasn't done.

awesome

[Dawgs]

57. Like what?

:shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

60. Predictions of doom and gloom regarding the disposition of SS for instance.

One of Hamsher's posers here actually claimed that the reason that prediction isn't coming to fruition is because of their bellyaching 24/7.

Concern is okay, vile recriminations without factual evidence is not.

[Dawgs]

61. But you implied that I claimed something based on nothing.

Are you lumping me in with someone else?

[AtomicKitten]

63. Your reference "when it all comes crashing down" is where we began. nt

[Dawgs]

65. Oh I see. You still think that history isn't real.

Got ya.

[AtomicKitten]

66. I'm talking about current predictions/accusations. nt

[ClarkUSA]

15. I feel sorry for you.

It's going to hit you the hardest when Pres. Obama wins in a landslide and the economy comes back slowly but surely as years go by.

[Dawgs]

16. Why would it hit me hardest?

:shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

19. Why would it hit angrychair hardest?

[Dawgs]

28. I've only been angry since the cave on the public option.

President Obama has done a lot of great things; two female supreme court justices, car bailout, DADT repeal, stimulus I, and a few other things. But, it isn't nearly enough. And I'm afraid it's too late for him to do much more. He certainly doesn't look like he will change; especially with so many Democrats kissing his ass.

It's too bad.

[ClarkUSA]

34. The public option didn't have the votes, period. But HCR lays the groundwork for future improvement.

Just as FDR's Social Security was eventually expanded over the decades way beyond its original boundaries. Ditto with LBJ's Medicaid. Try taking the long view, as Pres. Obama does. Many liberals who still support him have always understood this and that's why such a large majority of us approve of him strongly.

In other words, the over-the-top rhetoric you used with angrychair is uncalled for. President Obama has defied doomsday predictions by naysayers before and he will again.

[Dawgs]

37. The public option only needed 50 votes with reconciliation.

Which 9 said they wouldn't have voted for it? I've yet to see a list.

There is no such thing as Health Care Reform (HCR); only Health INSURANCE Reform.

President Obama 'defying doomsday predictions' to you is making things worse to the rest of us. I'm guessing that you are one that thinks widening the wealth gap is okay for now, No?

[ClarkUSA]

42. Prove it. Give me a statement from Harry Reid that confirms your claim.

<< President Obama 'defying doomsday predictions' to you is making things worse to the rest of us.>>

Bullshit. The payroll tax holiday benefits millions of Americans, including me. So does the yearlong extension of UI. I like the Obama Unemployment Extension & the Obama 2% Payroll Tax Cut for Working Families. I also like the Obama Middle-Class Tax Cuts and the Obama Small Business Investment Tax Holiday (for one year).

I'm guessing you are one that thinks leaving millions of Americans poorer and even more millions of Americans (and their families) without any source of income "is okay for now, No?"

[Dawgs]

47. Why would I have to prove it? I'm not the one that said they didn't have the votes.

You're the one that acts like they no something the rest of us don't. Again, please show me the list of people that were voting against it. Obama promised it and didn't deliver. Did he ever give us an explanation?

Of course you like all of those things. Obama told you how great they were. I believe you.

Only thing I'm not okay with is my President saying one thing and then caving as soon something gets hard. Show me something he's fought for and then maybe I'll start believing again.

[ClarkUSA]

49. Because you made the claim re: the public option only needing 50 votes & reconciliation, not me.

Whiny rhetoric doesn't interest me. BTW, I can't wait until Obama begins running for re-election. :D

[Dawgs]

50. I can't wait for Obama to win in 2012 either. See. We can agree.

I'm not sure what you're saying about "HCR".

Are you saying that "HCR" wasn't passed through reconciliation? Or do you not know that reconciliation only requires 50 votes?

[ClarkUSA]

54. You still have provided no proof of your claim re: the PO requiring only 50 votes w/reconciliation.

To my knowledge, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid never made such a claim and he would have been the only one who would have the authority to do so with any credibility during the complex and contentious legislative process.

I doubt you can provide proof, which may explain why you're throwing out red herrings re: HCR when I made no mention of it in my prior reply to you.

Don't waste my time. You are only making yourself look bad.

[Dawgs]

59. Does this count?

Reid Offers Support For Public Option Through Reconciliation

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/19/reid-will-push-for-public_n_469483.html

[ClarkUSA]

67. Not really, because it includes this passage which reflects Reid's concern re: a lack of votes....

From your source: "But he has deflected questions about using reconciliation to get it into law citing a potential lack of votes needed for passage."

"Exclusive: Robust Public Option Lacks Votes To Pass House, Internal Whip Document Shows":
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/exclusive-robust-public-option-lacks-votes-to-pass-house-internal-whip-count-document-shows/

Last but not least, here's the man who effectively killed any chance of a public option getting through the Senate:
"Lieberman's Stand: No Public Option": http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125900412679261049.html

[Dawgs]

68. "A potential lack of votes needed" proves nothing.

And, your last two points were before reconciliation was considered; and a public option DID pass the house.

Anything else?

[ClarkUSA]

70. Cherrypicking what Reid said? Your claim re: the public option also proves nothing, then.

All whining aside, Obama's HCR will be just as transformative as FDR's Social Security to the fabric of American society. And like FDR's Social Security, all will not be perfect as a pony in a few years.

[Dawgs]

104. Bookmarking.

And you were the one that cherrypicked Reid's comments (not me), and that was the best you could come up with to prove they didn't have the votes. Major fail on your part.

Still feel sorry for you.

[quickesst]

85. Man....

...it's like some want to believe that the Dems, and the prez have no opposition, that the opposition does not exist, and has no influence on anything. Like Obama is not doing this or that for the simple reason he doesn't want to. Crazy. Thanks.
quickesst

[jefferson_dem]

18. "It"?

What is this "it"?

[Dawgs]

33. Think September 2008...

...but possibly worse.

[ClarkUSA]

17. Some people could care less about the facts.

Just as long as they can spew their unreasoning bile all over any news that reflects positively on Pres. Obama.

[Dawgs]

36. Huh?

Pro-war? He may have ended the Iraq war, but he extended the war in Afghanistan. Which, is not winnable (look at history), and where no one should be (no Al-Qaeda, or real threat from terrorists). Just because Obama said it in '08 does not make it right.

Anti-environment? Looks like you don't think the environmental problems we are facing are all that important. He has done a lot of good, but not nearly enough to stop the growing problem of climate change/global warming.

Anti-public schools? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/27/931880/-Obama-Is-Going-After-Teachers-Unions

Pro-tax? I noticed you conveniently ignored the part on "for the rich" that the other poster mentioned.

Saying he's done more for progressive than any other president in modern times implies that he's done enough. The frustration that many of us are facing is that President Obama had a chance to do some great things. He had his time, resources, and support. He failed to use them properly and we are left with very little to be happy about.

While many of his accomplishments are good, great is what we need.

[treestar]

73. Nothing doable would ever be "enough."

Nothing will ever be enough.

[Pisces]

75. I think you don't understand a lot of things.

[ClarkUSA]

12. Prove your claims. You're good at demonizing rhetoric but short on facts.

BTW, I'd make myself scarce during the coming campaign season if I were you. It's against DU rules to rant against the chosen Democratic candidate of any race:

"Members are expected... to support Democratic candidates for political office."

[jefferson_dem]

21. I wonder when DU will start to enforce that rule.

...that we not advocate against the nominee (Obama). I, for one, won't be shedding any tears when "the purge" begins.

[ClarkUSA]

25. As soon as President Obama announces his re-election plans and OFA's Obama 2012 website starts up.

It can't begin soon enough for me, either.

[Dawgs]

40. Really? You think DU should be like Free Republic?

Cause that's exactly what you're advocating.

[ClarkUSA]

43. Are you calling out the admin? It's DU rules. If you don't like it, you know what to do.

Go climb a tree.

[Dawgs]

45. I have a problem with DU being like Free Republic.

If that goes against the rules then I'm guilty. Not sure why I need to climb a tree. :eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

46. Supporting Democratic candidates for office at Democratic Underground is a problem for you?

I'll bet you would love that DU rule if Hillary were running. :eyes:

Yep, go climb a tree. And go whine to the admin.

Me? I can't wait until the 2012 Obama re-election season starts. :party:

[Dawgs]

48. The admins aren't enforcing that rule. Why would I whine to them?

Uh, I supported Obama long before most. Do a search if you don't believe me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3478755&mesg_id=3478995
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3627776&mesg_id=3627871

I look forward to the re-election of Obama as well. Doesn't mean I won't criticize him for being weak.

[ClarkUSA]

52. They have during the midterm electons and they will as soon as Obama is the 2012 Dem nominee.

Your rhetoric is unsupported by any facts, thus I am not interested in your opinion.

[Aramchek]

58. it sure will clear the air around here. can't happen soon enough, if you ask me.

[jefferson_dem]

98. Actually, quite the contrary.

Bashing and smearing this president and advocating against his re-election is exactly what they do at free republic... and what it seems you want to do here.

So, perhaps you should think again about who exactly is promoting a "free republic" tone at DU...

Anyway, advocating against the Democratic nominee is against the rules. Deal with it.

[jtown1123]

31. I don't know any of these folks myself.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

39. Hope you won't feel that way should the Republican president make

another appointment to the Supreme Court.

Obama = Bush?? What bullshit!

[Scurrilous]

5. K & R

:thumbsup:

[otohara]

8. Of Course We Do

here kitty kitty...

[LWolf]

23. And 22% don't.

If 22% of his own party don't want him, who, outside of that party is going to support him? The republicans he is so determined to befriend? He needs all of his own party and more to win.

[phleshdef]

24. Reread the OP. It has a little rain for your parade.

Less than 60% wanted Bill Clinton renominated at this same point in his Presidency. Last time I checked, Bob Dole nor Ross Perot were ever elected President.

[LWolf]

62. I don't have a parade, and it's been raining for 2 years now.

The point: Obama has lost 22% of his own party.

[phleshdef]

69. Dead wrong. 1st, 3% had no opinion. 2nd, same polling people had 10% of Dems voting for McCain.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

If you are going to pick at numbers, at least take the time to check the math. Thats at most a 9% drop in support if you are basing it on 2008 exit poll data coming from the same polling people. Furthermore, you know at least some portion of those voters are going to vote for the Democratic nominee if they feel like they are "stuck" with Obama. I know this must pain you, but the fact is, any support the President has lost with Democrats is so far insignificant.

Also, the earliest I can find CNN asking this same question is in March of this past year and it was 76% then. That would suggest that nothing in the last 9 months has shaken support in Obama in the least. If anything, it has strengthed. And this most recent poll was done before the DADT repeal was completely passed.

[LWolf]

78. Still alive and kicking here.

Spin it all you like. Obama doesn't have the full support of his own party. And those whose support he's lost are a hell of a lot angrier than usual.

[phleshdef]

81. Its not spin. Its numerical fact. And you can't lose something you never had.

You are just making yourself look worse by trying to hold onto this. Just admit that you ran off your mouth too quickly without really thinking about the numbers (which is exactly what you did) and move on.

[LWolf]

83. I'm not making myself look like anything, except for those

who are desperate to spin the numbers their way. It's a simple, numerical fact that Obama has lost a significant, in terms of votes, percent of his own party's support. Regardless of how you try to spin, or try to attack the messenger, that's a fact.

[phleshdef]

84. LOL, your idea of significant is laughable.

Like the rest of your shallow argument.

I get it. You are sore because Obama is going to be renominated overwhelmingly as the Dem nominee and there isn't one god damn thing you can do about. I know where you are coming from. But you need to learn to get over it. It will hurt a lot less that way.

[LWolf]

87. 22% of voters is significant. Laugh all you like.

Do try to make your points less personal. Less about me, if possible.

I expect Obama to be renominated. Sure, I'd love a good challenger to cast a vote for; it's nice to vote FOR someone instead of against them when the opportunity presents itself. That's not my motivation, though. It's not like I think a good challenger would actually win the nomination. A healthy challenge might force Obama to back off his aggressive race to the right, though. Without that, I don't think he'll win the GE. I think he's going down in 2012, and I don't think he cares. If he did, he wouldn't be pissing off so many potential voting blocks. I think he'll lose, and his advancement of neoliberal policy and loss to another republican will set us back so far I won't see positive change in my lifetime.

THAT's what I'm "sore" about.

To be honest, I don't really care about your opinion of me or of my position. I'd like you to leave me out of your rebuttals, if you are capable of doing so. As far as my "shallow" arguments go, we'll have to disagree. I think unquestioning partisan support for an elected Democrat, regardless of that Democrat's record, is a hell of a lot shallower than concern over the issues that affect quality of life for people and the future health of the nation and the party.

[phleshdef]

89. Its 18%. And 10 of the 18 never supported him. A single digit loss of support. Insignificant.

I don't care what you would like me to do. I'll post what I feel like posting. If thats too much for you, then maybe you should turn off the computer for awhile.

[LWolf]

92. I think I can decide how long to leave the 'puter on, thanks.

So...a single digit loss of support will not make a difference in the GE?

Good to know. All those Democrats looking to 3rd parties don't have to be concerned about the screaming panic of campaigners in the GE.

[phleshdef]

94. This is the part where I bring up the Clinton numbers again and laugh at you some more.

[LWolf]

108. This is the part where I again point out that Obama is not Clinton,

and that your laughter is meaningless.

[WI_DEM]

29. Yeah, but after the '94 midterms 44% of Dems didn't want Clinton--but he won convincingly

and got over 90% of Dems.

They don't break down the figures for the other 22% but my guess is that there are a lot of "undecideds" too and probably very few who actually oppose him.

[namahage]

35. Actually, they do.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/12/28/rel17j.pdf#page=3

According to this, of the other 22%, 3% are undecided while 19% want a different candidate.

Of course, the percentage wanting a new candidate was actually higher in October (22%) and August (23%).

It should be noted that Obama's renomination percentages have been steadily rising, while those wanting a new candidate are dropping.

And it bears repeating, for comparison purposes, that in November 1994, while 57% wanted to renominate Clinton, a full 32% wanted someone else. 11% had no opinion.

[WI_DEM]

44. Thanks for the correction

I don't see how anybody can say that Obama is in trouble when it comes to renomination within the party. He certainly is polling much better at this point than Clinton and I'm sure he is well ahead of what Carter was in 1980 (prior to the end of '79 most polls indicated that more Democratic voters wanted Kennedy than Carter).

[namahage]

51. The numbers are even more interesting when you find out who participated in the poll.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/12/28/rel17j.pdf#page=8

Two things of interest here--first, that all of the respondents wanting a different candidate were white, and 50 or over. BUT...

All the respondents wanting Obama renominated were ALSO all white, and 50 or over.

In short, there were NO non-whites, and NO ONE between 18-49, in the polling sample. I imagine if there were, the numbers might be even higher in favor of Obama's renomination.

[phleshdef]

72. Holy crap, you are right. The internals show no one under 50 and/or non-white was polled.

Thats insanely hilarious.

[namahage]

93. Another little tidbit, further down:

From which region(s) did the poll respondents come?

A) Northeast
B) Midwest
C) South
D) West

If you guessed any percentage for A), B), or D), you obviously didn't work on this poll.

So, to recap...all of the poll respondents identifying as Dems were white Southerners 50 years of age or older. Clearly a demographic that Obama has in the bag.

And even then, they voted 78-19 for him.

[phleshdef]

71. Also, CNN Opinion Research exit polls had 10% of Democrats voting for McCain.

Not all Democrats actually are.

[LWolf]

64. Perhaps.

That doesn't negate the fact that he's lost 22% of his own party.

Frankly, I think he's burned bridges with the left wing of the Democratic party, and with the left wing of the U.S., in ways Clinton never approached.

[ClarkUSA]

74. lol! Your bias is showing.

<< Frankly, I think he's burned bridges with the left wing of the Democratic party, and with the left wing of the U.S., in ways Clinton never approached.>>

Bullshit. Former DLC Chairman Clinton w/his invention of extraordinary rendition, GOP blueprinted welfare reform, media & Wall St. deregulation, HCR debacle, repeal of Glass-Steagall, DADT/DOMA, CAFTA, NAFTA has drawn the everlasting scorn of lefties like me. President Obama, on the other hand, has worked hard to fix both Bush II's and Clinton's disastrous mistakes since coming into office.

[phleshdef]

77. No, but the facts I presented above negate that claim.

You aren't going to get around acknowledging them.

[LWolf]

80. I fully acknowledge your remarks about Clinton.

I don't have to "get around" them. They aren't relevant. Obama isn't Clinton. He's burned more bridges behind him, and his non-supporters are a hell of a lot angrier than Clinton's were.


Edited to add:

There IS a point to be made than some who are angry will hold their nose and vote anyway, for the "lesser evil." I think that there are more angry Democrats, and that the anger and disillusionment is much deeper. I think that will play out at the polls.

[phleshdef]

82. Those aren't the remarks I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the fact that 3% had no opinion and that 10% of Dems voted for McCain. That leaves you with nothing but single digits to play with.

Must be awfully lonely.

[LWolf]

86. Wrong again.

The fact that 10% of the party would actually vote for McCain/Palin rather than Obama illustrates my point perfectly.

[phleshdef]

90. No, it doesn't. No President carries 100% of his entire party. EVER.

[LWolf]

91. I didn't suggest he did. Which is beside the point. nt

[phleshdef]

97. Also, this polls internals show that only white southern Democrats over 50 were polled.

Look at the internals, LOL. If Obama is polling 78% with those Demographics, the real numbers are probably something closer to the same number that voted for him... which means he has lost NO ONE.

[LWolf]

107. You keep rationalizing, if it makes you feel better. nt

[treestar]

76. 22% is much smaller than 78%

An amazing talent for seeing anything negatively.

[LWolf]

88. It is. What percent is large enough to make a difference in the GE? nt

[ClarkUSA]

26. Besides PUMAs and racists, who made up the other 22%, I wonder?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[namahage]

56. White people 50 and over.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/12/28/rel17j.pdf#page=8

Of course, those making up the other 78% were ALSO white people 50 and over.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TBF]

95. They didn't call me. nt

[Beacool]

96. Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

His problem is not the Democrats, but winning back the Independents.

:shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

99. lol! Of course you don't. BTW, he's winning independents back, too.

See recent Gallup poll results: http://www.gallup.com/poll/145109/Americans-Support-Major-Elements-Tax-Compromise.aspx

Eighty-five percent of Republicans favored extending the tax cuts but only 43 percent supported extension of unemployment benefits. Eighty-four percent of Democrats backed extension of unemployment benefits, while only 52 percent backed extending the tax cuts.

By contrast, independents were strongly in favor of both elements. Sixty-seven percent backed extension of the tax cuts and 71 percent supported extending unemployment benefits.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/08/obamas-deal-with-gop-may-help-him-win-independents-back-a-poll

What so many naysayers seem to forget is this fact: against very tough economic and political odds, President Obama still scores well ahead of Clinton's and Reagan's two-year approval ratings. With an improving economy and facing an oddball assortment of whacked GOP teabaggers in 2012, I predict a landslide for 44.

[applegrove]

100. Glad to see Americans were watching last week when Obama did good. I was worried

people may have been too focused on Christmas to notice.

[craigmatic]

101. Obama beat a popular former president's wife inside his own party. Did anyone

really think that anybody could take the nomination away from him? If he could beat Hillary he could beat anybody in the party.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[quaker bill]

103. Likely to fail very quickly

If it even happens, it will not go past South Carolina.

[Vinca]

105. We should all reserve judgement until we learn his thoughts on Social Security.

[impik]

106. Those 78% are not the base

DU told me so.

[namahage]

110. FWIW, I don't think that number's right, either.

I submit that the 78% number is NOT an accurate reflection of the size of Obama's base.

Take a look at the data on the poll respondents here:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/12/28/rel17j.pdf#page=8

Unless, of course, you think Obama's base is comprised solely of white Southerners 50 years of age or older...

[Scurrilous]

109. K & R

:thumbsup: