A strong majority of Democrats would cancel the 2016 presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump if it meant President Obama could serve another term, a new poll found.

Data provided to The Hill by the conservative polling outlet WPA Research found that 67 percent of Democrats would take a third term for Obama over a potential Clinton administration.

Only 28 percent said they’re ready to move on from the Obama White House, while 6 percent are undecided.

Obama is enjoying a surprisingly strong approval rating for a president serving out the final months of his second term.

A Washington Post-ABC News survey released this week found Obama’s net approval rating approaching 80 points in positive territory among Democrats. Former President Bill Clinton was at about 60 points positive within his own party at this point in 2000, while former President George W. Bush was under 40 with Republicans.

At the same time, a Gallup survey from April found Clinton’s net approval rating among Democrats hitting a new low. She had a 63-point net positive approval rating last November. That plummeted to only 36 points in April.

read more:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/286105-major...

Views: 833

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Screw Ball Left-Wing Democrats!! There are Term Limits in our LAWS!!

There are several sets of laws, now....ours and theirs.  

When did a little thing like the Constitution stop OScumBag!

Well, if he gets this crap through, I'll declare OPEN SEASON on Obumbum!

The Constitution has never stopped Obozo

Larry, that is an excellent observation.  Why is that?  I don't get it.  The Constitution is the law...right?  I even think the Supreme Court has subverted the Constitution, like with Obamacare.  I have always believed the Supreme Court should only be able to render a decision with a super majority.  Never a simple majority, 5/4, but a 7/2 super majority.  The justices should have to duke it out, convince opposition to see it their way.  Even a 6/3 would be better.  The way I see it, most, if not all, decisions are derived based on ideology. 

What scare me was the 4/4 vote on Immigration. The Constitution CLEARLY gives that to Congress. It's right there in black and white. Yet 4 liberal judges ignore the Constitution and vote to let Obama make his own laws. If Hillary gets elected we are totally screwed.

Larry, exactly.  Is it that 4 of those justices don't know or understand the Constitution?  Simply put, an example; Article II Section 1 Clause 5 to run for the presidency, in part:...attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States...  So, if someone 30 years old ran for president and brought before the Supreme Court, would they have anything less than a unanimous decision?  Would a 5/4 decision be a huge news story?  Why would 5 say a person has to be 35 where 4 would say it was ok to be less than 35.  I know.  It's a silly analogy, but it is the best I can do for now. 

Laws! Laws don't apply to Dems. Maybe they'll commission an executive crown as well. These are definitely dark times that we are living in.  

Laws will apply to Dems as soon as the Fascist Agenda is fully implemented..!

The IGNORANT idiots..!

*Edited Offensive Word, Please Re-Read the members rules*

I think that is in the Constitution but they don't follow that.  They conveniently ignore it whenever it suits them.

"What difference does it make?" Hillery or obama both are the same when it comes to making America Great again.....worthless!

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service