Obama's impeachment, how many people really want this?

obama, impeachment:, how, many, americans, really, want, this?,                             

              Obama Impeachment: How Many Americans Really Want This?         


April showers bring May flowers, but not for the Obama administration. Republicans across the country are calling for the president's head after his administration was rocked by several high-profile scandals. But how many Americans really want to see their commander-in-chief removed for “high crimes and misdemeanors?” The answer may surprise you.

What History Tells Us About Impeachment

A U.S. President has never been impeached and removed from office (Nixon likely would have been, but he stepped down before official proceedings could begin). Millennials will of course remember the trial of William J. Clinton, but that farce was brought to an end by a Senate acquittal. Nonetheless, the two events serve as bookmarks in public opinion – how supportive were the American people of impeachment? In Nixon’s case, very. One NBC/Associated Press poll conducted in August 1978 found 72% of respondents believed Nixon had committed an impeachable offense during the Watergate affair. During the height of the Lewinsky scandal, though, only one-third of America supported impeachment proceedings against Clinton (though this fraction increased as it became clear he would not be removed from office, thus the impeachment served as a reprimand, not an ejection).

Democrats also mulled impeaching George W. Bush. Again, public support was lacking. Only 36% believed the warrantless-wiretapping scandal of his second term warranted removal from office; in August 2007, 43% favored impeachment strongly or somewhat, but the majority (52%) still opposed any trials. If the public didn’t support impeaching Bush at the height of his unpopularity, can many favor removing Obama from office?

Republicans believe the answer is “yes.” Though they’ve been clamoring for impeachment since the Benghazi affair, reports that the Justice Department may have illegally seized phone records of journalists, and the ongoing investigation into the IRS’s alleged targeting of conservative groups have given the GOP more scandals than they know what to do with.

The Obama Administration's No-Good-Very-Bad Month

To be fair, the Republicans have claimed everything from Obama’s executive orders on gun violence to the Affordable Care Act justify removal from office. Americans are split on whether the current hysteria is legitimate — on Benghazi, 44% say the GOP’s concerns are fair, while 45% view the hearings as “political posturing.” As the Washington Post points out, those numbers are highly correlated to party identification. A further 55%, including Democrats and independents, believe the Obama administration is covering up pertinent facts. The Justice Department scandal has had less effect, with 52% believing the record seizures were justified. IRS-gate cuts across party lines, with majorities among Democrats, Republicans, and independents strongly disapproving of the activities in Cincinnati. 

Interestingly, these numbers have not had an adverse effect on Obama’s public support. The same Washington Post/ABC News poll finds the president’s rating holding steady at 51% positive.

That’s important. It means that despite weeks of conservative hand-wringing and threats, the American public’s opinions on these scandals aren’t translating into disapproval of the president. Which means Republicans may have a hard time gathering the support they need to oust Obama.

Public Opinion to Republicans: "Not So Fast."

Current polling on whether Americans support impeachment is unreliable, at best. As Huffington Post pollster Emily Swanson points out, polling on this topic is difficult, since results are highly susceptible to variation depending on contact method and word choice. For example, a survey experiment conducted among a representative sample found that support for impeachment varied by nine points, depending on how the question was phrased. Further, opposition ranged from half to two-thirds of respondents, including almost 40% of Republicans. These numbers are fascinating: Even though a plurality of Republicans believes Obama was not born in the U.S. and virtually all of them rate him unfavorably, only 51% to 66% of the rank-and-file conservatives support impeachment proceedings.

These results indicate two important realities. First, Americans recognize that impeachment is an incredibly drastic action to take against a sitting president. Second, the GOP may be betting on the wrong horse.

When Speaker Gingrich and the House Republicans went after Bill Clinton, they didn’t just fail at impeachment. They lost five seats to the Democrats in the 1998 midterms, Gingrich resigned in embarrassment, and they damaged their brand, with almost 60% of the country disapproving of their party. They seem poised to repeat these mistakes, with members of Congress chomping at the bit to begin proceedings. 

Given the fervent desire of the House delegation to remove Obama, perhaps the question isn’t “If?” but “When?” But Democrats need not panic quite yet, as the GOP does not control the Senate (and in my opinion, they don’t have the numbers to pull out a win in 2014). That renders any impeachment proceedings effectively neutered. But Philadelphia Post’s Joel Mathis makes a cogent point about the end results of such a maneuver: “if Republicans decide to impeach a Democratic president again … well, Democrats are probably going to take it personally. They’ll make an entirely rational political decision that there’s no reason not to obstruct, harass, and yes, impeach every Republican every chance they get … Why show restraint if Republicans won’t?” Indeed, one wonders if we would ever see the end of congressional gridlock if every incoming president has to defend against impeachment trials.

Whether the GOP decides to go down that road has yet to be seen (particularly with several high-profile members refusing to support such actions). But polling and history reveal a clear picture: Republicans beware. 

As you can see from the information above, impeachment of Obama is strictly a numbers game for Congress.  They are waiting for US citizens opinions to raise higher in these impeachment polls and voting base to take the Senate in 2014.  Without the high public opinion for impeachment they will not act, however, we also need to work on getting the conservative voting base, Christian voting base and Black voting base out to the polls in 2014 in favor of our candidates, so conservatives can maintain the House and take control of the Senate, before we will see an impeachment of Barack Obama and his administration.  From August 2013, we will have 15 months to raise public opinion and build the voting base needed to win the 2014 election. The only option we have for impeachment sooner, is if more Whistleblowers come forward with incriminating evidence.  This is not looking good with the way Obama administration is going after the Whistleblowers.  There maybe one chance, if Congress does promise Lois Lerner from the IRS, they will take no criminal action against her for her testimony.  This, of course, is not what most of us want to see happen, she deserves to be prosecuted, but if her testimony has enough evidence to impeach Obama, she gets my "yes" vote.  I believe, if she does testify against Obama, others will follow, if they receive the same deal from Congress.  I feel sure her testimony will not only take out Obama, but will also take out some Democrat Senators, which would be a true plus for America.

We also need to vote out some Republican Senators while we working on this.  We know who they are and that they work against us on almost every issue put before the Senate.  I am at a loss to understand how they can work against their own base, only reason I can see that would benefit them to turn traitor to their party, is money.  There must be personal monetary gain, as well as, monetary gain for their state to cause them to become such low life's, therefore they must go in 2014 also.

Please click the link below, take the poll and put some time into finding a local group to join and work with them to support the best candidate to represent your state in Congress.

Time to Impeach Obama?

Do You Trust Obama?

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center



  • All involved in this Admin. should be Removed Immediately.  As for the question of: Do I Trust Obama? How far can I throw Air Force One?  Question Answered.

  • I honestly cannot think of ONE item that they have done for the Country that was good! Neither do I "trust" Oblamea, including his minions and Czars that are the "cast of hundreds,  ohh yes need to mention the "useful idiots!"

  • A_Nobody, absolutely. No hiding of bodies as in the bin Laden case.

  • @Roberto Benitez: True Roberto. Keep it simple and quick but make it public.

  • A_Nobody, I'm not interested that interested in seeing someone suffer, I just want to put the fear of God in those who would be president that they had best keep their oath to support and defend the Constitution.

    As Jefferson wrote, "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

  • @Roberto Benitez: Oh, I agree totally Roberto and wouldn't mind that either but at times I see it as just too quick.

  • A_Nobody, there is another punishment for treason.

  • I don't care what happens to Obozo as long as he ends up in prison.

  • Daniel, here's the paragraph I was referring to you asked for I hope it helps. It's the 1st paragraph 3rd SENTENCE. "Daniel, here's a definition of forms of government using bovine analogy. It's long with some editing, but be patient. I think you'll enjoy it." (emphasis mine). It was meant to be an expansion on your analogy, not a criticism.

    By the way, like you I don't go for hyphenations. However, I do get concerned when some posters imply they have a problem with those who aren't WASPs.

    Let me mention that for better or worse, the Civil War decided that States can't pull out of the Union any time the want to. But I do believe that nullification is something the States should pursue. We must restore federalism.

    As for Obama, the only reason he's pursuing a democracy is to create a crisis in governance. In reality, Mr. (intentional) Obama is a fascist socialist who wants a socialist welfare nanny one party authoritarian state. sadly, he's getting there.

    As for my using the term "democratic Republic", and I used a capital R for Republic, here's an interesting answer to the question:

    "I have heard that the U.S. form of government is a democracy, a republic and a democratic republic. Which is it, is there a difference and if so what?


    Do you know, I said, that governments vary as the dispositions of men vary, and that there must be as many of the one as there are of the other? For we cannot suppose that States are made of "oak and rock," and not out of the human natures which are in them, and which in a figure turn the scale and draw other things after them? (Plato, The Republic)

    Ultimately, D., we've got to realize that no matter what they call themselves, every government on the earth is different from every other. However, we can get back to basics on the terminology if you like. The difference between democracy and republic is a fundamental one. "Democracy," strictly defined, refers to the method of government wherein the members of the group vote directly on all matters of legislation. "Republic" comes from the Latin 'res publica', and refers only to the nature of the government, 'a thing of the people' (that is, not a monarchy), without actually making claims as to how the leaders are selected.

    In recent times, the term "republic" has been bandied about by just about every country, with a popular vote or no, on the claim that the government and the people were subject to the same law. Covers just about everybody except for hereditary monarchies, as I say, including the People's Republic of China, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the Republic of Texas, as well as the more "republican" Dominician Republic, Kyrgyz Republic, and Banana Republic. Because of that, modern-day nations with elected governments have often prefixed their "republics" with other adjectives, and although "democratic republic" does not literally mean "representative democracy" (i.e., in which the people elect representatives, and the reps make the laws), that's what it's been used for over the last few decades or so. (emphasis mine)

    True democracy can also be called "town hall" or "referendum" government. Some small towns use the town hall as their exclusive system of law-making, and most state and local governments in the U.S. use referenda in placing bond issues and similar decisions directly on the voting ballot.

    Direct involvement of the people is a nice concept, but for matters of day-to-day government, a strictly democratic system is impractical. Even now that it's somewhat feasible via electronic communication to survey each and every voter on each and every matter of administering the laws, would you really want this on a national, state, or even local level? Voting is rightly looked on as a civic obligation, but if you were asked to do it every morning when you woke up, you'd probably get pretty sick of it. That's why on a large scale we elect legislators to work for us, and they are charged with making legislative decisions on our behalf. In other words, our republic is governed by a representative democracy.


    We've never been, are not, and hopefully never will be a democracy. John Adams wrote, "Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." Thomas Jefferson wrote, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

This reply was deleted.