Majority doesnt want Obama re-elected

Gallup: Majority Doesn’t Want Obama Re-elected

A majority of Americans do not think President Barack Obama should win re-election, according to a new Gallup poll. Gallup says that 51 percent of the registered voters surveyed say “no,” 46 percent say “yes” and 3 percent don’t know.

While those numbers haven’t changed much in recent months, there’s plenty to worry the administration.

Fifty-three percent of self-described independents say Obama should not win another term in 2012, compared to 43 percent who say he should. That’s almost a complete reversal of where independents stood on Obama’s election in 2008, when swing vote moderates were the pivotal voting bloc that helped send Obama to the White House, Yahoo! News noted.

The defection of independents is part of a larger trend in which moderates have been expressing their dissatisfaction with the Democrats for months, with polls showing the group leaning strongly toward the GOP ahead of this November’s midterm elections.

I think it will come down to who Obama is running against, i.e. his Republican opponent. Americans rarely vote for someone these days… they just vote against the person they think is worse. And there are other candidates from other political parties, but they haven’t won or gotten a significant portion of votes in many years.

that gives me hope to read that, but i also agree that it will probably matter who he is running against. it will be a long 4 years!!!

Well, if he’s running against Sarah Palin he’ll either get my vote or I’ll sit the election out.

If there were no other reasons, I could never vote for Mr. Obama because of his support for restriction-free abortion. That being his often stated policy, I don’t think anyone having the slightest pro-life beliefs can justify supporting him in any way.

I don’t support his stand on abortion at all and I have problems with certain other positions he champions, but that doesn’t mean I have to support any politician who comes down the pike simply because he or she opposes abortion either. I don’t support President Obama because of his abortion stance, but I don’t support Palin merely because of hers either. I also think your last statement is somewhat extreme. I can agree with Obama on a number of issues separate from the abortion issue. That doesn’t mean he gets my vote, but it does mean we can support issues we agree on together.

Abortion is a biggy for me. There is no way I could vote for a pro-abortion candidate, no matter what his political party is. I’d love to see a pro-life Democrat running for president.

I agree, but pro - life Democrats have been exiled from the party for so long it seems like mere wishful thinking. But again, that doesn’t mean I have to support a Republican candidate who may be anti abortion but is anti life in other ways.

Even Sarah Palin will beat Obama IF the economy is bad enough, and it could be.

Amen to that! There’d better be better GOP candidates than she, otherwise, I’ll not only vote for Obama, I’ll donate generously to his campaign.

That dear lady should stay home and clean her bear rifle, while enjoying the view of Russia from her front porch. :wink:

You understand the Teachings of the Catholic Church.

Click Here:When the Choices aren’t so clear, the rule is still limit the evil!

Preparing for elections involves converting people to the position that abortion is the single most important problem of all, and that if we don’t elect people who will defend the right to life, our work to secure any other rights is in peril…

Once we understand that abortion is the most critical problem, then we know that we cannot elect a pro-abortion person simply because he or she seems to have a better idea about housing or education (or any other issue).

But on the specific point of abortion, if the only choices we have are “bad” and “worse,” what do we do?

Answer: We vote for the person who will do the least damage…

…In our role as teachers of morality, we would like to clarify that while we can never choose between two evils, we can choose to do good to limit an evil. When one’s choice of candidates who have a viable opportunity to win is limited to two unfavorable candidates, to choose to limit evil by voting for the better of the two is to choose a good. To vote for an imperfect candidate is not to endorse that candidate’s position on every issue. Nor is it to compromise our ultimate goal which is the protection of all pre-born children…

Click Here:Priests for Life comparison of the Democratic and Republican party platforms

Click Here:Welcome to our Election Action Center

God Bless.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

You do know that was Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live who said that… it wasnt Sarah Palin.

You do know what the word “joke” means, don’t you?

Why are posters on this Forum too often bereft of any sense of humor? Got me on that one. :shrug:

I have to agree. No one in their right mind would vote for someone they want to fail or that they know in their heart would be bad for our country. If Obama will be voted out of office, someone “better” than he is will have to run against him.

What websites are you all checking for 2012 presidential hopefuls that make some kind of attempt at being non-baised?

**If the GOP candidate is the “lesser of two evils” you must vote for the “lesser of two evils” Candidate.

I strongly suggest you print this out and study it carefully:**


These five issues concern actions that are intrinsically evil and must never be promoted by the law…Intrinsically evil actions are those that fundamentally conflict with the moral law and can never be performed under any circumstances. *** It is a serious sin*** (emphasis mine) to deliberately endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who really wants to advnce the common good will support any action contrary to the non-negotiable principles in these issues.

  1. Abortion…
  2. Euthanasia…
  3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research…
  4. Human Cloning…
  5. Homosexual “Marriage”…

page 10. HOW NOT TO VOTE

  1. Do not cast your vote based on candidates’ appearance, personality, or “media savvy.” Some attractive, engaging, and “sound-bite-capable” candidates endorse intrinsic evils, while other candidates, who may be plain-looking, uninspiring, and ill at ease in front of cameras, endorse legislation in accord with basic Christian principles.

  2. Do not vote for candidates just because they declare themselves Catholic. Unfortunately, many self-described Catholic candidates reject basic Catholic teaching.

  3. Do not vote for candidates who are right on lesser issues but who will vote wrongly on key moral issues. This was underscored by Pope John Paul II regarding the life issues: "The common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture-***is false and illusory ***if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination" (*Christifideles Laici *38)…

**Each of us will be held accountable-whether we accept or reject Church Teaching.

God Bless.
+Jesus, I Trust In You.
Love, Dawn**

Aye! There’s the rub. Which will the “lesser”? We each will decide in our hearts, and if it comes to a matter of the Democrat being the worse, then I won’t vote for either, given that I’ll never vote Republican, leaving me with voting for some third party candidate or none.

I doubt that you have to worry;. The GOP powers-that-be will never allow her to get the nomination. I’m betting that it will be a governor with executive experience.

Sarah Palin was a governor with executive experience.

Obama was a Community Organizer-who became a Senator from Illinois->with not much of a voting record. Usually “present,” so nobody knew where he was coming from-or what (if) he stood for anything-anything at all.

Obama didn’t finish his term either, did he? Anyway…Thing is, he’s surrounded himself with others with no experience either. <-This is why their incompetence is as obvious as it is. No amount of reading off a Teleprompter can cover this embarrassment to the whole world.

God Bless.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

Glad you brought up the “teleprompter” charge. Do you remember when Reagan was president and his senility started to become obvious during his term of office when he would say anecdotes that weren’t true, but that he believed were, and when he’d repeat the same stories within minutes of each other because he thought he hadn’t said them the first time.

If reading off a teleprompter is such a bad mark against Obama, then how much worse is a president who should have been reading off a teleprompter instead of making apparent the ravages of that terrible disease.

Sympathy for both men should be in order on that account.

There’s not that much enthusiasm for her among the rank-and-file any more either. And, look around this Forum. She’s not the conservatives’ darling.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit