A new poll from the Economist/YouGov.com indicates more than seven in 10 Americans who voted to re-elect President Obama for a second term now regret their choice in 2012. Even if you only consider the Democrats among his re-election supporters, 55 percent wish they hadn’t chosen to elect Barack Obama again.
The poll asked those who voted for Obama’s reelection the question: “Do you regret voting for Barack Obama?”
Given a chance to do it all over again, only 79 percent of those who voted for Obama would vote for him again and 71 percent of his voters, now inclined to vote for somebody else, “regret” their vote to reelect him, according to a new poll.
“Those who reported voting for Barack Obama in 2012 but would vote for someone else if the election were held again” from “those who voted for Barack Obama in 2012.”
The poll also found that Obama would lose enough votes in a rematch with his Republican rival in 2012 presidential election, Mitt Romney that the Republican would win.
“90 percent of people who voted for Romney would do it again, compared to only 79 percent of Obama voters who would,” the poll said.
In this case, hindsight may not be 20/20, but it is certainly clear that many of Obama’s voters now realize they made an error. It remains to be seen just how severe the consequences will be.
Source: PressTV
Don’t for get bush bill Nixon and bush senior Ronald Reagan they al play a part he just a house negro
OBAMA WILL BURN IN HELL FOREVER. HE ‘S ASKED FOR IT.
its too late now you ignorant douchebags voted him in twice proving you were too stupid to learn from “your” first mistake. He is your president so you deal with him you dummies
Lol Rich, there all evil.
IDIOT`S !!!!!!!
Like hitting your thumb with a hammer, the damage is already done and there ain’t a do over. Just hope these fools get hit harder than the rest of us.
“Natural Born” citizens
Below is part of the discussion of the Congress of 1866 which wrote and passed the 14th Amendment, and according to the intent of the framers of that Amendment, which is the “Law of the Land”, as democrats like to say, neither Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and even Mitt Romney, are not eligible to be President of the United States, according to the terms set forth in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution which requires a President to be a “natural born citizen”. The left will argue that the courts make the law, but as we all know, it is the legislatures that write laws, the courts affirm their Constitutionality, and the executive, executes those laws. The fathers of all four of the above, were not citizens of the United States at the time of the births of their sons, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject, and never applied for U.S. citizenship. Ted Cruz was born in Canada, and his father was still a Cuban citizen at the time of his birth, Marco Rubio’s father never applied for U.S. citizenship until 1997, and George Romney was born in Mexico, to parents who had relinquished their U.S. citizenship, and therefore George Romney was a Mexican citizen by birth and was never naturalized, which means that Mitt Romney is a Mexican citizen by birth. We cannot ignore the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment because Obama was elected, and now seek to elect another ineligible candidate to compensate. We must as Americans. elect only “natural born citizens” to be President. We cannot have a President with a dual allegiance! Obama has proven this detrimental to the welfare and propriety of the United States of America.
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed this in 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”*
When a child inherits the citizenship of their father, they become a natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of where they might be born. It should be pointed out that citizenship through descent of the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a citizen father. BOTH PARENTS must have been U.S. CITIZENS AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH in order for a Presidential hopeful to qualify as a “natural born citizen” under our U.S. Constitution!! Natural born” is VERY different from any other category of citizenship, i.e. “native born”, “naturalized”, or “citizen by statute”.
Yes, birth is prima facie evidence of citizenship, but only the citizenship of the nation the father is a member.
http://www.quowarranto.info/
Why did it take them that long and why haven’t the other 29% figured it out yet?
Ronald Reagan was the greatest President we have EVER had in office
not much hope for the other 29 % ??