Democrat Voter Enthusiasm Is Down, Republican Enthusiasm Is Up

Barack Obama

Some interesting polling from Gallup:

Obviously, not a positive trend for Democrats. In 2004 and 2008 it was easy to motivate Democrat voters against in-power Republicans. It was easy for Obama and other Democrats to campaign as reformers on a “change” platform. But now they’re the status quo, faced with defending an unpopular government take over of health insurance and a raft of economic policies that haven’t born a lot of fruit.

I wouldn’t be enthusiastic about that either.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • Bat One

    This could be huge come November. As the Obama economy stumbles into recession, and more and more mainstream Democrats lose their taste for Obama’s radical liberalism, Obama himself will do all that much more to try and motivate his “base”, thus further alienating those in the moderate middle. Time to hire someone with some REAL executive experience.and let The Amateur find something else to do more worthy of his modest abilities.

    • Neiman

      Look for war in the Middle East, Iran and or Syria requiring a direct U.S. role about September/October, that will change the dynamics greatly. Obama will not dare leave it to the voters.

      He will not lose this election if he can just create a good crisis and he can depend on those folk in the Middle East to give him one to exploit.

      • Spartacus

        I don’t think his getting us into a war would help him one iota at this point. He, and more so his policies, are recognized as a failure by pretty much everyone. Most who still publicly claim to support him are just saying so because they where gullible enough to buy his line of b.s. back in ’08 and still lack the fortitude to openly admit they made a mistake. Those are the ones that will either just stay home on 11/6 or vote for someone else and not mention it.

        • Neiman

          You would be surprised no matter how a big a failure he is, the people support a Commander-In-Chief when bullets are flying.

      • Bat One

        You may be right, Neiman, and I certainly wouldn’t put it past Obama to try. But on the other hand, who is he gonna go to war against? Syria’s al-Assad? The guy that Jimmy Carter said “… is very popular in his own country.” and Dennis Kucinich said, “… is highly
        beloved and appreciated by the Syrians whom I met.” and who his own Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, labeled “a reformer.”

        The fact of the matter is, that if Obama’s domestic, economic policies weren’t such an abject failure, we would all be more focused on just how much a failure he’s been in foreign affairs as well.

        • Spartacus

          Spot on Bat. Which one of his “friends” will he wage war upon just to try to stay in office? On top of that the majority in this country are still not willing to try Socialism no matter how it’s disguised. Maybe he should try again in about a hundred years. Oh, he won’t be able to, his own health care plan will have killed him about 70 years earlier. Sometimes the best made plans have a way of biting oneself in the ass!

          • Bat One

            What is coming back to bite him in the ass, as you’ve so colorfully described it, is the fact that for the first time in his undistinguished, unaccomplished, political career Obama has a RECORD to acknowledge and explain. And it’s that recond that will be his undoing.

        • Neiman

          I can see unleashing Israel against Iran in late September, there is an air war and our ships are in the straights -with bullets flying. . .

          I can see Israel going into Syria after the chemical weapons and getting air support from us . . .Russia reacting, etc.

          That is a powder keg over there with several good ways to get involved militarily, not declare a war, but getting involved with our military.

        • JustRuss

          He’ll just have to attack Israel…

  • Spartacus

    This is one of those posts that really would be better if instead of using a graph it used Larry Flint’s patented “erect-o-meter” to indicate enthusiasm. Democrats are flacid, but then everyone already knew that.

  • fredlave

    Romney’s campaign slogan should be: “Hope For Change – Vote Romney and vote Republican”.

  • Dakotacyr

    Romney’s not on the ground 24 hours in England and he already insulted the Brits. Not ready for the world stage with one of staunchest allies. Nice going!

    • Onslaught1066

      What Insult would that be?

      Was it, per chance, any of these:

      1. Siding with Argentina over the Falkland Islands

      This has remained the top insult for three years running. For sheer
      offensiveness it’s hard to beat the Obama administration’s brazen
      support for Argentina’s call for UN-brokered negotiations over the
      sovereignty of the Falklands, despite the fact that 255 British
      servicemen laid down their lives to restore British rule over the
      Islands after they were brutally invaded in 1982. In a March 2010 press
      conference in Buenos Aires with President Cristina Kirchner, Secretary
      of State Hillary Clinton gave Argentina a huge propaganda coup by emphatically backing the position of the Péronist regime.

      In June 2011, Mrs Clinton slapped Britain in face again by signing on to an Organisation of American States (OAS) resolution calling
      for negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, a
      position which is completely unacceptable to Great Britain. To add
      insult to injury, the Obama administration has insisted on using the
      Argentine term “Malvinas” to describe the Islands in yet another sop to Buenos Aires.

      In 2012, against a backdrop of growing aggression by Argentina,
      including efforts to blockade international vessels fishing in Falkland
      waters, the Obama administration continued to undercut Britain. In January and February
      the State Department again supported direct negotiations between
      Argentina and Britain, parroting the line taken by Buenos Aires.

      2. Calling France America’s strongest ally

      In January last year, President Obama held a joint press conference at the White House with his French counterpart, literally gushing with praise for Washington’s new-found Gallic friends, declaring: “We don’t have a stronger friend and stronger ally than Nicolas Sarkozy, and the French people.” As I noted at the time:

      Quite what the French have done to merit this kind of
      high praise from the US president is difficult to fathom, and if the
      White House means what it says this represents an extraordinary sea
      change in US foreign policy. Nicolas Sarkozy is a distinctly more
      pro-American president than any of his predecessors, and has been an
      important ally over issues such as Iran and the War on Terror. But to
      suggest that Paris and not London is Washington’s strongest partner is
      simply ludicrous.
      These kinds of presidential statements matter. No US president in
      modern times has described France as America’s closest ally, and such a
      remark is not only factually wrong but also insulting to Britain, not
      least coming just a few years after the French famously knifed
      Washington in the back over the war in Iraq.

      3. Lecturing Britain on a federal Europe and undercutting British sovereignty

      The Obama administration’s relentless and wrongheaded support for the
      creation of a federal Europe, from backing the Treaty of Lisbon to the
      EU Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), is a slap in the face for
      the principle of national sovereignty in Europe. While the Bush
      Administration was divided over Europe, the Obama team has been ardently
      euro-federalist. Hillary Clinton called the Lisbon Treaty “a major milestone in our world’s history”, and in an interview with The Irish Times in 2009
      stated: “I believe [political integration is] in Europe’s interest and I
      believe that is in the United States’ interest because we want a strong
      Europe.” And Vice President Joe Biden has described Brussels as the “capital of the free world.”

      Most insultingly, the Obama administration has sought to intervene in
      British policy towards the European project. The US Ambassador to
      London, Louis Susman, has warned Britain that “all key issues must run through Europe.” According to a report by The Parliament.com,
      in a private meeting with British MEPs at an event in the European
      Parliament in January 2011, Susman called for a stronger British
      commitment to the EU, emphatically warning against British withdrawal:

      I want to stress that the UK needs to remain in the EU.
      The US does not want to see Britain’s role in the EU diminished in any
      way. The message I want to convey today is that we want to see a
      stronger EU, but also a stronger British participation within the EU.
      This is crucial if, together, we are going to meet all the global
      challenges facing us, including climate change and security.

      4. Betraying Britain to appease Moscow over the New START Treaty

      In February 2011, The Daily Telegraph broke a major story
      with damaging implications for the Special Relationship, revealing that
      Washington “secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information
      on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty.”
      According to The Telegraph report:

      Information about every Trident missile the US supplies
      to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal
      signed by President Barack Obama next week. Defence analysts claim the
      agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the
      exact size of its nuclear arsenal.
      A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators
      show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to
      securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal. Although the treaty
      was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show
      that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s
      Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.
      Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow
      with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused,
      but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles
      it transfers to Britain.

      5. Airbrushing Britain from Europe

      A striking feature of Obama administration speeches on Europe is the
      frequent omission altogether of Great Britain, as if it doesn’t even
      exist. A major recent example of this was an address in January 2012
      by Philip H. Gordon, US Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian
      Affairs, on “the state of transatlantic relations”, which completely
      left the British out of the discussion of the role of US allies in the
      Afghanistan and Libya operations, as well as the Iranian nuclear crisis.
      As I noted at the time:

      It is a sad day when the most senior US official on
      Europe cannot even bring himself to acknowledge the vital role and huge
      sacrifices made by America’s closest partner on the battlefields of
      Afghanistan, while much of Europe barely lifts a finger in the war
      against the Taliban.

      6. Throwing Churchill out of the Oval Office

      It is hard to think of a more derogatory message to send to the British people within days of taking office than to fling a bust of Winston Churchill out of the Oval Office
      and send it packing back to the British Embassy – not least as it was a
      loaned gift from Britain to the United States as a powerful display of
      solidarity in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York
      and Washington. Obviously, public diplomacy is not a concept that
      carries much weight in the current White House, and nor apparently is
      common sense. Three years on, the Churchill bust incident continues to
      embarrass the Obama White House, and remains a sad symbol of this
      administration’s contempt for the Special Relationship as well as one of
      the greatest figures in British history.

      7. Placing a “boot on the throat” of BP

      The Obama administration’s relentless campaign against Britain’s
      largest company in the wake of Gulf oil spill was one of the most
      damaging episodes in US-UK relations in recent years, with 64 percent of Britons
      agreeing at the time that the president’s handling of the issue had
      harmed the partnership between the two countries according to a You Gov poll. The White House’s aggressive trashing of BP, including a threat to put a “boot on the throat” of the oil giant, helped wipe out about half its share value, directly impacting the pensions of 18 million Britons.
      This led to a furious backlash in the British press, with even London
      mayor and long-time Obama admirer Boris Johnson demanding an end to “anti-British rhetoric, buck-passing and name-calling”.

      8. DVDs for the Prime Minister

      This insult has featured in all three editions, not least because it
      remains a powerful example of breathtaking diplomatic ineptitude that
      would have shamed the protocol office of an impoverished Third World
      country. Readers of this blog will know that I have been heavily
      critical of Gordon Brown’s premiership, but whatever one thinks of his
      third-rate leadership, Brown travelled abroad not as a private
      individual but as the leader of America’s closest ally. He represented
      62 million Britons including the Armed Forces, as well as a huge amount
      of British trade and investment with the United States. He was, however,
      treated extremely shabbily when he visited the White House in March
      2009, and sent home with an assortment of 25 DVDs ranging from Toy Story to The Wizard of Oz – which couldn’t even be played in the UK.

      9. Insulting words from the State Department

      The mocking views of a senior State Department official following Gordon Brown’s embarrassing reception at the White House in March 2010 says it all:

      There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the
      same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect
      special treatment.

      10. Confusing England with Great Britain

      Perhaps less of an insult than an embarrassing indictment of Barack
      Obama’s Columbia and Harvard education, the president’s extraordinarily
      ignorant response to the storming of the British Embassy in Tehran last
      November, dubbing it the “English” Embassy,
      was the kind of elementary mistake that would have had America’s
      liberal press howling with derision had it been made a few years earlier
      by George W. Bush. As I wrote soon after the president’s gaffe:

      It would be nice if the leader of the free world bothered
      to look at a map once in a while, or even paid a visit to the British
      Embassy in Washington, currently housing the Churchill bust that Mr.
      Obama unceremoniously threw out of the Oval Office soon after his
      inauguration… The White House will no doubt dismiss this latest faux pas
      by the president as a slip of the tongue, but it cannot disguise the
      fact that it has on many occasions treated Britain and other key allies
      with an air of disdain, and even contempt.

      http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100142971/barack-obamas-top-ten-insults-against-britain-2012-edition/

Top