Regrets? Obama's 2012 voters in key states have a few

[Karee 4,189]

Just two years ago, President Obama was re-elected, the first Democrat since FDR to twice win a majority of the electorate.

That was then.

Now USA TODAY/Suffolk University polls in a half-dozen states with key Senate races underscore just how much times and political fortunes have changed for the president. In five of the six states, the percentage of likely voters who say they voted for Obama in 2012 has dipped from the actual results.

Of those who say they did vote for him, as many as one in seven say they regret it.

"He started out as such a dynamic powerhouse; I mean, it seemed to be he could do anything," says Mike White, 64, of Cary, N.C., one of those disappointed past supporters. "Now I think he's just looking forward to the end of his presidency."

That helps explain why Obama has limited his campaigning so far mostly to raising money, not rallying voters. In a debate in Kentucky on Tuesday night, Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell repeatedly tried to tie Democratic challenger Alison Lundergan Grimes to the president while she refused even to say whether she had voted for him herself.

That reluctance apparently extends to others. In 2012, Obama carried three of the states surveyed by USA TODAY and Suffolk University's Political Research Center with more than 50% of the vote. But now just 47% of likely voters in Iowa, 46% in Colorado and 48% in Michigan say they voted for him.

Of the six states, only in Kansas did the percentage who remember voting for Obama match the actual election returns, at 38%. His standing slid 5 points in North Carolina and 2 in Arkansas.

Some of that decline probably is due to differences in the electorate in midterm elections, which is typically older, more conservative and less racially diverse than in presidential years — that is, more Republican leaning. But studies also have shown that voters don't always remember accurately just who it was they backed before.

"Voters who defect from their party to vote for the winner are more likely to 'forget' this over time and to report a vote more consistent with their current party identification," says Charles Franklin of Marquette University Law School. "Reports of past vote also correlate with current preferences."

So when President Dwight Eisenhower's popularity rose toward the end of his term, more Americans remembered voting for him than actually did. In Obama's case, as his popularity sags, presumably so does the percentage who realize they helped elect him.

Then there are those who say they voted for him but are sorry they did — including 15% of Obama supporters in Colorado. Lois Rice, 61, of Parker, Colo., is one of them. "I voted for Obama, but quite frankly I've been disappointed with his handling of the ISIS (Islamic State) issue and just some general economic issues," she says.

She and others say in follow-up interviews that their disappointment with Obama doesn't necessarily mean they wish they had voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. "I really did not like the Republican candidate," Rice recalls.

Kristopher Lane, 21, is one of the 8% of Obama supporters in Iowa who now express regret. "I'm kind of upset that I did vote for him," expressing concern in particular about the impact of the Affordable Care Act. "I was kind of pushed towards voting for him by someone I know."

Republicans are trying to tap that sentiment. Americans for Shared Prosperity last month posted a video that shows an actress talking about Obama the way she might about a match made by an online dating site that went sour. The ad, titled "Dating Profile," has been viewed more than 575,000 times so far on YouTube.com.

"In 2008, I fell in love," she says. "His online profile made him seem so perfect — smart, handsome, charming, articulate, all the right values. I trusted him. But by 2012 our relationship was in trouble, but I stuck with him because he promised he'd be better. He's great at promises," she says with an edge.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/10/14/usa-today-suffolk-poll-obama-voter-regrets/17238923/

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I'm mad I still haven't received my free shyt...

[Teddy B 17,251]

Just two years ago, President Obama was re-elected, the first Democrat since FDR to twice win a majority of the electorate.

Bill Clinton?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm mad I still haven't received my free shyt...

The small government types gobbled it all up.

[Karee 4,189]

Bill Clinton?

Clinton only won ~43% in 1992.

[Pooky 3,348]

Bill Clinton?

Ross Perot.

[decocker 7,198]

given the alternative, obama was the only way to go.

[luckytxn 2,263]

No there wasn't. There are more than two parties. Any that voted for the two major parties are part of the problem.

given the alternative, obama was the only way to go.

[decocker 7,198]

No there wasn't. There are more than two parties. Any that voted for the two major parties are part of the problem.

i know there are more than two parties..technically. but you're not going to see a president that strays from the brand names right now or anytime in the near future. too much money involved.

[luckytxn 2,263]

Because the people allow it by voting for the status quo. It makes no difference if anyone votes Democrat or Republican we will end up with the same thing.

i know there are more than two parties..technically. but you're not going to see a president that strays from the brand names right now or anytime in the near future. too much money involved.

[Pooky 3,348]

Because the people allow it by voting for the status quo. It makes no difference if anyone votes Democrat or Republican we will end up with the same thing.

Vote Status Quo!

[luckytxn 2,263]

Rock and Roll will never die.

Vote Status Quo!

[UncleBeer 244]

i know there are more than two parties..technically. but you're not going to see a president that strays from the brand names right now or anytime in the near future. too much money involved.

Not as long as the electorate proudly act like sheep and only vote for "electable" candidates. Then you'll only get more of the same (or worse, like now).

Plenty of 3rd party candidates in 2012 and there'll be plenty in 2016 as well.

[luckytxn 2,263]

Bravo!

Not as long as the electorate proudly act like sheep and only vote for "electable" candidates. Then you'll only get more of the same (or worse, like now).

Plenty of 3rd party candidates in 2012 and there'll be plenty in 2016 as well.

[decocker 7,198]

Because the people allow it by voting for the status quo. It makes no difference if anyone votes Democrat or Republican we will end up with the same thing.

i'm too cynical to accept that 'the people' or 'anyone' is going to stray from the brands they're comfortable with. most americans are quite comfortable with the current set up. don't get me wrong, i'd love to see a massive upset and for the gears to start cranking again. i was just listening to an nor bit last night about money in politics and how we could be missing out on some terrific leaders -because those potential leaders do not have the money to play ball with the big dogs.