Type to search

Poll: Americans Broadly Back Obama’s Immigration Executive Action

Memo Pad Politics

Poll: Americans Broadly Back Obama’s Immigration Executive Action


Americans are very open to President Barack Obama’s newly announced executive action to shield millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation, according to a Hart Research Associates survey released Friday.

The poll, which was conducted on behalf of the liberal 501(c)(4) “dark money” group Americans United for Change, described the president’s policy as follows:

The action would direct immigration enforcement officials to focus on threats to national security and public safety, and not on deporting otherwise law-abiding immigrants. Immigrants who are parents of children who are legal US residents could qualify to stay and work temporarily in the United States, without being deported, if they have lived in the United States for at least five years, pay taxes, and pass a criminal background check.

After hearing that description, voters overwhelmingly backed President Obama’s move: 67 percent viewed it favorably, while just 28 percent viewed it unfavorably. The support was fairly bipartisan, with 91 percent of Democrats, 67 percent of Independents, and 41 percent of Republicans viewing the executive action favorably. Among Tea Party Republicans, however, 64 percent opposed the policy while just 30 percent viewed it favorably.

The results underscore the importance of President Obama’s sales job with regard to his executive action. Previous polls have found that voters abstractly disapprove of the president circumventing Congress to deal with immigration. A USA Today poll released Monday, asking “Should President Obama take executive action this year to deal with illegal immigration or should he wait until January for the new Republican Congress to pass legislation on this issue,” found that 42 percent wanted the president to act now, while 46 percent preferred that he wait. Similarly, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Wednesday found that 48 percent disapproved of President Obama taking executive action while 38 percent approved, without being told any of the details of the president’s plan.

But, as Hart Research found, voters strongly support the specifics of President Obama’s executive action. They favor allowing the parents of children living legally in the United States to stay in the country by a 40 percent margin, expanding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program by 36 percent, providing temporary work permits to qualifying immigrants by 55 percent, and shifting more security resources to the U.S.-Mexico border by 63 percent.

Democrats already seem to be winning one important aspect of the messaging fight; the poll found that — despite outspoken Republican outrage — voters agree, 51 to 41 percent, that President Obama has the legal authority to change the nation’s immigration enforcement policies.

The Hart Research Associates poll surveyed 800 likely 2016 voters from November 19 to 20, 2014, and has a +/- 3.5 percent margin of error.

AFP Photo/Brendan Smialowski

Henry Decker

Henry Decker was formerly the Managing Editor of The National Memo. He is currently an Online Associate at MRCampaigns.

  • 1


  1. James Bowen November 21, 2014

    What a bunch of nonsense. The wording of this poll is designed to elicit an affirmative response. We saw how well pro-amnesty politicians did on Election Day. That is where the people really voiced their views on this.

    1. JPHALL November 21, 2014

      Yeah, in red states!

      1. James Bowen November 22, 2014

        Americans do not favor citizenship for illegal aliens. That is why the
        House never took up the Senate bill or anything like it, in spite of the
        wishes of their leaders. The House members know very well where the
        public stands on this issue. Just look at the election results. A number of Senators who voted for the amnesty didn’t fare well.

        1. JPHALL November 22, 2014

          So where was their alternative? There were none as usual for this Republican leadership. Subject: Re: New comment posted on Poll: Americans Broadly Back Obama’ s Immigration Executive Action

          1. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            You are right about that. Nonetheless, they are not under any obligation to pass new laws. They are only obliged to pass a budget and some smaller housekeeping matters (such as military promotions). Their constituents did not want this bill to pass, so they did not pass it.

          2. JPHALL November 24, 2014

            No, they cannot agree among themselves what to do. The House leadership feared derailing the midterms. What is their excuse now! Subject: Re: New comment posted on Poll: Americans Broadly Back Obama’ s Immigration Executive Action

    2. kenndeb November 22, 2014

      I wonder in what liberal metro area this poll was taken? As with all polls taken and published on liberal sites, they are biased, and reflect only what the pollster wanted. About as truthful as the Emperor.

      1. WhutHeSaid November 22, 2014

        Just because they didn’t poll in your trailer park is no reason to be resentful. Americans (read: immigrants, mostly) favor earned citizenship for other immigrants. Get used to it, because bigoted anti-immigrant hate is nothing new in the US. It has always failed, which is exactly the way it should be.

        1. peteserb November 22, 2014

          A poll in the trailer park, would better reflect America than the one in your ghetto.

          1. WhutHeSaid November 22, 2014

            Would you and your friends take the time out of beer-fart contests and sister-humping to respond to a poll? I rest my case.

        2. James Bowen November 22, 2014

          Americans do not favor citizenship for illegal aliens. That is why the House never took up the Senate bill or anything like it, in spite of the wishes of their leaders. The House members know very well where the public stands on this issue.

          1. WhutHeSaid November 22, 2014

            Yes, Americans do indeed favor an earned path to citizenship. Most people recognize the fact that they are also immigrants, and as long as there is some level of fairness in the policy that allows people the chance the earn their citizenship, they approve by a substantial margin.

            The difference here is with racists and bigots. Even though most of the racists and bigots we hear out here squealing are immigrants or children of immigrants, they are just vile and despicable people who aren’t concerned with fairness or the benefits of sound policy. What they care about is their hate. There have always been people like this, and if they had their way YOU wouldn’t be here to whine about immigration. Such people ALWAYS lose the argument.

          2. James Bowen November 22, 2014

            No, Americans do not favor a path to citizenship for illegals, nor do they favor increased immigration. That is why the House never took anything like the Senate bill up. The feedback was so negative from the public that they did not want to touch it. Also, go to compete.com and see how groups like America’s Voice stack up in web visitation to NumbersUSA. There is no comparison.

          3. WhutHeSaid November 22, 2014

            What does comparing traffic statistics between web sites have to do with national policy? Nothing, that’s what.

            Americans have ALWAYS favored immigration. Want proof? YOU are here, despite the racists and bigots who opposed your family immigrating. This has been an immigrant country for centuries.

          4. James Bowen November 22, 2014

            It says that a lot more people care about reducing and restricting immigration that liberalizing and increasing it.

            Saying that Americans have always favored immigration is not the same thing as saying that Americans want to be overwhelmed by immigrants. Yes, Americans favor immigration in principle but currently they think there is too much of it.

          5. WhutHeSaid November 22, 2014

            In fact they think nothing of the sort. Americans favor immigration by a wide margin as long as the process is fair and sensible (no drug-traffickers, for example). It’s only sordid bigots who oppose sensible policy, and if we need to restrict any class of people it’s people like that.

          6. James Bowen November 22, 2014

            Did you not read what I said? Yes, of course Americans favor immigration, but they do not favor it at the large levels we have today. We cannot take in this many people without it adversely affecting our economy and quality of life. Sensible policy would reduce legal immigration drastically and totally crack down on illegal immigration.

          7. WhutHeSaid November 22, 2014

            Now earning citizenship for many who have been here 5 years or more is ‘legal’. See how that works? Since you support legal immigration, then I’m guessing you support this ‘legal’ immigration activity.

          8. James Bowen November 22, 2014

            No, it is not legal. It is not legal for the President to nullify existing law.

          9. WhutHeSaid November 22, 2014

            It’s a done deal. The President has the legal authority to decide how immigration policies are implemented. He did just that, and it doesn’t matter that you don’t like it. Presidents have done this same thing for many years.

          10. James Bowen November 22, 2014

            That’s the problem though. He went beyond merely deciding how to implement them. He is not authorized to grant work permits to illegals on that scale or increase legal immigration like this.

            It is also not a done deal. It can be defunded, and there are court challenges in the works too.

          11. WhutHeSaid November 22, 2014

            It cannot be de-funded by Congress because it is not funded by Congress. You cannot de-fund what you don’t fund in the first place.

            The courts will not suddenly decide that something Presidents have been doing for the entire history of the US is now unconstitutional.

          12. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            Everything the Executive Branch does is funded by Congress, and anything the Executive Branch does can be defunded by Congress. Read your civics man!

            Presidents have not been doing this our entire history. This move is unprecedented and unconstituional.

          13. WhutHeSaid November 24, 2014

            Untrue. In many cases the agencies perform services that charge fees — as in this case. That means the activities are self-funding. If Congress didn’t appropriate funds for the services — as in this case — then they cannot de-fund it. That’s a very simple concept that doesn’t even require a civics class.

            Presidents have been doing this very thing since this country began. Because bigots like you dislike it is irrelevant.

          14. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            Presidents do not routinely nullify laws. This is unprecedented.

            All activities in government must be funded by Congress. Congress can defund even programs sustained by fees by explicitly forbidding funds going to certain activities in appropriations bills.

          15. WhutHeSaid November 24, 2014

            This is not unprecedented, and no laws were nullified. Obama simply provided direction on the priorities in carrying out current immigration law, which he has the authority to do.

            All activities in government are NOT funded by Congress. Congress cannot engage in targeting specific fees in order to satisfy bigoted hate. THAT would be unprecedented, cynical, and result in a number of unemployed politicians — and rightly so.

            Your bigoted wishes have been *DENIED*. Better get used to it.

      2. James Bowen November 22, 2014

        kenndeb, the polls have been notoriously in error this election cycle. In Kansas, the polls showed Greg Orman with a consistent lead over Roberts (at first wide, later narrow, but a lead nonetheless). Roberts ended up trouncing him. Back in June, Eric Cantor was supposed to win by double digit margins in his primary, according to the polls. The opposite happened. Polls are very unreliable, and to claim that Americans back this action of the President, especially after the beating the public just gave incumbents who supported amnesty, is, like you said, a lie.

        1. WhutHeSaid November 22, 2014

          Bigots always lose. That’s reality, and the sooner you accept it the happier you’ll be.

          1. James Bowen November 22, 2014

            I guess, considering that those concerned about the harmful effects of mass immigration did very well in the last election, that means we aren’t bigots then.

          2. WhutHeSaid November 22, 2014

            Hee-hee! You are going to be one unhappy camper in 2016. Any thoughts on how you will behave when you become part of a minority voting block?

          3. James Bowen November 22, 2014

            Such talk didn’t do your guys any favors this year.

          4. WhutHeSaid November 22, 2014

            Midterm elections mean very little. Obama can still veto bigot-bills, and there aren’t enough bigots to override the veto. Didn’t 2008 and 2012 teach you anything at all?

          5. James Bowen November 22, 2014

            Now that is just nonsense. Midterm elections have every bit as much impact on the makeup of Congress and Presidential elections do.

          6. WhutHeSaid November 22, 2014

            The results of this midterm election can — and probably will — be wiped out in the 2016 election. The viler the behavior of the newly elected bigots the bigger the reversal will be. This is nothing new, and despicable bigots can’t behave themselves for long. They will guarantee their own dismissal.

          7. James Bowen November 22, 2014

            What happens in 2016 cannot be predicted. A lot can happen between now and then. However, I am pretty confident that running on a campaign of immigration restriction and enforcement will help a lot more than it will hurt in 2016.

          8. WhutHeSaid November 22, 2014

            I’m sure you believe that. In fact, you just go on believing that until the disbelief registers on your face the way it did on Fox News during the 2012 election.

          9. James Bowen November 22, 2014

            I was actually not at all surprised by the 2012 results. The GOP ran a terrible campaign that year. Running on a pro-big business platform that year was as stupid as stupid gets. As for 2016, too early to tell what will happen.

          10. WhutHeSaid November 22, 2014

            No, it’s not too early. After opposing Obama in every possible way and attempting to demonize him at every opportunity, the do-nothing-but-obstruct Republicans are suddenly whining about ‘cooperation’. Their antics in the next two years will be on the minds of voters come 2016.

          11. James Bowen November 22, 2014

            You don’t know that. It is way too early to tell. I certainly don’t think Obama just did the Democrats any favors for 2016.

          12. WhutHeSaid November 22, 2014

            Oh, but that’s where you are dead wrong. Obama forced the issue upon the Republican Congress. They need to act or their squealing just looks like more partisan whining and obstructionism. Can they act responsibly or will they expose their bigoted beliefs which Americans oppose?

            This executive action has guaranteed that immigration will be a big part of the 2016 debate. Republicans could end up losing very badly based upon their response to this issue.

          13. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            Obama did not do the Democrats any favors at all with this. You are right about a number of other things here, however. He has forced issue on them, and it is now their duty to defund it. Not doing so could very well cause them to lose badly in 2016.

          14. Carolyn1520 November 23, 2014

            Yes, please keep selling that idea. 😀

          15. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            I sure did this year. As for 2012, no one really tried it. Romney campaigned on it somewhat in the caucus/primary season (especially in Iowa and Arizona), but after clinching the nomination ran away from it as fast as he could. He practically supported the President’s DACA. Running away from it did not help him. All reliable indications are that the American public is deeply ambivalent, to say the least, about current immigration issues and letting illegals stay legally.

          16. WhutHeSaid November 24, 2014

            The American public is not ambivalent about comprehensive immigration reform, which is not the same as anti-immigrant bigotry. Americans want immigration reform by a wide margin, and that includes sensible measures that deal with real people humanely and sensibly.

            People like you are immigrant-hating European immigrants, who are both hypocrites (you are immigrants yourselves) and bigots. Americans do not favor bigoted hate.

          17. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            They want measures that reduce legal immigration and crack down on illegal immigration. They do not want more immigration, like what the Senate bill does.

          18. Carolyn1520 November 23, 2014

            Not so, check the past midterms as far back as you want to go and see how little they influenced the Presidential elections.

          19. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            You miss my point. Every two years all of the House seats and roughly 33% of the Senate seats are up for grabs. That does not change between Presidential elections and mid-terms.

          20. WhutHeSaid November 24, 2014

            The next midterm (in 2016) has a large number of GOP seats up for grabs. If the Republicans take your advice and act like hateful racists and bigots, the Congress will likely turn Democratic once again or nearly so, and the Presidency will also go to a Democrat.

          21. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            There is much more to gain than there is to lose by running on immigration restriction, which is not a bigoted platform. I am not familiar with any candidate, except for Luis Guitierrez, who based their campaign on immigration expansion and won. The politicians who support it tend to keep quiet about it during campaigns.

          22. WhutHeSaid November 24, 2014

            US history is full of politicians who campaigned on immigration reform or championed immigration reform, including the same type of executive actions taken by President Obama. The truth of the matter is that you simply dislike it, because you are a bigoted European immigrant. But in case you didn’t notice, nobody really cares what rabid bigots think when it comes to immigration.

          23. Avinash Tyagi November 22, 2014

            Did us a lot of favors in 2012 and will do the same in 2016

          24. James Bowen November 22, 2014

            First of all, the Democrats did not do all that well in 2012. The makeup of Congress did not change much, and the GOP had a dud for a candidate. Second, the Democrats did not run on that kind of talk in 2012, and when they turned to that kind of talk right after the election, 2014 was the result.

          25. WhutHeSaid November 22, 2014

            The GOP has a lot of duds, yes? If Americans are so enamored of anti-immigrant legislation, then why did Mitt “self-deport” Romney get beaten like a rented mule?

          26. James Bowen November 22, 2014

            He got beaten for reasons other that that. Romney was a Wall Street Republican, something that did not go over well with common people. During the campaign for the general election he barely mentioned immigration and practically supported DACA. Romney, in essence, was not an immigration restrictionist. Contrast that to someone like Dave Brat, who really made a case for restriction and took down the House majority leader in the primary.

          27. WhutHeSaid November 22, 2014

            You know, winning a GOP primary doesn’t mean that much — you still need to win the general election. That was the problem for the GOP in 2008 and 2012 — the right-wing bigots and nuts ruined their chances of taking many seats that were otherwise competitive. Remember Sharon ‘2nd Amendment remedies’ Angle or Christine ‘I’m not a witch’ O’Donnell?

            Americans are, by and large, not right-wing bigots or nut-cases, and veering to the bigoted far-right won’t help in 2016.

          28. James Bowen November 22, 2014

            Immigration restriction is not a right wing pet issue. It is very appealing to moderates and some liberals too. I for one am not a right winger.

          29. WhutHeSaid November 22, 2014

            Bigotry is the underlying theme in ALL right-wing issues. Obama has put the GOP on an immigration ‘tightrope’ for 2016. My prediction is that they fall and lose badly, because bigots just can’t help themselves.

          30. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            They might well just fall and lose badly. Not acting to stop this, i.e. defund, would likely not go over well with the voters.

          31. WhutHeSaid November 24, 2014

            The voters will react badly to blatant bigotry and racism. Most Americans are not bigots or racists. It’s only a very small but vocal minority — which is exactly why Obama won in 2008 and 2012.

          32. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            Obama won those elections due to economic anxiety.

          33. WhutHeSaid November 24, 2014

            Obama won for a number of reasons, and anti-immigrant hate wasn’t one of them. Does this tell you anything?

          34. Carolyn1520 November 23, 2014

            Romney was the best of the right’s duds and this next clown bus promises to be equally as dull.

          35. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            There, I am sorry to say, I must agree.

          36. Avinash Tyagi November 23, 2014

            Actually Dems did extremely well in 2012, not only did they sweep the Electoral college, they gained senate seats and got more votes in house races overall (the benefit of Gerrymandering and demographic distribution was what saved the GOP House Majority)

          37. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            They gained 2 Senate seats and 9 House seats. Definitely gains, but not huge ones. If they got more votes than the GOP did, it was not due to gerrymandering so much as it was due to the fact that by design rural districts have proportionately more representation than urban districts do. The GOP controlled only 25 state legislatures in 2011 and 2012, and in at least one of those states the courts made the redistricting decisions. So the GOP could not have gerrymandered the nation to its advantage prior to the 2012 election.

          38. Avinash Tyagi November 24, 2014

            Well like I said, demographic distribution also played a role in helping the GOP retain its house majority.

            Part of the reason the gain in the senate was so small was most of the races were in states where the Dems or the GOP had the wide advantage.

            Check the map


            Only state that Obama carried where the GOP held on was Nevada

            In 2016, the race is far more advantageous to Dems


            GOP is going to be fighting to hold on to seats in a lot of Blue states.

            If the Dem Candidate (Hillary most likely) has coattails, the Dems could see as much as a 7-8 Seat gain

          39. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            Yes, there is no question that the GOP is going to be playing defense in the 2016 Senate races. However, it is too early to tell what will happen in those Congressional elections. The new Congress hasn’t even been seated yet, and again, 2012 did not result in any major realignments in Congress.

          40. Avinash Tyagi November 24, 2014

            Congress almost always lags the White House, Dems dominated the Congress for years, even after the White House went for Republicans over and over, then the Dems started winning the White House most of the time, but the Congress has leaned Republican.

            What will happen over the next 30 years is a lot of the older whites will pass away, and be replaced by the younger more ethnically diverse generation of today (my generation), who tend to lean more Democratic and the Congress will tilt more democrat.

            At which point the cycle may begin anew (if the GOP moderates and becomes more diverse, or perhaps the GOP may splinter into multiple parties, hard to say right now)

          41. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            You don’t know if that will happen or not. First of all, whites are not going to become a minority any time soon (remember that most Hispanics are white). Second, immigration could be reduced and the U.S. population stabilized and basically frozen at a certain demographic breakdown. Our population growth is unsustainable. It is driven by immigration, and therefore immigration must be drastically reduced.

          42. Avinash Tyagi November 24, 2014

            They may be white, but most identify as Latino and vote Democrat

            Non-latino whites are in decline and will be less than 50% by 2040

            Actually with the current aging population and eventual mortality of those in the upper age groups, we will soon need a wave of immigrants to make up for the age imbalance and eventual population decline.

          43. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            We need population decline. Our current numbers in this country are unsustainable. The age imbalance is not anywhere near the problem that overpopulation is. What are we going to do when those immigrants themselves get old, import a billion more?

            Reducing immigration and stabilizing population is necessary, and doing that might just freeze the demographic makeup of this country, so white minority status by 2040, although likely, is not inevitable.

          44. Avinash Tyagi November 24, 2014

            Population decline is economic decline, just look at Japan.

            Not a good idea

          45. WhutHeSaid November 24, 2014

            Ah, so now we see your real motivation: You believe that by halting immigration you can prolong the inevitable demographic change to a white minority. Sorry, but that’s already a done deal too.

      3. Carolyn1520 November 23, 2014

        Kind of like the polls Romney was watching when he bought his victory fireworks. Nah, these aren’t like that.

    3. Joe Steel November 22, 2014

      Rigging elections is worse than rigging polls.

      1. James Bowen November 22, 2014

        No elections that I know of have been rigged. If you are referring to voter ID requirements, that is a common sense measure to make sure only citizens vote.

        1. 4sanity4all November 22, 2014

          When you show up to vote, they ask for your name and address, then they give you a paper to sign. They compare your signature to the one in their book. If it matches, you are given a ballot. If you are not registered to vote, you do not get a ballot. If you are not a citizen, you cannot register to vote, so you do not get a ballot. What part of this do you not understand? I am 64, and I voted in every election since I turned 21. I have worked as a poll watcher. I have never, ever seen an illegal alien, a dead person, or any unregistered person given a ballot.

          1. Independent1 November 23, 2014

            The GOP has nothing to offer America beyond fantasies and figments of their imaginations!! They have no idea how to run a government – they never have.

          2. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            There have been a number of news reports about non-citizens registering to vote. This is a problem, and even in locales where it has not been a problem it is prudent to make sure it does not become a problem. If we have to have an ID to buy beer and see a movie with some strong language in it, why shouldn’t we need an ID to perform one of our most important civic duties? I live in Kansas, and showing my ID was no big deal at all.

          3. WhutHeSaid November 24, 2014

            There have been no issues with non-citizens voting, so just stop your despicable lying. It’s merely an attempt at voter suppression, and no matter how many bigot-lies are told about it everyone already knows the truth. It has already backfired in 2012, and will backfire even more for the GOP in 2016.

          4. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            Florida and other states have actually found non-citizens on their voter rolls, so don’t tell me it’s not a problem. The public supports voter ID too. It is not voter suppression, it is a measure to ensure the integrity of the election process.

        2. Joe Steel November 23, 2014

          For one thing, there’s purging the voter rolls of democratic-leaning voters.

          1. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            If there’s problems with their information (i.e. they are not citizens), they should be purged.

          2. WhutHeSaid November 24, 2014

            YOU should be purged. There is a problem with illegal European immigrant bigots voting in this country, and you are an example of that.

        3. Independent1 November 23, 2014

          Even a GOP columnist from Houston says that’s a lie. He concedes that voter suppression worked pretty well for the GOP in 2014:

          Voter suppression is working remarkably well, but that won’t last. They key is voter ID. Eventually Democrats will top whining and will help people get the documentation they need to meet confusing new requirements and obstructions. The whole “voter integrity” sham may have given Republicans a one or maybe two-election boost in low-turnout races, but the message to minority (but growing) groups is clear. We GOP don’t give a damn about you.

          Better read this clueless before you open your big yap more and stick your foot further up your butt:

          This GOP columnist even predicts the GOP will lose in 2016 (if someone doesn’t suddenly appear out of the woodwork to lead the failing GOP):


          1. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            Voter ID is a measure to make sure only citizens vote. It is not meant to discriminate against minorities. If there are eligible voters who lack the appropriate ID (I am skeptical that that is the case considering we need such ID to buy beer and go to a R-rated movie), a program to ensure they have such ID would be great.

            Considering the potential candidates that the GOP is talking about right now, I agree that 2016 Presidential is looking pretty good for the Democrats, especially if Hillary runs. However, Congress is a different matter entirely. 2012 did not change the makeup of Congress too much, and it is just too early to tell considering that the new Congress hasn’t taken office yet. That map in that article is interesting (though I do think labeling Arizona as a toss-up is a bit of a stretch).

    4. WhutHeSaid November 22, 2014

      The real election day is coming in 2016. You immigrant-hating European immigrants better get your ya-yas out while you can.

      1. James Bowen November 22, 2014

        How wasn’t this a real election?

        1. WhutHeSaid November 22, 2014

          Midterm elections are notoriously over-represented by older, whiter Americans. When 2016 arrives the election will include the full compliment of younger and minority voters. Demographics are not on the side of bigots, and one day in the not-too-distant future Caucasians will themselves be a minority. You may as well start getting used to that fact now.

          1. James Bowen November 22, 2014

            Yeah, that’s what they said two years ago. Such talk kind of backfired this year, didn’t it?

          2. Avinash Tyagi November 22, 2014

            2 years ago Obama slaughtered the GOP

          3. James Bowen November 22, 2014

            Well this year the GOP slaughtered Obama’s people.

          4. WhutHeSaid November 22, 2014

            Obama didn’t run for any office this year — did you notice that?

          5. James Bowen November 22, 2014

            But he was the reason the Democrats got beaten up the way they did.

          6. WhutHeSaid November 22, 2014

            That’s your opinion. Why did Obama win in 2008 and 2012? Do you think all of America suddenly became far-right bigots since then? That’s absurd, and the Presidency is likely going to another Democrat in 2016 precisely because of rabid, right-wing bigots and nut-bags.

          7. James Bowen November 22, 2014

            Obama won those years because of the economic mess that Bush (legitimately) got blamed for. This time the economic frustration worked against the Obama and the Democrats, and immigration was part of that equation.

          8. WhutHeSaid November 22, 2014

            Once again, Obama didn’t run for office so nothing worked against him. As for the Democrats, you will notice a very big difference in the voter demographics in 2016 — just like 2008 and 2012.

          9. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            Voters clearly took their frustrations with Obama out on the Democrats.

            You do realize that in the last several elections voters have been motivated by economic issues, not demographics, right? I don’t see any indication that that is going to change any time soon.

          10. Independent1 November 23, 2014

            Obama won those elections because more than 52% of the electorate showed up. The year that SCOTUS stole the election for GWB (2000), barely over 50% of eligible voters voted; even in 2004 less than 52% voted.

            Even this election, where 69% of eligible votes came out in Oregon, it was Democratic LANDSLIDE!! The Dems now control every political office in Oregon.

            And as the GOP columnist in Houston noted, aside from the Senate candidates, and some governorships with no coat tails, the DEMS won everything else in the 2014 election.

            See this:

            Good news for the Democrats: They have consolidated their power behind the sections of the country that generate the overwhelming bulk of America’s wealth outside the energy industry.

            Every major Democratic ballot initiative was successful, including every minimum wage increase, even in the red states. AND every personhood amendment failed.

          11. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            Obama won those elections because the GOP was perceived to be the party of the rich that had screwed up the economy (with much justification). However, in the most recent election the Democrats were seen as no better in that regard. The GOP did not sweep this election because people all of a sudden love the GOP, they swept it because people were angry at the Democrats for many of the same reasons they were angry at the GOP in 2008 and 2012. You might well be right in that if the GOP does not offer an alternative that boosts the prospects for ordinary Americans, they might well have a bad 2016.

            Funny you should mention Oregon. You do know how the people voted on driver’s licenses for illegals, right?

          12. Avinash Tyagi November 23, 2014

            Yeah, and in two years Dems will slaughter the GOP

            Its going to go back and forth for a while, until either the GOP is able to attract the votes of minorities, or minorities start turning out in midterms.

          13. Independent1 November 23, 2014

            Conversing with James is like conversing with a 2-year old. He’ll never concede that he’s wrong or use one ounce of common sense.

            See this from a GOP columnist who considered the GOP’s election results a disaster for the party:

            Voter turnout was awful. It was more awful for the Democrats but the GOP won 52 percent of 35 percent of the vote: in other words their mandate is 17 percent of the registered electorate (and 13 percent of those eligible to vote).

            If you haven’t read this, here’s the link to some election stats that are pretty interesting :


          14. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            You don’t know that. The problem the Democrats are having is they are trying to make this about minorities vs. whites. However, the last several elections have been mostly motivated by economics (with the exception of 2006 which was a referendum on the Iraq War).

          15. Avinash Tyagi November 24, 2014

            Economics almost always plays a deeper role in elections, few are decided by anything other than economics.

            But the majority of Whites (those who vote Republican) have different economic inclinations than the rest of people.

            In fact for them the racial issues bleed over into their economic inclinations, such as their opposition to economic programs that they perceive as benefiting what they consider “lazy” minorities, of course such a view is unfair, as many white take advantage of such programs as well, even those who vote republican, however that is their view.

            (Interestingly, back when these programs only really benefited whites, they were hugely popular among the white majority, but after the great society, when such programs were expanded to help more nonwhites, the support among whites for these programs plummeted, indicating that whites merely hate that nonwhites benefit from these programs as well)

          16. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            So then minorities votes with their pockets, thanks for setting the record straight. Making this about about ethnicity is more likely to harm the Democrats than it is to help them.

          17. Avinash Tyagi November 24, 2014

            Everyone votes with their pockets, but even pocketbook issues have ethnic differences (for example, immigration reform is a pocketbook issue for latinos, as they want to be free to work here and earn money and raise a family without fear, but whites perceive it as a threat to their power and position).

            You can’t ignore these issues, because they are important, and it hasn’t hurt Dems to champion the issues that minorities, women and the poor care about, its made them a better and more diverse party, a truly big tent.

          18. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            Higher immigration levels and lax enforcement harm greatly the economic lot of Hispanics and other minorities. They are far more divided on the immigration issue than is commonly realized.

            Also, remember that diverse coalitions are hard to keep together.

          19. Avinash Tyagi November 24, 2014

            Its true that Diverse coalitions are harder to hold together, but GOP actually helps the Dems by being rhetorically anti-minority, helping to keep minorities in the Dem’s big tent.

            There may be some division, but among the Latinos who lean Democrat they overwhelmingly support immigration reform

          20. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            Many Hispanics are actually opposed to amnesty and more immigration precisely because of the effects on wages. One other problem for Democrats who are counting on Hispanics to ensure their dominance is that Hispanics have very low turnout in elections, even Presidential elections.

            I don’t think the GOP is rhetorically anti-minority either. The GOP is many things, but they have actually made quite an effort to not be perceived in such fashion.

          21. Avinash Tyagi November 24, 2014

            New polls out today dispute your view



            Both show big support for Obama’s action (Latinos are hugely in favor of it)

          22. WhutHeSaid November 24, 2014

            The GOP, and to a lesser extent the Democratic Party as well, have often attempted to be perceived as something they aren’t. Unfortunately for them the American public is rarely fooled for long. Americans are especially tuned in to vile and despicable racism and bigotry, so your wishes will never be realized — ever. Get used to it.

          23. Carolyn1520 November 24, 2014

            The right has mostly caucasians and there’s a huge split in that party.

          24. WhutHeSaid November 24, 2014

            Democrats haven’t made anything about ethnicity — bigots have done that. Bigotry isn’t new in America, and bigots will always lose eventually. You may as well get used to it now.

          25. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            Says the person who is always bringing bigotry up when it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

          26. Carolyn1520 November 24, 2014

            It’s the democrats making this about ethnicity? I don’t think so.

          27. Carolyn1520 November 24, 2014

            There’a a video on You Tube made by Alexandra Pelosi where she interviewed people in a couple southern states. These were very poor people who were willing to vote against their own self interests rather than Obama because he is a man of color. People who are not informed , vote on feeling that run deep not facts. Facts, no matter how many you present won’t change their hearts if that is their mindset.

          28. WhutHeSaid November 24, 2014

            The economy is no longer the issue it was. Although bigots will lie about it (because Obama is black, of course) polls show that it is no longer the number one issue. That’s because unemployment is back to near normal levels and the deficit has been cut by 66%. The real issue left is the decades-long decline of the middle class, and the Bigot Party only favors more of the same in that regard. Combine this with the changing demographic of American voters, and the GOP is going to take a big beating in 2016. A Clinton/Warren Democratic ticket would be nigh unbeatable by the Koch Brothers Party (GOP).

          29. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            This self-contradictory statement is very out of touch with reality. The economy was in fact the major issue on voters’ minds this election, and there is nothing normal about our true unemployment levels. Talk that the economy has considerably improved no doubt angered voters, and the results of the election were in part due to that anger. As far as the deficit is concerned, you are referencing when it bottomed out. The bottom line is that it is still very high. Voters in the last several elections have motivated by economics, not demography.

          30. WhutHeSaid November 24, 2014

            Americans are angry at Washington in general, and that more than anything led to an extremely low turnout. But you can bet your white hood that Americans will be out in force in 2016 to repudiate bigoted ideas like yours. You may as well prepare yourself now — it’s inevitable.

          31. Independent1 November 23, 2014

            Sorry James – garnering the support of 13% of the American electorate is not slaughtering anyone!!

          32. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            Where did you get that figure? And if you are referring to low voter turnout, I will say this: even if the voter turnout was low, that is certainly no ringing endorsement for the incumbents who were defeated.

          33. WhutHeSaid November 24, 2014

            Nobody expects an election comprised primarily of KKK refugees to provide a ‘ringing endorsement’ for Democrats or anyone else. These midterm swings will continue until all of the old bigots who are still living in the hateful past finally expire.

          34. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            If voter turnout was low among Democrats, that shows the Democrats were not happy with their party.

          35. Carolyn1520 November 24, 2014

            No, the GOP did not. Apathy was the victor.

          36. WhutHeSaid November 22, 2014

            Notice how ineffectual the election was with respect to an executive action on immigration. Does that tell you anything?

          37. James Bowen November 22, 2014

            The President is not allowed to nullify laws like this. Congress must defund this.

          38. WhutHeSaid November 22, 2014

            It’s fait accompli. That’s French for you immigrant-hating immigrants.

          39. James Bowen November 22, 2014

            The President is not allowed to just nullify laws he doesn’t like. That is not how our system is supposed to work. You do know what separation of powers means, right?

          40. WhutHeSaid November 22, 2014

            He has decided how existing policy will be implemented, and what the priorities are. This is nothing new as Presidents have done this same thing for years. The only real differences are the numbers.

            Listen, it really doesn’t matter if you like it. It’s done. Any part of this you don’t understand?

          41. James Bowen November 22, 2014

            He is allowed to set enforcement priorities, but he is not allowed to grant work permits on that scale. That contravenes existing law and is not allowed.

            Also, it is not done yet. It can be defunded, and there are also court challenges in the works.

          42. WhutHeSaid November 22, 2014

            It cannot be de-funded, because the agency’s activities are self-funding. The courts are unlikely to rule against an action that has been taken by almost every President in our history.

          43. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            Are you kidding me? Everything every department and agency does is funded by Congress. They might collect fees to suppliment, but their very operation is funded by Congress. And this action is unprecedented. Presidents have not routinely nullified existing law.

          44. WhutHeSaid November 24, 2014

            The cannot de-fund USCIS just to try to stop the collection of fees. That would be transparently racist. Even though people like you would be happy, bigoted European immigrants like you are a minority, and the majority of Americans would vehemently oppose throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

            Bigoted nuts like you have always lost the argument in America, and if that wasn’t true then you wouldn’t even be here today since you yourself are an immigrant. Get used to losing, because that’s your future.

          45. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            The can defund the collection of those fees.

          46. WhutHeSaid November 24, 2014

            They cannot, and the mere attempt at something so bigoted and cynical would only result in their removal from office and the probable election of pro-immigration politicians. You have been beaten at every turn on this issue. I recommend that you find some other outlet for your hate.

          47. Independent1 November 25, 2014

            Again James. I realize it’s too hard for your 2-year old’s brain to understand, but the PRESIDENT DOES HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHAT ACTIONS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WILL TAKE IN ENFORCING THE LAWS WRITTEN BY CONGRESS!!

            Even someone as clueless as George Bush knew that from reading the Constitution. Which is why he added a signing statement to every piece of legislation he signed, OUTLINING WHAT AND HOW, the Executive Branch would enforce in each piece of legislation he signed!!!


          48. Independent1 November 25, 2014

            I’m going to post the authority a President has with respect to EOs for you again. Wake up that 2-year old brain of yours and read down toward the bottom where it says: “executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree laws will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging war, and in general fine-tuning policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes.”

            Can your moronic brain see: “deciding how and to what degree laws will be enforced”?????????

            Here’s the whole thing MORON!! WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO GET IT?????????

            United States Presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law[1] when they take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation). Like both legislative statutes and regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review, and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution. Major policy initiatives usually require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree laws will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging war, and in general fine-tuning policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes.

          49. Independent1 November 23, 2014


            Would you like to go back and tell that to Lincoln who used his PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY to establish a law WHICH FREED 3 MILLION PLUS SLAVES???

            You are so misguided on the authority of the presidency that it boggles the imagination.

            See this (note that in the last sentence Lincoln’s declaration was not a law created by Congress):

            The Emancipation Proclamation was a presidential proclamation[1] issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, as a war measure during the American Civil War, directed to all of the areas in rebellion and all segments of theExecutive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States. It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states that were still in rebellion,[2] excluding areas controlled by the Union and thus applying to 3 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. at the time. The Proclamation was based on the president’s constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces;[3] it was not a law passed by Congress.

            And If Presidents have only the authority you seem to think in your shortsightedness, explain how FDR was able to not only create but actually fund the WPA back in the 1930s which created a law that put millions of Americans to work in an effort to reconstruct a crumbling America.

            You may want to note that Presidents can no longer create departments and fund them like Nixon did with the EPA; and guess why!! Because being the typical GOP crook that he was, Congress was concerned about him misusing federal funds and pass a law creating an Office of Budget and Management that prevents current day presidents from being able to establish agencies (such as the WPA) which require a lot of funding.

          50. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            I never said that the President cannot issue executive orders. That is of course part of his job. What I did say is that the President may not issue executive orders that contravene existing law. Notice that the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to states that were recognized by the Federal Government as have a pro-union government. None of those other executive actions you mentioned contradicted existing law.

            Funny that you mention putting people back to work. This executive amnesty does the opposite, at least where Americans are concerned.

          51. Independent1 November 25, 2014

            All of your post is PURE HOGWASH, except the part about Emancipation Proclamation applying only to nonUnion states. And guess why Lincoln didn’t try to include the Union States!! Because more than 90% of the slaves at the time were living in NON UNION STATES!!!

            Lincoln knew if he freed the slaves in the Confederate aligned states that they would become free in the rest of the country. Congress NEVER DID ANYTHING TO FREE THE SLAVES!!!!!!

          52. 4sanity4all November 22, 2014

            Sure, Bowen doesn’t understand any part of this. The President is not nullifying a law, and separation of powers is the thing that gives him the ability to act when Congress does not. And it is exactly how our system was designed to work.

          53. WhutHeSaid November 22, 2014

            Exactly. And all that Congress has to do is pass their own immigration reform bill, but they can’t even do that, so they are left to bitch about Obama as usual.

            The interesting thing here is that now Obama has guaranteed that the immigration issue will be part of the 2016 election. This affects real people and stirs real emotions. It’s not the same as holding 347 pointless votes to repeal the PPACA.

          54. Independent1 November 23, 2014

            Yeah! And that’s something else the GOP doesn’t seem to like to bring up – the numbers!! The fact that Obama has signed BY FAR the fewest number of Executive Orders to get something done around a useless Congress: he’s still under 200 EOs, compared to GWB’s close to 300; Reagan’s 484, Teddy Roosevelt’s 1,083, Calvin Coolidge’s 1,254 (of course all of them GOP presidents).

            Every 2-term president in office since 1900 has issued multiple times the EOs Obama has except for Bush 2 who didn’t sign 2 times the number Obama has.

          55. Carolyn1520 November 23, 2014


          56. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            You did not answer my question.

          57. Independent1 November 23, 2014

            Yes he is!! He has equal authority with Congress and has the right to determine how and when the Exccutive Branch will implement the law.

            You better write a letter to George Bush on that issue given that virtually every law he signed included a signing statement outlining what in the law he intended to in force and what he didn’t. At least Obama has only taken it upon himself to define how he will enforce a few selected laws – not everyone he’s signed like Bush.

          58. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            No, he is not. He is allowed to determine how law is implemented, but he is not allowed to nullify existing law and make new laws that contravene existing laws. That is what he has done here. I did not like it any better when Bush did this, but Obama has taken it even further.

          59. Carolyn1520 November 24, 2014

            Good article:

            Four Realities about Executive Actions; Moving Beyond the …


            Brookings Institution

          60. Carolyn1520 November 23, 2014

            LOL The president is not allowed? Did you ever take basic civics in middle school I believe.

          61. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            Yes I did, therefore I know that it is Congress that makes the law and the President who enforces said law. The President may issue executive orders that have the effect of law, so long as they do not contravene existing law passed by Congress. That is not what happened here. The President issued an executive order that contradicts existing law. That is not allowed.

          62. WhutHeSaid November 24, 2014

            It’s a done deal. Sorry ’bout your luck.

          63. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            It is not a done deal. It will take months to implement, and before then Congress can defund it. There might be court challenges as well.

          64. WhutHeSaid November 24, 2014

            The courts generally avoid involvement in political differences between the legislative and executive branches. Congress would need to show that they were somehow damaged by the President’s action — not that they merely dislike it. As they have the ability to pass their own laws, it is ludicrous to believe that such a claim would be entertained. They could easily fashion their own redress. Squabbling amongst themselves and fears of voter reprisals is not a basis for judicial action.

          65. Carolyn1520 November 24, 2014


            “On Thursday evening, President Obama introduced his executive orders on immigration policy. The orders shielded from deportation nearly 5 million undocumented immigrants currently in the United States. These immigrants, who comprise about 40 percent of an estimated 11 million undocumented residents, will be able to work legally and live openly in this country without fear of being expelled. He refocused enforcement priorities on those who came to the U.S. after Jan. 1, 2014, convicted criminals, suspected terrorists and potential national security threats. The president’s orders also make it easier for foreign workers with high-tech skills to enter and stay in the United States.
            The orders do not give reform advocates all they might have hoped for, but still represent the most significant transformation of immigration policy in many decades. Republicans, who have blocked immigration reform throughout Obama’s tenure, have denounced both the substance of the new policy and its implementation through executive action. They have charged that the president has exceeded his authority as chief executive. Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a possible candidate for the 2016 presidential nomination, said flatly, “But the president can’t do this. This goes against the fundamental separation of powers that we have in our country.”

            Leaving aside the pros and cons of the executive orders, this article will address the issue of executive authority. It will show that commentators have missed the most important precedent for sweeping executive action on immigration. This was an initiative taken by a Republican president that well exceeded in scope and effect the executive orders that Obama has issued.

            Republican President Herbert Hoover in 1930 issued the most far-reaching executive decision in the history of American immigration policy. Ostensibly to keep American jobs for Americans during the Great Depression, he unilaterally decided that his administration would issue immigration visas only to persons with the means to support themselves independently in the United States.

            The president did not draft a formal executive order but announced the new policy in a press release. The results were dramatic. The new executive policy did not ameliorate the Depression, but it slashed immigration from all foreign lands by nearly 90 percent. In 1931, for the first time in the country’s history, the outflow of residents leaving for other lands exceeded the inflow of immigrants.

            Unlike Obama’s executive order, Hoover’s initiative contradicted immigration law directly. Existing law only barred admission to persons likely to become a public charge, which could be circumvented in many ways other than the possession of independent means, such as through demonstrating the skills needed to work or through bonds pledging support from friends, family or relatives residing in America.

            Hoover’s policy change persisted until abrogated in 1936 by Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt, largely in response to the need to find safe havens for persecuted German Jews. Roosevelt then acted unilaterally to allow Jewish refugees holding temporary visitor’s visas to stay in the United States indefinitely. Today, an estimated 40 percent of the undocumented immigrants have overstayed their visas, rather than having crossed illegally into this country.

            Other recent precedents have been part of the contemporary debate. In 1985, during the administration of Republican President Ronald Reagan, Congress passed a reform bill that shielded some 3 million immigrants from deportation. The bill, however, did not include family members and Reagan responded to this flaw by halting the deportation of their children without waiting for Congress to act. In fact, Congress failed to act during his tenure and Reagan’s Republican successor, George H. W. Bush, acted unilaterally to protect families from breakup through deportation. Democratic President Bill Clinton and Republican President George W. Bush also used presidential powers to make policy on immigration.

            In none of these many examples did the opposition party raise sweeping objections comparable to those of today’s Republicans in challenging the authority of the president to act broadly in interpreting, implementing and administering immigration policy.

            Republicans’ procedural and constitutional objections to Obama’s executive order are a smokescreen for opposition to the substance of the policy. Republicans have also made clear their intent to paste every possible defeat on President Obama. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Obama’s immigration reform, precedent establishes that he is well within the ambit of presidential authority, especially when Hoover’s executive action is added to the debate.”

            Lichtman is distinguished professor of history at American University in Washington.

            TAGS:Barack Obama, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Rand Paul, Immigration, Immigration reform, Executive action

          66. Independent1 November 22, 2014

            Not really – not when only 36% of the people vote – the lowest turnout in 72 years; partly because of voter suppression.

          67. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            No, there was no voter suppression, at least not on a large scale. Voter ID is a common sense measure to make sure only citizens vote.

            Maybe there was a low turnout, but even that in and of itself is a censure for the incumbents who got defeated.

          68. Carolyn1520 November 23, 2014

            The 2010 midterms were good for wing nuts and ask Romney how 2012 turned out. He went to Disneyland.

          69. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            Romney was a dud. In a time when people are very concerned about their economic fortunes, he ran on a pro-big business and pro-Wall Street platform. Is is any wonder he lost?

          70. Independent1 November 25, 2014

            And that “dud”, now overwhelming leads the GOP 2016 poll in NH?? Can RWNJs with the brains of 2-year olds, ever learn anything??? Romney would sink like a rock in the 2016 election. The majority of American now know, what Romney is all about HIMSELF!!!!!!

        2. Independent1 November 22, 2014

          See item C below to see why it wasn’t a real election – the GOP won earning only 13% of the electorates approval:

          Observations from a Texas GOP columnist in Houston:

          Republican support grew deeper in 2014, not broader.

          Some other observations

          a) Republican Senate candidates lost every single race in the Blue Wall.

          b) There were some GOP victories in Governor’s races, but in each case there were no coat tails. None of these candidates ran on social issues, Obama, or opposition to the ACA. Look at Rauner who took out Quinn in Illinois, but Democrats in Illinois retained their supermajority in the State Assembly having not lost a single seat.

          c) Voter turnout was awful. It was more awful for the Democrats but the GOP won 52 percent of 35 percent of the vote: in other words their mandate is 17 percent of the registered electorate (and 13 percent of those eligible to vote).

          d) Good news for the Democrats: They have consolidated their power behind the sections of the country that generate the overwhelming bulk of America’s wealth outside the energy industry.

          e) Voter suppression is working remarkably well, but that won’t last. They key is voter ID. Eventually Democrats will top whining and will help people get the documentation they need to meet confusing new requirements and obstructions. The whole “voter integrity” sham may have given Republicans a one or maybe two-election boost in low-turnout races, but the message to minority (but growing) groups is clear. We GOP don’t give a damn about you.

          f) Every major Democratic ballot initiative was successful, including every minimum wage increase, even in the red states. AND every personhood amendment failed.

          g) Half of the Republican Congressional delegation now comes from the former Confederacy. There are no more white Democrats from the South. All of the Dixiecrats are now GOP.

          h) Democrats in 2014 were up against a particularly tough climate because they had to defend 13 Senate seats in red or purple states. In 2016 Republicans will be defending 24 Senate seats with at least 18 of them very competitive based on geography and demographics. Democrats will be one seat looks competitive.

          i) McConnell’s conciliatory statements were encouraging, but he cannot persuade Republican Senators and Congressmen to cooperate on anything constructive.

          j) This is an age built for Republican solutions. The global economy is undergoing a massive, accelerating transformation that promises massive new wealth and staggering challenges. Ladd say that the GOP could address a this with heads-up, intelligent adaptations to capitalize on those challenges. Republicans, with their traditional leadership on commercial issues, he claims, should be at the leading edge of planning to capitalize on this emerging environment.

          k) Instead, he predicts, what the GOP will spend its time on is: Climate denial, theocracy, thinly veiled racism, paranoia, and Benghazi hearings.

          He closes his essay saying: “It is almost too late for Republicans to participate in shaping the next wave of our economic and political transformation. The opportunities we inherited coming out of the Reagan Era are blinking out of existence one by one while we chase so-called “issues” so stupid, so blindingly disconnected from our emerging needs that our grandchildren will look back on our performance in much the same way that we see the failures of the generation that fought desegregation. Something, some force, some gathering of sane, rational, authentically concerned human beings generally at peace with reality must emerge in the next four to six years from the right, or our opportunity will be lost for a long generation. Needless to say, Greg Abbott and Jodi Ernst are not that force. ‘Winning’ this election did not help that force emerge.”

          1. joe schmo November 23, 2014

            a) You mean CaliMexico and New Yuck. Doesn’t mean much. They are both hell holes.
            b) No they didn’t run on any issues. Doesn’t that seem odd to you. Don’t you see how desperate people were to get rid of the Democrat majority. Should have sent a message.
            c) Obama has lost his luster for the Dems big time.
            d) Yah, George Soros, Steyer and the Hollywood elite.
            e) Voter suppression, there is none.
            f) True but lets see how many people stay employed with the wage increase as businesses hire fewer individuals.
            g) The South seems to be rising again…
            h) States still have the popular vote:)
            i) We’ll see…..
            j) Republicans are Capitalists they will take advantage of the global market.
            k) Stupid comment. They will be bombarding Obama with the bills that never left Reidtard’s desk.

            Well, I only see the Liberals taking the U.S. backwards economically, innovatively, ethnically, educationally, environmentally. I rest my case. Dark ages here we come…..

          2. Independent1 November 23, 2014

            You really need psychological help!!! You have absolutely no grasp of reality!!!

          3. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            Although there are some specific problems here, the fundamental premise is correct–that the public did not vote out of love for the GOP. They voted out of anger at the Democrats, and for many of the same reasons they lashed the GOP in 2008 and re-elected Obama in 2012.

            There was no voter suppression either, at least not on a large scale. Voter ID is a commonsense way to make sure citizens only vote. After all, America does belong to the citizens (at least its supposed to).

          4. Independent1 November 24, 2014

            Sorry, but your assessment is hogwash. Fact is that approx 37% of the Americans eligible to vote are Republicans – the fact that only say 15% of those voted, doesn’t show anger, it shows total disinterest by even the Republicans. The only reason the GOP won the seats it did, is because the majority of Senators up for election were in RED STATES to begin with.

            What the election showed is that more liberals and Democrats than Republicans are so fed up with the clown show in DC, that they didn’t even think it was worth voting. Most Americans probably felt that no matter how they voted, the Democrats weren’t going to get enough additional senators elected to get a sufficient majority to get around the filibuster; so why bother to vote.

            Either way, the next two years was going to be just more of the clown show. Whether the Senate continued with the Republicans filibustering everything the Dems wanted to enact, or Obama ended up vetoing everything the GOP wants to enact – the next two years are going to accomplish NOTHING!!!


          5. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            Come on, that is a stretch. The simple truth is that the American voters were disgusted with the Democrats, as demonstrated both by the results or by low voter turnout.

          6. WhutHeSaid November 24, 2014

            The clear truth is that voters are disgusted with Washington in general. It’s common knowledge that the GOP House has the lowest approval rating of all. Just because midterm elections draw older, whiter voters doesn’t mean that those who stayed home agree with bigoted ideas. The real expression of the American public is always made during Presidential elections, at which time any midterm result can and often is completely reversed.

          7. Carolyn1520 November 24, 2014

            Keep in mind the far left democrats have been angry for the past 6 years that Obama didn’t take harder positions, didn’t ram policies down the throats of the right, continued to attempt to work with the obstructionists for far longer than he should have,
            With no evidence of wide spread voter fraud, the need for ID’s IS voter suppression as is changing polling hours and polling sites. You can try to whitewash that but it’s a huge problem.For many years only citizens have voted without setting up hurdles. I’m also a citizen but I recognize an intentional hurdle when I see one.

          8. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            Again, some specific problems with this column, especially the part about voter suppression–there was none on a large scale. However, his basic premise is correct. This election was not a mandate for the GOP. It was a rebuke of the Democrats.

        3. Carolyn1520 November 23, 2014

          Mid terms have no effect on presidential elections.
          Check the last one and the ones before that. The players on your clown bus haven’t changed

          1. James Bowen November 24, 2014

            Congressional elections are at least as important as Presidential elections. They are the ones who write the law and the budget, after all.

          2. Carolyn1520 November 24, 2014

            Of course they are important but my point was, they results of midterm elections do not determine the outcome of future presidential elections as evidenced by history. Those on the right think this midterm with the lowest voter turn out in 72 years seals the 2016 presidential elections. Presidential election turnout is historically always substantially higher than midterms. There are a number of factors as to why 2014 was a low turnout. You can’t just blame Obama which is always the fallback position of the right for everything. Keep in mind Congress has a much lower approval rating and many people who didn’t vote are of the mentality, after 6 years of gridlock, nothing is going to change in that regard. It was as much a statement against the system. In addition a number of democrats retired and left vulnerable seats open. It’s also notable that in areas where republicans won, conservative ballot issues did not win. The people are still not buying what the right is selling and the importance of this fact is even more glaring in a presidential election year.

      2. joe schmo November 23, 2014

        Well, by then we will be livid. Warren fat chance, Hillary is in third place. Keep those blinders on…..

        1. WhutHeSaid November 23, 2014

          I guess I must have had the same blinders on in 2008 and 2012. Veering to the far-right has done wonders for the GOP in Presidential elections, oh yes.


          1. joe schmo November 24, 2014

            Why didn’t your people get out and vote in this election? You knew the Emperor would end up a lame duck and be defunded. I suppose in this case most lost interest in Obama and his agenda. Guess many are finding it too extreme for their liking. Only people he still has on his side are you morons.

    5. joe schmo November 23, 2014

      Absolutely, just went over their heads. Who thought they had any semblance of a brain left.

      1. James Bowen November 24, 2014


        1. WhutHeSaid November 24, 2014

          Bigots and racists are by definition psychologically defective, so you can understand if other Americans ignore your opinions on the subject.

          1. joe schmo November 24, 2014

            Well, we can certainly ignore yours:) What comes round goes round….and just what American’s are you referring to? I guess you had to make damn sure to add that 5 million to your new voter base even if it costs us 2 trillion. Just to fluff up your base. Maybe you were afraid there weren’t enough of you for 2016….

  2. Charles November 22, 2014

    Hooey! In fact the worst or harshest poll ive seen is 54% against, 46% for. But poll about what exactly? Freedom for illegals or abuse of office by Emperor Obama? The focus seems to be on poor little separated families and nothing about abuse of position. If the families really want to be together, why cant they be together south of the border?

    1. Independent1 November 22, 2014

      I’ll show you my reply to Peteserb above:

      You obviously listen too much to Faux News.

      Really?? Sorry but most of Americans are not as clueless as you are; and they clearly have more common sense.

      Most Americans don’t want to pay 30-50% more for their food each year (maybe thousands of dollars), because farmers and others associated with the food industry have had to raise what they pay their help by $5-$10/hr in order to get people born in America to do the back breaking work immigrants, including illegals, do on the cheap.

      And many probably realize that the billions illegals contribute to the American economy is keeping around 8 million people working who would otherwise be struggling on unemployment and in poverty.

      And many also probably realize that more than 60% of illegals pay taxes and actually contribute to Social Security and Medicare extending the lives of both of these programs since they don’t qualify for their benefits (illegals pay more than 7 billion into SS).

      There also may be some who realize that without immigrants, including illegals in America the past couple decades, our country’s population would actually have been declining – creating a far bigger problem than illegals will ever create – just take a trip to Europe where their stagnant/declining populations have created real problems – just ask some folks from Greece.

    2. joe schmo November 23, 2014

      Right on the mark. I couldn’t agree with you more……

  3. Carolyn1520 November 22, 2014

    It’s laughable that the delusional right refers to the president as the emperor. The ONLY goals the right has had is make Obama a one term prudent and do nothing to enable him to succeed. At this point in time, with two years left to go, I personally want him to stop trying to work with these traitors by waiting for them to do the right thing and continue to get things done within the confines of the power he has to do so.
    As far as the polls, it’s enough to know the majority of the public support his immigration actions. There is no abuse of position or power. He’s the president doing his job and they are still sucking on sour grapes.

    1. peteserb November 22, 2014

      Shouldn’t the poser in the White house be obligated to follow the law? Rather than make it up on his own? What a farce only the liberals drink their own KOOL AID!

      1. Carolyn1520 November 22, 2014

        State what law the president is breaking.
        Still using the tired old Kool Aid rhetoric explains a lot,

        1. joe schmo November 23, 2014

          Honey, he has FORCED so many horribly noticeable agenda’s down the throats of American’s your head should be spinning. Where would you like me to start….Obamacare, Environmental restrictions, Amnesty, bias towards ethnic groups, bias against Republicans, etc…… Decadence is the name of the game and we know where that ended. Obama panders to the audience that will give him attention. Total defiance of the Constitution.

          Oh and ‘Independent’….’HE IS A DICTATOR.’

          1. Carolyn1520 November 23, 2014

            Speaking of fruitcakes.

          2. joe schmo November 23, 2014

            I don’t swim with the sharks like you seals do.

            We once knew a local Lesbian college sociology professor. She used to grab her wet suit and swim with the seals every morning. As a result of this foolishness, a great white mistook her for a seal and ate her. Obama is the shark and you people are the seals just waiting to be eaten. We already know what’s going on. Conservatives are naturally skeptical while you all run around with your black wetsuits on swimming happily through the current not knowing that you will soon be in for a rude awakening.

          3. Carolyn1520 November 23, 2014

            Skeptical? Fearful is more like it. That’s how they keep their base in line. Fear and lies.

          4. WhutHeSaid November 23, 2014

            Wow — a story like that must have been in all of the news. How about a link to the story? Or is it just another one of your many lies?

          5. Carolyn1520 November 23, 2014

            Yeah,yeah yeah we know what you don’t like and whine about. State a law that has been broken. otherwise it’s just the same old whine with sour grapes.

          6. Carolyn1520 November 23, 2014

            All I hear is crickets.

          7. WhutHeSaid November 23, 2014

            Yep, you dared to ask a simple question that required a fact. I’m also dying to see the links to Ms. Schmo’s shark story.

          8. Jambi November 23, 2014

            Once again…What Law?

      2. Independent1 November 22, 2014

        Let’s see, it’s Obama 193 EOs; Teddy Roosevelt a GOP president 1,083 ; Calvin Coolidge a GOP president 1,254 and I could go on and on. Even Reagan 484 all of who used Executive Orders to get things done that the Congress at their time wouldn’t address. Obama has issued BY FAR, the fewest Executive Orders of any two-term president in office since 1900.


        1. Greg November 24, 2014

          Obama himself called himself an emperor in a recent speech dummy.

  4. bckrd1 November 22, 2014

    The Republicans in Congress will see this too and will completely ignore it while claiming they are listening to the American people while doing the exact opposite of what the American people are in favor of. They always do.

    1. joe schmo November 22, 2014

      You think the American people wanted this? I guess that is why the Country is now mostly Red? Now say that again and turn it around.

      1. Carolyn1520 November 23, 2014

        If you are speaking of the midterms , that was because half the country didn’t vote. Ask Romney how the 2010 midterms affected on the 2012 election. He was delusional too. Still has his unused victory fireworks.

        1. joe schmo November 23, 2014

          Celebrate! Hallelujah….your savior Warren is coming. Do you know a thing about Communism? You shall soon see:)

          1. WhutHeSaid November 23, 2014

            Psssst….er, don’t look now, but the communism scare went out of vogue during the last century.

          2. Greg November 24, 2014

            But president Obola has brought the scare back!

          3. Jambi November 23, 2014

            Communism?…Hey 80s Boy!! you’re lost somewhere in the 1950s or 60s…

  5. pjm19606 November 22, 2014

    This decision should be brought to a national referendum as should all national governmental decisions. We are in the electronic age. These decisions should be done on our home computers, if not our smart phones. And, yes, EVERY voter should have one provided by the government. Remember, all you coming detractors to this post, the US is NOT a Democracy (it’s a Republic), let’s make it a Democracy. Wake the EFF UP!

  6. peteserb November 22, 2014

    Who ever wrote this drivel should be exiled to Mexico. Only the most slanted poll from the left could come up with this preposterous conclusion.

    1. Independent1 November 22, 2014

      Really?? Sorry but most of Americans are not as clueless as you are; and they clearly have more common sense.

      Most Americans don’t want to pay 30-50% more for their food each year (maybe thousands of dollars), because farmers and others associated with the food industry have had to raise what they pay their help by $5-$10/hr in order to get people born in America to do the back breaking work immigrants, including illegals, do on the cheap.

      And many probably realize that the billions illegals contribute to the American economy is keeping around 8 million people working who would otherwise be struggling on unemployment and in poverty.

      And many also probably realize that more than 60% of illegals pay taxes and actually contribute to Social Security and Medicare extending the lives of both of these programs since they don’t qualify for their benefits (illegals pay more than 7 billion into SS).

      There also may be some who realize that without immigrants, including illegals in America the past couple decades, our country’s population would actually have been declining – creating a far bigger problem than illegals will ever create – just take a trip to Europe where their stagnant/declining populations have created real problems – just ask some folks from Greece.

      1. joe schmo November 22, 2014

        Honestly, you are a lost cause….. La La Land…….whewwwwy.

        Dude we are already paying more and more for food. Everything is escalating in price. No one said we need to get rid of Hispanics in the fields. We need a guest worker program like California’s Bracero program used to be. Guest workers come to work seasonally and then GO HOME.

        This statement makes no sense at all:

        “And many probably realize that the billions illegals contribute to the
        American economy is keeping around 8 million people working who would
        otherwise be struggling on unemployment and in poverty.”

        Declining, our population? No way, there have been way too many people including Europeans who want to get into the country legally and cannot of they find it nearly impossible.

        Europe’s population declining? Gee, it wouldn’t be because of all the Illegals coming into their countries which are taking all the handouts and then some pushing the Europeans out. I know this because I have family in Europe and they are tired of the invasion from Muslims and Turks.

        Give me a break….You are witnessing the demise of Western Civilization which is being replaced by the 3rd world.

        1. WhutHeSaid November 23, 2014

          Everything is escalating in price? I’m sure glad you told me that. I was marveling this morning at how much the price of gasoline has fallen, so perhaps it’s just my lying eyes — but I was able to fill my tank up with premium for barely over $3 per gallon. If I had chosen economy grade it would be less than $3 per gallon.

          Do you ever get tired of lying?

  7. joe schmo November 22, 2014

    What a bunch of bullshit! What didn’t you people get from the last election. 68% or more of Americans DID NOT WANT AMNESTY for the ‘people.’ Purely a political move. Amnesty for illegals came in second after the economy of pet peeves. It certainly is one of mine. Many of us are hopping mad. Dare to take a gander at some of the Conservative sites….. I DARE YOU.

    As for Hart Research Associates. They are a Liberal think tank and not reputable enough for my liking like Gallup or Pew Polls would be, which I am positive show a completely different story.

    It’s almost like you just didn’t get it. It went in one ear and out the other. Business as usual. Dumb and dumber…..

    1. Carolyn1520 November 23, 2014

      Who cares if the right is hopping mad. They’ve been that way since 2008 and done NOTHING but obstruct. So plan on being livid for the next 2 years and 8 more after that.

      1. joe schmo November 23, 2014

        And your side has done everything perfectly right? Complete annihilation of the Constitution and this Country. Bye Bye USA hello USSA…… You will be so sorry. You have no clue.

        Didn’t have enough constituents did you? So you had to legalize 5 million more ignorant’s. How lovely of you. Your party preys on the innocent and ignorant. How sad. Won’t be long until we are all poor (Remember spread the wealth) and once that dollar devaluates there will be no more moola. Let the riots commence.

        1. WhutHeSaid November 23, 2014

          Rioting bigot-goobers is just what we need to help fill our jails and prisons. Knock yourself out.

  8. hresitzzo November 23, 2014

    Obama is delusional.

  9. Kelly John November 23, 2014

    Carolyn1520 Brandon`s story is exceptional,, a month back my sisters mom in law recieved a check for $4332 sitting there fourty hours a month in their apartment and their classmates sister-in-law`s neighbour has been doing this for nine months and brought home over $4332 in their spare time from there pc. applie the guide available here.★★★★★★➤➤➤&nbsphttp://GoogleProjects/get/position/Group_Vipfree

  10. NoodleDogg #1 November 23, 2014

    Wow, a poll done for an Obama support group and guess what? Those polled -not Americans in general btw–like O’s Immigration EO. I am totally surprised.

  11. Richerd Heatherly November 30, 2014

    I used to trust Obama. I don’t anymore.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.