Via the Free Beacon, this will be dismissed by most as nothing more than polite cheerleading for FLOTUS or a desire for four more years of a Democratic presidency, not an Obama presidency specifically.

But we know the truth, don’t we.

Data provided to The Hill by the conservative polling outlet WPA Research found that 67 percent of Democrats would take a third term for Obama over a potential Clinton administration.

Only 28 percent said they’re ready to move on from the Obama White House, while 6 percent are undecided.

Those numbers were published in late June, when Clinton was still consistently ahead of Trump in swing-state polling. What would they be today, with Democrats scanning the latest data in Ohio and Florida with a gun to their collective temple? Ninety percent in favor of four more years of O? Ninety-five? By October, if she has a bad run at the debates, the number who prefer Hillary to Obama might be down to just the immediate Clinton family and Sid Blumenthal.

James Poulos asked an interesting question this morning. He’s mostly just trolling the left here, but not entirely:

https://twitter.com/jamespoulos/status/776829054892711937

If Democrats believe what they say, that Trump is a uniquely noxious candidate and a threat to American stability, why don’t they push Typhoid Hillary out of the race and swap in Joe Biden? They’ve spent the last few weeks arguing that Trump and his fans will tear the country’s social fabric apart — the alt-right will rise, Putinism will triumph, fascism will descend on the shining city on the hill. If all of that can be averted only with a Democratic victory, it’s downright unpatriotic of them to continue to play this very weak hand, especially now that we have hard evidence from the polls that she really might lose. When I put that to a lefty friend today, he responded that it’s September 16th, late in the game for a switcheroo at the top of the ticket. Right, but Dems have a unique possibility for a successful last-minute substitute this year in Biden. He’s the sitting VP, he’s well-liked, he wouldn’t need any time to introduce himself to the public — heck, he’d probably be the nominee right now if Hillary hadn’t run. And Trump is a weak nominee himself, making Biden’s task of catching him and passing him quickly feasible. Replacing the nominee two months out would be political suicide in any other year. Not this year.

Why don’t Republicans replace Trump as nominee instead, my friend countered? Well, for one thing, it’s not (most of) the right that’s claiming Trump is a threat to the republic. Why would they replace him, especially now that he’s surging into contention? And parts of the right did try to stop Trump in the primaries and beyond, up to and including the feeble but well-meaning effort to free the delegates at the convention. They failed. Now it’s Democrats’ ballgame. More importantly, the parties aren’t positioned symmetrically in possibly replacing their nominee at the eleventh hour. Since the day Cruz and Kasich dropped out in May, replacing Trump would have meant forfeiting the election by Republicans. His core fans are too loyal to accept a substitute; they would have boycotted November and Hillary would have beaten a divided right easily. That’s why the anti-Trumpers couldn’t get traction to oust him in Cleveland. Democrats aren’t in the same situation, though. As I say, they could swap in Biden at this point and even Hillary loyalists would likely line up. They have a ready-made pretext too: She’s too sick to continue. We’re putting her on the disabled list, they could say, and we’re bringing in the star reliever from the bullpen to close out the game. Which Democratic voters would walk away in protest?

As I’m writing this, Nate Silver just published a post warning Democrats that if Clinton’s polls haven’t rebounded somewhat a week from now, as her “deplorables”/fainting news cycle fades, it’ll be time to panic. The left treats him as an oracle, so if you think this week’s freakout was something, you ain’t seen nothing yet.