So you voted for Barack Obama back in 2008, and perhaps you helped to re-elect him in 2012. How's that working out for you?

Chances are, not well. Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming that those who most supported Obama have fared the worst under his policies. This, in turn, raises the question as to why these people would vote for someone who has economically been such as failure. The answers to that question are troubling indeed.

Rewind to the 2012 elections. The table below shows the ten counties or county equivalents which garnered the largest proportion of Obama votes alongside the current unemployment rates in those counties. Every one of those counties has a higher unemployment rate than the overall U.S. rate of 7.4%. In fact, the average unemployment rate of these counties is 13.7%, more than 6% higher than the national rate.

COUNTY Percent Obama Vote Unemployment Rate % Shannon, SD 93 14.5 Bronx, NY 91 11.8 Petersburg, VA 90 10.8 Prince George's, MD 90 7.6 Jefferson, MS 89 19.9 Claiborne, MS 88 17.6 Baltimore City, MD 87 11.2 Macon, AL 87 9.6 Menominee, WI 86 17.7 Starr, TX 86 16.2

Perhaps more fascinating is that seven of these counties or equivalents were also among the top ten voting for Obama in 2008.

What do these results tell us? They show that the state of the economy is of no relevance to these people's vote. Look: give these voters a pass in 2008, as they could have fallen for the messianic portrayal of Obama as fixing all that is wrong in the world. But to again overwhelmingly support him in 2012 indicates that these folks simply don't care about the nation's economic success -- or their own.

That's sad, but there are other demographic groups that apparently feel the same way.

If we look at Obama voters by race, we see similar overwhelming support and corresponding massive economic suffering. Some 93% of African-Americans cast their ballot for Obama in 2012 following a 95% clip in the 2008 election. Yet the economic plight of African-Americans has been dismal and well-chronicled during Obama's reign, including the most recent unemployment statistics that show African-Americans with a 12.6% rate versus the 7.4% national mark.

However, the one group that has arguably suffered the most under the Obama presidency is the young adult group -- those ages 18-29.

The 18- to 29-year-old crowd voted for Obama over Romney 60% to 37% in 2012. Yet their economic state is abyssal.

Those between the ages of 20 and 24 have an unemployment rate of 12.6%.

As of the end of 2012, some 22 million young adults were back at home living with their parents.

Total student debt for young adults has risen to over $1 trillion, as graduates have found it difficult to obtain a full-time job pertinent to their education.

The average Class of '13 graduate owes $35,200 in total debt

Then we have the voters we might term as economically challenged back in 2012 -- defined by families making less than $50,000 per year. Sixty percent of these voters cast their ballots for Obama, the same percentage as in 2008. Yet over the five-plus years of the Obama presidency, we've seen the income gap widen every year, with that gap currently at an all-time high.

While during Obama's presidency we've seen the income gap widen, we've also seen 15 million more Americans added to the food stamp program and another 10 million considered to be in poverty.

Putting all this together, why, then, would all these groups overwhelmingly support a president who has such an atrocious economic record when he ran again in 2012? Perhaps the simplest explanation is that they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them.

Logic tells us that if you aren't concerned about the economy, then it may well be that you aren't dependent on the economy to sustain your livelihood. In other words, you're not connected to the economy.

If that's the case, then the other option is that you are dependent on the government. Therefore, it's natural that you would cast your ballot for the candidate who promises the larger government. That was, both in 2008 and in 2012, none other than Barack Obama.

That idea, that we have so many Americans not attached to the vitality of economic growth, is frightening. It stands to reason that as the population which doesn't depend on the economy for its livelihood grows, its members will in turn become a bigger part of the voting bloc and thereby likely vote to continue expanding the size and scope of the government.

It's that trend, if it continues, which could eventually cause our nation and our way of life to implode.

Chad Stafko is a writer and political consultant living in the Midwest. He can be reached at stafko@msn.com.