This is Gallup's first measurement of presidential approval since special counsel Robert Mueller completed his investigation into Russian attempts to sway the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Attorney General William Barr's synopsis of Mueller's findings reported no Russian involvement in the Trump campaign and insufficient evidence of obstruction of justice -- which Trump claims fully vindicates him....
Trump's previous 45% readings were recorded in his first week in office in January 2017, and again in June 2018 after his historic meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
१२ एप्रिल, २०१९
"President Donald Trump's job approval rating increased relatively sharply over the past month to 45% in an April 1-9 Gallup poll, up from 39% in March."
"This marks the third time the 45th president has reached a 45% job approval rating in Gallup trends -- his highest in the series."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२५० टिप्पण्या:
250 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»One cardinal rule of politics: if you are exonerated from an ongoing 2-year false criminal charge of conspiring with the Russian Government to rig a US Presidential election, generally, your approval numbers go up.
Just sayin'.
Depending on who you take your 'stats' from, it's probably higher with a lower margin of error.
'Some folks' tried to circumvent the will of the people, and now that their attempt has been revealed by the light of the day independents are surging....
...and may god spread his mercy over 'those folks'...
There's a reverse Bradley effect with Trump. This is a love that dare not speak its name. I'm pretty sure the approval numbers are actually higher.
And is there any bias in the sample population?
What population is being measured?
Likely voters, general population, size of sample, methodology, etc.
Agree with William in reverse Bradley effect.
What is actually useful is the trends. In what group did Trump become more popular?
@Bay Area Guy -- Nicely summarized.
Anyone interested in how Gallup does its polling, you can go to the source:
How Does the Gallup U.S. Poll Work?
For example:
Were the Gallup U.S. Poll samples weighted?
Yes, Gallup weighted samples to correct for unequal selection probability, nonresponse, and double coverage of landline and cellphone users in the two sampling frames. Gallup also weighted its final samples to match the U.S. population according to gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, population density and phone status (cellphone only, landline only, both, and cellphone mostly). Demographic weighting targets for the U.S. as a whole and for individual states were based on the most recent Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older U.S. population, while weighting targets for metropolitan areas and congressional districts were based on Nielsen Claritas statistics. Phone status targets were based on the most recent National Health Interview Survey. Population density targets were based on the most recent U.S. Census. All reported margins of sampling error included computed design effects for weighting.
Now do Obama....
I'm highly skeptical of all polls, even ones that may confirm my biases. I'm skeptical of them for a number of reasons that I feel are well founded. I'll only say that logically it makes sense that Trump's approval would go up if no collusion was found.
How is the Gallup poll different than a bunch of high school boys maintaining a list ranking girls by their HAWT-ness?
Clearly it’s time for a twitter meltdown.
This is usually when Trump deploys OPERATION DRIVE DOWN POLL NUMBERS by changing the subject to something negative.
Of course, every time I've doubted his political acumen I've been wrong. (Except for the wall. He had two years to do it with a GOP congress and failed.)
I’m happy.
Now, with the Russia collusion hoax off his back, Prez Trump can build public support for defending the southern border.
That proposed wall will not stay in place unless a national consensus is built.
One cardinal rule of politics: if you are exonerated from an ongoing 2-year false criminal charge of conspiring with the Russian Government to rig a US Presidential election, generally, your approval numbers go up.
Yup. The exact same thing happened with Millard Fillmore.
RCP summary: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
He has moved to the highest part of his pretty constant range over the last year - but not one inch more. Personally I am bitterly disappointed in the American people, or in humanity's ability to assimilate new information. Surely _some_ percentage of the American people would say, "Whoa - I strongly believed ___ for two years, ___ turns out to be dead wrong - obviously I am doing this wrong. Something is badly awry with my way of understanding politics. Let me start again from scratch, being much more careful about whose information I trust."
Seems that percentage is zero to a first approximation.
I think we've seen that in the media as well. Have we seen one single media personality have an epiphany?
@Bay Area Guy "One cardinal rule of politics: if you are exonerated from an ongoing 2-year false criminal charge of conspiring with the Russian Government to rig a US Presidential election, generally, your approval numbers go up.
Just sayin'." I would have thought so too. It seems I was wrong.
Last time I looked Rasmussen had him at 53%. But polls like this are horse shit. In politics only one poll counts, and it will be taken on November 3, 2020. I used to think of myself as a serious political junky, but when I contrast myself with folks trying to handicap the Democrat primary when the Iowa caucuses won’t happen until next February, well ...
"(Except for the wall. He had two years to do it with a GOP congress and failed.)"
That is regrettably true. The only explanation (or excuse) is that many of us failed to appreciate that perhaps as much as 50% of the GOP are weasels too. A few stallwart members of the Commentariat have emphasized this point, and have been proven correct.
Trump is in decent shape for re-election.
His approval will go up a bit more as the Dem Socialist Party debates get going.
And he’s got a House of Dems reminding the citizenry of why the House had been GOP for 20 of the last 24 years.
AOC and the Anti-American Jew-hating Women of Color are great foils.
They are the face of the Dem Party now.
Urp.
No exoneration. Good try, though.
LLR's could not be reached for comment....
Yes, it was exoneration.
You’re deliberately lying, a now common practice.
And, as I said, Prez Trump has to build a consensus for the wall.
AlbertAnonymous said...
Now do Obama....
Of course, Gallup has "done Obama." Gallup has done all of the Presidents since Truman.
And there's a link to click on to see them at the Gallup page that Althouse linked to.
Trump is the only president in all of that historical period who has been underwater in his job approval rating for the entirety of his presidency. It is almost hard to do a president-to-president graphic comparison, because you have to remember that most of the charting presumes a positive net approval rating. Trump has always been in significant net negative territory.
See also; Five Thirty Eight's similar numbers:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
Althouse can suggest a headline that Trump's "approval" is up. But the real, ongoing headline is that Trump is by far the most divisively disapproved president in our lifetimes.
Bay Area Guy said...
I agree, and I definitely know the blame lies with Warm Glass of Milk Republicans. It's notable that Trump did not target them and their refusal to act. Must have been tactical, but it also indicates he considered other issues to be a priority over the wall. Or, his daughter's husband talked him out of it.
Trump’s approval rating going into the 2016 election was low.
That’s the data point to look at.
Trump will be running against a specific individual. The Dem nominee is an abstraction.
He’s up against a weak field, just like Obama was in 2012, W in 2004 and Clinton in 1996.
Also, it’s Trump’s approval in certain states that matters.
It’s not a national election.
Trump isn’t going to win California. And Bernie isn’t going to win Indiana.
This is Gallup's first measurement of presidential approval since special counsel Robert Mueller completed his investigation into ALLEGED Russian attempts to sway the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.
Corrected.
The Donald is getting it done. I’m interested to see if that speculation about the stock market will be right.
But the real, ongoing headline is that Trump is by far the most divisively disapproved president in our lifetimes.
This is basically true. It's also true (I suspect) that each polarizing president gives way to a more polarizing president, because the electorate is moving away from the center and toward the two left-right poles. Bush fired up the Left, Obama fired up the Right, each presidency was considered "divisive."
I think that a candidate with Trump's policies on trade and immigration, who doesn't have Trump's abrasive style, could be less divisive. But, the issues are what really divide us. They pre-date Trump and they are not going away.
Seems that percentage is zero to a first approximation.
@MikeR, well, there are plenty of Jewish Democrats who support a party that supports and gives a speaking platform to people who would cheerfully kill those same Jewish Democrats, and their children, and their grandchildren. Makes no sense to me, but there it is. People internalize their politics to the point where they’d be cursing Republicans even as their Democrat precinct chairman is herding them onto cattle cars.
When talking to our Democrat friends on the Left, it is important to emphasize:
1. In 2016, you told us Hillary would win. YOU WERE WRONG.
2. In 2019, you told us Mueller would indict Trump. YOU WERE WRONG.
So, what are you wrong about now?
If the Althouses of America are now part of the 45%, good. Time to get off the fence.
The point of the Mueller exoneration is not simply that Trump did not "collude," unlike Hill and her minions, but that progs tried to stage a coup. For "independents" and "moderates" the question then is not simply whether they support Dems or the GOP, but whether they should give any power to the coup-plotter party ever again in any way. Same thing for LLRs.
Trump is down in Tank’s ratings for his failures and reversals on immigration.
Seems like every month since 2017 I see a poll comparing trump and obama poll numbers at the same point in there presidencies.
Most of the time trump is slightly higher. Not a lot, usually, but a point or three. Otoh, he is now quite a bit higher.
When Obama is higher it is never by much.
John Henry
I'll rephrase that, to be careful because the Althouse commentariat (not to mention Althouse herself) will look at everything I write with the most critical scrutiny.
Trump may not have dropped into the most-net-negative period of any president. Rather, Trump is the most consistently negatively-rated president. He's never been in positive territory, ever. And that is unlike every other modern president.
Every president short of Lincoln, since Trump thinks his polling comparisons somehow go back to "Lincoln."
Trump is down in Tank’s ratings for his failures and reversals on immigration.
Fair enough, Tank. But he's the first leader to force a "debate" on this (such as it is.) He's moving the Overton Window on what topics are permitted to be discussed in polite society. Such as, "the future of the nation."
Trump has done a good job.
The deficits are high like they were under W and Obama, but labor force participation is up, unemployment is down, real wages are up and the US hasn’t started another war.
W had the lowest approval rating ever when he left office. He earned it. Obama wasn’t a good president but he had the fortune to follow W. And he wasn’t as bad as W.
"(Except for the wall. He had two years to do it with a GOP congress and failed.)" That is regrettably true. The only explanation (or excuse) is that many of us failed to appreciate that perhaps as much as 50% of the GOP are weasels too. A few stallwart members of the Commentariat have emphasized this point, and have been proven correct.
I don't want to seem ungrateful for Trump's amazing entertainment skills, but he really had but one job: end illegal immigration before demographics ended the Republican party. And he failed because he lacked a basic knowledge of American politics and its political system.
I'll rephrase that, to be careful because the Althouse commentariat (not to mention Althouse herself) will look at everything I write with the most critical scrutiny.
Almost as much scrutiny as you give to every fucking thing Trump says or does.
Proofs of the Bradley Effect with Trump:
1) The 2016 election and how poorly it was predicted. Not a single talkin head outside of FOX News thought he would win, or even get close. Yet enough people were out there ready to vote for him.
2) Even today few people who would vote for Trump again will openly display any support as in a MAGA hat or bumper sticker.
3) I hear few people in conversation support him, even those I know will still vote for him, and this includes myself. It's just not worth creating enemies out of friends and acquaintances. TDS is powerful, and dangerous.
BTW, I did recently did buy a MAGA hat, that I only wear to safe spaces like Walmart or the shooting range. I didn't even support the guy, when I voted for him. He was least of two evils to me at the time. I have been sold, first by his results, and second by the attempt to push him out through lies and treason. It's funny how his enemies have managed to make someone like Trump into the underdog. "Enemies of the people."
Surely _some_ percentage of the American people would say, "Whoa - I strongly believed ___ for two years, ___ turns out to be dead wrong - obviously I am doing this wrong. Something is badly awry with my way of understanding politics. Let me start again from scratch, being much more careful about whose information I trust."
That's not how human nature works. Most people start from a feeling about a person or topic and work backwards to justify that feeling. With many people (but not all) in many cases (but not all), if they can't rationalize their feelings either they'll
1) Ignore logical rationalization to avoid cognitive dissonance rather than reevaluate their stance
2) or they'll manufacture flimsy justifications. They won't examine their flimsy justifications too thoroughly since they probably sense that they won't hold up to much scrutiny.
And a character like Trump induces powerful emotions in a lot of people, both bad and good. As we've seen many places including here, people who hate Trump aren't easily going to change their minds.
I don't want to seem ungrateful for Trump's amazing entertainment skills, but he really had but one job: end illegal immigration before demographics ended the Republican party. And he failed because he lacked a basic knowledge of American politics and its political system.
Honest question: What would you have done differently, given that his own party fought him on this every step?
I don't think it's reasonable to expect one politician to turn 40 years of the establishment's immigration policy 180 degrees in the opposite direct all by himself in two years.
You know what would give him five or 10 points, and accordingly, what he will never get? If the ladies magazines like Vogue would provide even half of the lickspittle coverage they provided Michelle Obama and really most other first ladies. She would knock them dead and it would really look well on him.
Considering how wrong polls are, not always, but certainly more and more, I really don't care.
And I certainly don't care that Trump spins the polls. Who cares?
bagoh20 said...
Proofs of the Bradley Effect with Trump:
1) The 2016 election and how poorly it was predicted. Not a single talkin head outside of FOX News thought he would win, or even get close. Yet enough people were out there ready to vote for him.
...
Well I don't know about your personal "talkin head" metric. But the polls for 2016 had it mostly right. The RCP polling average was Clinton +3.2. And the election was Clinton +2.1.
People keep forgetting that. The majority of voters went for Clinton, consistent with polling. Trump simply managed an "inside straight" series of incredibly narrow wins in PA, MI and WI.
The party doesn't want to even reduce the tide of illegals much less end it. Cotton and co, are outnumbered by Romney gardner et al.
And w tied because of the DUI, and narrowly won over Kerry point?
Chuck - One in 8 people in the US reside in CA. A majority of voters in CA went for Clinton. Where she got her pop vote margin.
Which is why the left are desperate to make sure CA picks all future presidents.
This is still my favorite 2016 poll. So close!
Polling serves the purpose of whoever commissioned it. Gallop does the tracking poll to sell to advertisers. They get the result to be the most desirable to those selling advertising to the widest possible audience.
erg, something for everybody.
The best example of polls being pure fiction, was early December 2010. Media outlet released a poll the claimed the voters were more liberal than the election results from 30 days previous. I noticed specifically the poll showed Scott Walker would have lost the election he had just won and was not yet sworn into office.
Yes to the comment that this poll is National. As much as I repeat it, there has never been a national election in the history of this nation. That more the half the voters don't know this intuitively. This exposes the lie of presidential tracking polls have some value.
Shouting Thomas,
No exoneration, only in Baby Barr's mind, and the Cheeto's mind. For the rest of the real world, that has yet to be shown.
Vicki from Pasadena
Always a treat when @ChuckPolls comes here to explain how it all works.
The American political system is not at all that which is described in its laws. The rules of the game are not rules, as the game only has rules to the degree that someone can make the rules stick, or can redefine the rules. To anyone with real power, a genuine interest, the game is Calvinball.
All such systems are dominated by interests, that is, sources of money. These lie beneath everything.
All institutional superstructure and procedure is mutable, reinterpretable, adjustable, to suit that which lies beneath. One does not need to know the rules, just the nature of the game.
The underlying condition of US politics over at least the last decade is a populist reaction to now-unified interests, especially on matters like immigration. There is no way to implement the popular will as long as these interests dominate your institutions. There is no right or clever way for Trump to do this, no correct procedure. Its not that kind of game.
Surveys of our household show my approval rating holding at a steady 50%.
"I'll rephrase that, to be careful because the Althouse commentariat (not to mention Althouse herself) will look at everything I write with the most critical scrutiny."
Delusions of grandeur. Most people here don't give your comments any weight at all.
And this is one of the push factors:
https://www.influencewatch.org/person/emma-lozano/
BleachBit-and-Hammers said...
Chuck - One in 8 people in the US reside in CA. A majority of voters in CA went for Clinton. Where she got her pop vote margin.
Which is why the left are desperate to make sure CA picks all future presidents.
This is still my favorite 2016 poll. So close!
You are arguing something that you think is important. All that I was pointing out was the fact that the 2016 polling was not wrong. All the polling taken broadly together was well within the margin of error. Trump fans keep thinking that Trump won a great victory, when he lost the popular vote.
Well I don't know about your personal "talkin head" metric. But the polls for 2016 had it mostly right. The RCP polling average was Clinton +3.2. And the election was Clinton +2.1.
What was that poll, 10 days before, or 20, 30, 45?
All the polls get closer to accurate the closer to the election and the true numbers that they always have, but 'weight' to in order to be attractive to the largest number of potential buyers.
Clinton's wife is still not President.
Polls today a full year away from all but the earliest primaries and caucus, are nothing but the daily funnies, only on the font page. 2 minutes of empty mental stimulation.
No because that's where the differential lies not in southern states or even midwestern ones
"No exoneration, only in Baby Barr's mind, and the Cheeto's mind."
And Mueller. But what does he know?
(Nobody knows what Mueller knows.©️)
Trump fans keep thinking that Trump won a great victory, when he lost the popular vote.
There are no unicorns, rainbows, or hot 20 year old models that lust after body, nor is there the apparition you call a presidential "popular vote"
(a lawyer would know that)
Again, it’s the state polls that are helpful.
What were the final state polls in 2016.
PA, MI, WI, NH, FL should have been toss ups.
The RCP average for Pennsylvania was within the margin for error.
Wisconsin and Michigan were not.
RCP also had Ohio as a toss up. Trump won by 8 percent there.
Trump didn’t pull an inside straight. These polls were wrong. They were always wrong in favor of Clinton.
iowan2 I think it might kill you to admit that I was right. So I will keep trying. On the most narrow, irrefutable points. Just to get that grudging, “Yes, Chuck; you’re right about that.”
Chuck is right that Trump got in through a fluke.
The Filipinos would call it "chamba" (or tsamba, to use the modern spelling), a lucky break. This is a repurposed Spanish word, which otherwise has an entirely different meaning.
The Filipino reaction to his victory was exactly that, it was a bit of extreme good luck on Trumps part. Lucky winners, btw, are admired, as they are seen to be fortunes favorites. One cannot expect such luck from someone not so favored.
If it weren't for this fluke you all (or most of you) would be much worse off. You did not dodge a bullet, but a firing squad. It remains to be seen if this is a lasting escape or just a stay of execution.
No one won the popular vote in 2016, 2000, 1996, 1992, or 1968.
A majority of voters did not vote for Hillary or Trump.
How is it luck that Trump worked his ass off in the campaign and Hillary didn’t?
How is it luck that Trump understood that you win by winning states but Hillary thought you win by getting more votes overall throughout the country?
Who told Hillary yo campaign in Arizona but skip Wisconsin?
Incompetence isn’t bad luck. It’s incompetence.
Laziness isn’t bad luck. It’s laziness.
"How is it luck that Trump understood that you win by winning states but Hillary thought you win by getting more votes overall throughout the country? "
Hillary isn't the only one who thinks that.
Blogger iowan2 said...
Trump fans keep thinking that Trump won a great victory, when he lost the popular vote.
There are no unicorns, rainbows, or hot 20 year old models that lust after body, nor is there the apparition you call a presidential "popular vote"
(a lawyer would know that)
For that last shitty line, go fuck yourself.
I never claimed that the national popular vote meant anything, apart from being a measure of the accuracy of the (also) national polling.
I didn’t bring up the subject of polling accuracy. I only responded.
Just like the polls were wrong in Israel this week as they were in 2015 as they were with Brexit, you see the pattern, now the blue and white the remainers the swamp control the commanding heights in media ib education in large parts of corporate america.
Trump fans keep thinking that Trump won a great victory, when he lost the popular vote.
Flawed thinking to the extreme.
It was a great victory -- regardless of the popular vote. It was unexpected, he had all sorts of forces from the Left and Right arrayed against him, he denied Hillary executive power to enact her leftwing agenda, he obtained full executive power to re-shape the Federal Courts away from a Larry Tribe-esque mentality, and he has done a buncha other good stuff, too numerous to name here.
Some folks stay obsessed with the sloppy wrapping paper -- while ignoring the nice Christmas present.
OM,
True. A lot of incompetent, lazy people like Chuck out there.
He could have looked up the final RCP polling average for the states.
If he had, he would have seen that some states Trump won were outside the polling margin for error in favor of Clinton. He would have also seen that others, like Ohio, were toss ups in the final poll average but were decisive Trump victories.
Florida, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire we’re toss ups in RCP average. Trump won the two big ones, and Hillary won New Hampshire.
Trump likely has relatively low personal approval ratings while Obama was personally well liked. So What?
When it comes to job performance approval we have a rise in the Stockmarket of 50%, record employment and job creation, reasonable inflation, not much in terms of foreign wars, and drastically less dependence on Mideast oil. Can anyone say that Obama has a similar record?
Young people have more job opportunities than in decades. Old people like me live off investments that are growing steadily and providing a sense of confidence for the future.
I would say that things are going well despite the MSM/DNC/LLR daily assault on Mr. Trump.
Say if boris Johnson were leading the leave forces instead of may, they might be making more progress, this is the difference between a dry and a wet tory.
Trump could have lost Wisconsin and Michigan and would have still won.
There was no inside straight.
Trump won Florida and Pennsylvania. Two toss up states. That’s why he is president.
He trounced Hillary in Iowa and Ohio.
Michigan and Wisconsin were sprinkles on the sundae. Indicative of a decisive Trump victory.
I never claimed that the national popular vote meant anything
Which is why you brought it into the conversation.
Chuck - that's why we have the Electoral College - and why Trump campaigned in the states where he campaigned, based on the rules that give each state in the union an equal voice.
We all know Hillary beat Trump by 2-3 millions votes in CA. WE know that Chuck. WE KNOW!
It's also why the corrupt left want to remove smaller state's voting rights and force the very unwise, and unfair - popular vote.
Honest question: What would you have done differently, given that his own party fought him on this every step?
American Presidents have two years to accomplish what they promised before voters inevitably turn to the other party in the midterms. You first must be willing to stare down your own party in the House. In Trump’s case he should have told Paul Ryan that his beloved tax cut (and all other Chamber of Commerce desires, including deregulation) would go absolutely nowhere until ample wall funding was secured. Moving to the Senate, the shock of Trump’s election meant that swing state Democrats were persuadable, not for the full wall funding but for a decent compromise. Senate liberals would have agreed to let the legislation go through in exchange for a deal on DACA. They dug in their heels once they saw Trump had no idea how to manage his own party, much less Congress.
Trump, like Obama and the America media, was under the illusion the American Presidency was like being an Emperor where you rule by decree. Now that he’s learned otherwise by painful experience, it’s too late to accomplish the one job he alone was sent to do: Save the Republican Party from itself.
F Blogger.
Actually Chuck - Many of the states Trump ended up winning, Ohio, PA, MI, WI, FL - most of the polls showed Hillary winning up until the very end, when the pollsters got nervous and showed some tightening.
Parties dont matter. Only those who fund politicians.
There is no "persuasion" here. Politicians are servo-mechanisms, robots.
It is time for certain folks to move past the 2016 election results. We have sufficiently dissected them every which way. We are past the 2018 midterms, we are now in 2019, and, soon, we will be approaching the 2020 primary season.
Time.to.move.on. For the love of God!
The bottom line is that pollsters can only dig so far into what into what real people are thinking. They take a sample of hundreds, sometimes perhaps near or slightly over one thousand. It's not totally unreliable, but certainly the breakdown % of party affiliation and who is willing to answer the phone that day all add to the big guess.
Trump fans keep thinking that Trump won a great victory, when he lost the popular vote.<
Hillary is president of California. She lost the rest of the country,. My sympathy, Chuck.
Bay Area Guy -
Vickie in Pasadena assures us that Trump committed a crime. What crime? Well - all will be revealed! Probably Obstruction of.... a....ah... well... something. oh right- JUSTICE! Up next on Maddow - Senior moron the Comey speaketh.
The Hillary lost butt hurt party never ends.
As for trading, the trade is also irrelevant.
The underlying point here is all that Trump has won is transient.
It could not be traded, temporary palliatives for a permanent (possibly) solution.
A new executive with the backing of the true PTB will reverse all he has done.
The question of US demographics is a strategic matter, taxes and regulation tactical matters. One cannot trade tactical points for strategic ones, or only a fool will, and those who control your politician-robots arent fools.
CJinPA said...
I don't want to seem ungrateful for Trump's amazing entertainment skills, but he really had but one job: end illegal immigration before demographics ended the Republican party. And he failed because he lacked a basic knowledge of American politics and its political system.
Honest question: What would you have done differently, given that his own party fought him on this every step?
His administration has INCREASED the number of work visas, a total reversal and betrayal of American workers.
Mr. Limbaugh used the word “pusillanimous “ today.
Althouse bait?
In Trump’s case he should have told Paul Ryan that his beloved tax cut (and all other Chamber of Commerce desires, including deregulation) would go absolutely nowhere until ample wall funding was secured.
In retrospect, that might have worked but I doubt it. Ryan and much of the GOP House are/were dependent on donors. McCain-Feingold turned the Congress over to the administrative state. The Congress critters were reduced to fund raisers. The bureaucracy writes the legislation, interprets it and enforces it.
Trump fans keep thinking that Trump won a great victory, when he lost the popular vote.<
That’s Mr. President. Not a bad victory at all.
Popular votes are for prom kings and queens. He’s running a country. And now I have “Popular” as an ear worm.
It is interesting that Trump's approval ratings from the very beginning were lower than his vote total. Most president's get a honeymoon period where even voters of the other side will give the new president some grace. Trump never got that. It is foolish to conclude that his approval ratings are based on performance. It is based on perception, and that perception is driven by a very hostile media.
Second, when wearing a MAGA hat will get you assaulted or, if you happen to be a teenager, savaged in the media, I expect that many being polled will do what they did before the election: play coy and publicly say they disapprove, while privately doing the snoopy happy dance. This toxic and destructive environment is not conducive to honest poll answers.
Third, I wonder what "reasons" one would give for why they disapprove. I bet it is not based on any policy. I bet if a list of all of Trump's positions and impacts were laid out individually and the person asked, there would be a net positive result in rating specifics about what he has accomplished or supported. So again I say that it is foolish to conclude that his approval ratings are based on performance.
There is implicit bias in all things Trump. People are acting emotionally and not rationally to him. If we had a parliamentary system in effect and we called for an election today, I an certain that Trumps vote total (I am talking popular vote) would exceed his approval polling numbers, because when the stakes are real, people will conclude that Trump is better than not Trump.
Blogger BleachBit-and-Hammers said...
F Blogger.
Actually Chuck - Many of the states Trump ended up winning, Ohio, PA, MI, WI, FL - most of the polls showed Hillary winning up until the very end, when the pollsters got nervous and showed some tightening.
And so now, no need to pay attention to Trump’s improving national approval number; just look at individual swing states. Have I got that right?
100% approval over here
Bill Barr Trasher & Smear-Merchant Chuck: "All that I was pointing out was the fact that the 2016 polling was not wrong."
Thats why no one was surprised in the
least over the election outcome.
I love it when leftists and/or LLR-leftists try to rewrite history on the fly..
Trump fans keep thinking that Trump won a great victory, when he lost the popular vote.
Tell me more about this place where leaders are elected by popular vote and not the Electoral College.
I tend to agree CJinPA - Trump might do himself in with the immigration problem HE promised to fix. In the beginning, Trump was dealt setbacks from the likes of Flake and McCain and Murkowski in the Senate. But - the first two years in he needed to make some major headway. Problem is, that Democrats are MUCH WORSE, AND promise much more of much worse.
Chuck,
Are you such a loser because you are such a liar? Or is it vice versa?
Even you can't be this ignorant.
Obama started 2009 at 50% and except for 2 brief blips to 52 or so in '10 and' 12, stayed below 50 until about Q2 2015
Gallup chart here
https://www.theatlas.com/charts/r1w3hhRUe
John Henry
Chuck - the polling was wrong. Polling consistently showed Hillary winning the rust belt and the battlegrounds. She didn't. She won CA, handily.
Chuck, fopdoodle extraordinaire, continues to defend the 2016 polls.
Yet those polls were wrong by a wide margin if you take the polls from 7-10 days before the election.
That is because the polls are meant to shape the 'narrative' as Matthew Yglesias recently admitted the news media attempt on every issue.
IOW, Chuck carries water for big media corporations owned by billionaires.
Smear merchants gonna smear.
Just a reminder of a commonly known fact.
Chuck is lazy and stupid.
Pecan Pie Detective continues with the old canard he has repeated for 2 1/2 years now:
"People keep forgetting that. The majority of voters went for Clinton, consistent with polling. Trump simply managed an "inside straight" series of incredibly narrow wins in PA, MI and WI."
If the polls weren't horseshit, Chuck, they would have all detected that the Clinton's edge was dangerously narrow, confined to the coastal ones- in other words, the pollsters would have been able to determine not only that Clinton was in real danger of losing the electoral college vote, but that such a loss was likely. I am going to give you a vote total, and I want to you guess how I derived it: Trump 58,501,018 votes to Clinton 57,099,726 votes.
Oh, are we doing this "let's look at the noise in the polls and form a narrative" thing?. The average of polls is at 42%, the same place it's been since last May.
I tend to agree CJinPA - Trump might do himself in with the immigration problem HE promised to fix.
It was the promise that distinguished him from all other candidates.
RCP average of Trump's approval shows relatively little movement; however, approval is near historic highs and disapproval near historic lows since his first 100 days.
Interestingly, the numbers have been tracking dead-on with Reagan for the past year.
Standing on line in the bank reading the chart on my phone and doing math in my head.
It looks like Obama spent about 12 months, of 96, above 50%. That's about 13%of his total presidency.
This is, I think, President Trump's 3rd (4th?) month above 50% out 27.
That gives him about 12%. Plenty of upside for PDJT to improve that number. Obama is stuck at 12.5 for all eternity.
John Henry
Earnest Prole, synthesized:
A majority of Americans want a lot less illegal border crossing.
Trump will again be the only candidate promising to reduce illegal border crossing.
Other candidates will support sanctuary laws and legalization of illegal behavior.
Therefore, Trump will lose.
Seriously, you're not very good at this.
Also, I was correct about Mueller finding nothing.
You were wrong.
Victoria,
You’re a deliberate liar.
I suggest you stop lying.
That tactic, the deliberate lying, is worn out. We know you’re lying. We know you’re doing it deliberately.
2-1/2 years of deliberate lies about Russia collusion was enough. You’ve disgraced yourself enough. You’ve been exposed.
People are acting emotionally and not rationally to him.
I think the reverse Bradley effect will be much stronger in 2020. Voters have watched Trump supporters being assaulted and members of his administration, even Ted Cruz not a big Trump supporter, being driven from restaurants.
I would not be surprised to see him win the popular vote this time and then the "popular vote" states will freak out.
Trump is being shown to be working his ass off to try and fix the border against.
- Republicans
- Chamber of Commerce
- All of the Amazon, Google, Microsoft data distributors.
- Facebook, Twitter
- EVERY DAMN ONE OF THE OPEN BORDER DEMOCRATS
- All of the main stream propaganda outlets.
You think trumps supporters do not see this (except the insanse Ann Coulter at the moment). They do.
And another thing..
When did it become a given that every damn one of a presidents nominees gets filibustered? The latest is Herman Cain who is imminently qualified and a breath of fresh air at the Fed. The democrat party just can NOT get that KKK out of their gene-pool.
It's disgusting, but I do expect the same treatment if we ever (god forbid, perish the thought) get an open border democrat POTUS. Filibuster EVERYTHING.
If Trump sends the illegals to sanctuary cities, he'll rocket past 50%.
If Trump sends the illegals to sanctuary cities, he'll rocket past 50%.
I suggest Pasadena, for starters.
Therefore, Trump will lose.
I expressed no opinion on Trump’s re-election prospects, but if I did I’d say he’s a formidable campaigner, he’s the incumbent, and he’s blessed with awful opponents. My actual point was that Trump’s ignorance of the primary role of Congress in immigration, combined with his tendency to negotiate against himself, resulted in his failure to deliver on his most important promise when he held both houses. The resulting flood of immigration will change the demographics of the country forever, resulting in the death of the Republican party as we know it. But you can hardly blame Trump for failing to save Republicans from themselves.
Who can the Republicans possibly field after Trump? Honestly? I think smart money is on Trump winning in 2020, but who can they pssibly have run that can win after that? People are voting for Trump. No one else. My big worry is that the republicans mistake support for Trump for support for Republicans.
Tom Cotton could be a good successor to Trump.
There aren’t many Republicans worth voting for president. But Cotton seems pretty good.
Two Chucks In One!
Chuck:
"I never claimed that the national popular vote meant anything, apart from being a measure of the accuracy of the (also) national polling."
Also Chuck, same thread:
"Trump fans keep thinking that Trump won a great victory, when he lost the popular vote."
So, per Chuck, when he claimed that the popular vote proves all Trump Fans are WRONG WRONG WRONG ALL THE TIME WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING WRONG and that the popular vote proves TRUMP DIDN'T WIN ANYTHING IT WAS NOT A GREAT VICTORY HE BARELY WON AT ALL, he wasn't actually claiming that the popular vote means anything. How could you possibly think otherwise? You fucking inbred morons.
I'm sure that this has been said above, but if he is at 45% in Gallup the *real* number is likely above 50%.
My actual point was that Trump’s ignorance of the primary role of Congress in immigration, combined with his tendency to negotiate against himself, resulted in his failure to deliver on his most important promise when he held both houses
I would strongly advise you to read Codevilla's "The Ruling Class", which I copied to my blog as it keeps disappearing from the American Spectator site,
When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term “political class” came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public’s understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the “ruling class.” And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.
Re permitting LEGAL immigration of skilled workers:
I was at the automate/Promat show in Chicago. Big robotics, automation & logistics show.
I saw a number of booths with "now hiring" signs. This is unheard of. I don't know that I have ever seen it before in all my years of attending 2-3 large national trade shows annually.
Lots of exhibitors and attendees telling me that hiring is a major issue for them.
Nothing new to me I hear it every day.
I saw a billboard in franklin park il recruiting school bus drivers starting at 20% + benefits.
The mcdonalds at Clark and Lake now has kiosk ordering.
I seriously worry that our employment problems will tank the economy.
I don't worry too much about legal immigration provided we get to pick who comes. I don't know what the right number is. 1mm feels a bit high but it might, maybe, be low.
I do worry about unselective illegal immigration especially in the huge numbers we are seeing.
President Trump seems alone in fighting it. He has very little support from LLCs or anyone else. I think he is doing a Hell of a job in spite of the anklebiting Fopdoodles and others.
I wish it were more but even so, it is way more than anyone else has ever done. Or even tried.
John Henry
Congress even denied that they were responsible for the omnibus language that set the parameters for the immigration pause, 'this is not who we are' as ryan keeps telling us,
"I tend to agree CJinPA - Trump might do himself in with the immigration problem HE promised to fix.
It was the promise that distinguished him from all other candidates."
As I seem to keep having to bring up over and over again, Cruz was every bit as strong on immigration as Trump. His position paper on immigration on his website, which he tried hard to bring attention to, was if anything stronger than Trump's.
Good news! I've been re-reading Dante's Inferno and found a hitherto suppressed manuscript containing a short epilogue to the classic "poem"!
It describes a special section of purgatory where thousands of moral, but unbaptized souls are forced to listen for centuries to a well-intentioned, but unctuous attorney replay over and over and over his unending dissatisfaction with the GOP primary results in an American Presidential from 2016. You see, the winner was not the attorney's preferred candidate, but said attorney still felt compelled to vote for him in the General Election, despite his many misgivings. The torment!
Blogger Unknown said...
And another thing..
When did it become a given that every damn one of a presidents nominees gets filibustered? The latest is Herman Cain who is imminently qualified and a breath of fresh air at the Fed. The democrat party just can NOT get that KKK out of their gene-pool.
It's disgusting, but I do expect the same treatment if we ever (god forbid, perish the thought) get an open border democrat POTUS. Filibuster EVERYTHING.
Awwwwww ... shuckie duckie!
There has probably never been a more poorly-qualified Fed nominee than Herman Cain. If Cain really is a nominee. Is he? He’ll never get a vote, and so you are wrong about Cain getting “filibustered.” There won’t be any “filibuster” on a nomination, particularly when a half-dozen Republicans in the Senate signaling “No” votes, the mere notion of a Cain nomination will be aborted.
As for the Trump klan playing the race card for Herman Cain; just stop it. That whiny identity-politics shit is the Democrats’ disgraceful m.o. By far the most disgusting quality of Trump “Republicans” is their shameless victimhood. You want to manage the United States of America? Then act like responsible adults.
Who can the Republicans possibly field after Trump? Honestly? I think smart money is on Trump winning in 2020, but who can they pssibly have run that can win after that? People are voting for Trump. No one else. My big worry is that the republicans mistake support for Trump for support for Republicans.
Looking to the future from here in 2019, it's difficult say. Assuming Trump wins relection, a lot can change in 5 years in terms of public perceptions about a lot of issues. Events shape the future in ways that are unknowable in the present.
It's inarguable that Trump is having an effect on people's viewpoint on American politics and American presidents. He's redefining many things.
Trump has changed the Republican party. A lot of things that were considered typical Republican positions just a few years ago are no longer the case. For example, up until Trump there was always a strong, hawkish neo-con element within the Republican party, those that would advocate for aggressive interventionism in foreign affairs. Since Trump, I think many of those voices no longer hold as much sway among the broader Republican electorate.
Meanwhile Bernie Sanders (and Trump) have changed the Democrat party. The Democrat's reaction to Trump has been somewhat hyperbolic, they seem to have pushed to a farther extreme. Ideas that were once considered fringe seem to have become more mainstream among the Democrat electorate. Only time can tell if this is actually true, if this new Democrat party is full on Socialist or if it's just a phase.
how did Jerome powell work out, he nearly the market with his willingness to follow greenspans destructive rate spike from 04-06,
They think, look, and act as a class.
Once again we’re in violent agreement.
Rasmussen has Trump at 53%. Why use Gallup, not very accurate anymore.
Two years ago, I wouldn’t have voted for Cruz on a bet, but I think I would now, not in a primary of course, unless Trump declined to run again, but yeah. I think that Cruz is best positioned post Trump.
Dan Crenshaw.
"Well I don't know about your personal "talkin head" metric. But the polls for 2016 had it mostly right. The RCP polling average was Clinton +3.2. And the election was Clinton +2.1."
But that's not what's relevant to the election or what talking heads, experts, and pundits were saying. They assumed an electoral college landslide, which is why they laughed at the prospect of Trump winning right up through election night with the NYT saying 85% for a Clinton win. Trump was simply not expected to win, becuase Trump voters were relatively silent and not represented in much of the media, and that is why the Bradley Effect was a real thing with Trump's win. He far out performed the conventional wisdom, becuase it relied too much on convention and too little on wisdom.
"My big worry is that the republicans mistake support for Trump for support for Republicans."
That is certainly true, but not a worry for me. I expect that the GOP will move more in the direction of Trump's policies and even style. There is very little appetite for more of the pre-Trump GOP. They are now seen as a near total failure, and mostly worthless place holders between progressive ratcheting leftward presidents.
herein lies the rub:
https://www.amgreatness.com/2019/04/11/in-the-end-the-plotters-won/
I think many have transitioned from, "Anyone but her", to "Anyone but them(D)".
And the more they display insanity the stronger the trend.
I find it hard to believe that Trump is less popular now than in 2016. People like me who were lukewarm back then, have been pleasantly surprised, and his base certainly has not started looking for a replacement. I would also suspect that some former Trumpaphobics have been relieved that their fears did not materialize. He has not done any of the things I feared he might.
I like Crenshaw as a post-Trump candidate.
Don't wanna jump the gun, though. 2020 is gonna be close and tough. Lotta egos (and dollars) at stake.
I guess my dream scenario is Biden bows out, Bernie wins the Dem nomination, and Howard Schultz runs 3rd Party.
At that point, Trump will be a shoo-in.
Chuck's "performance" of late has been an absolute joy to behold.
Watching masks get ripped off and exposing the dishonesty and malevolence of the left is always rewarding.
What Is The Definition Of Wall In Soccer?
This defensive strategy involves placing a line of players in front of an opponent taking a free kick. ... The wall must be positioned at least 10 yards away from the free kick location; in some cases, a referee will move the wall back before allowing the kick to be taken.
What Is The Definition Of Wall In TRUMPVERSE?
This defensive strategy by GEOTU Trump involves placing a line of players (ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS OR DEMOCRATS) in front of HIS BASE so that he gets a free kick until 2020.
Here's a funny article -- in Slate of all places -- about the first 100 days of the Dem House.
Since then, though, the new majority, which has more conservative Blue Dogs and more socialists, along with vocal freshman members with large social media followings who aren’t afraid to clash with senior members, has begun to grind along its fault lines. Democrats have allowed Republicans to split them with gimmicky procedural votes, disrupting their messaging on long-sought legislative priorities. They lost a week melting down over how to address Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar’s comments that some within the caucus perceived as anti-Semitic. And the day before the retreat—what timing!—broad disagreements on spending levels between the party’s conservative and progressive flanks scuttled a plan to pass a budget bill.
Democratic leaders, of course, vigorously deny that any of this is a problem.
“We’ve had 100 days of success,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said at the retreat’s opening press conference on Wednesday, “and yesterday was no exception.”
Nancy Pelosi and her Dem colleagues are simply delusional. They are not grounded in reality.
"Nancy Pelosi and her Dem colleagues are simply delusional. They are not grounded in reality."
Oh, they're not delusional, they're perfectly grounded in reality. They're just evil, and they're gaslighting everyone else. Plenty of their supporters who look crazy are simply in on it.
that's pretty weak, actually, the bulwinkle offers fresher hot takes:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/04/12/thousands-retired-soldiers-protest-central-london-motorbikes/
Earnest Prole:. The immigration failure while Republican had both houses was on purpose. He's keeping you people foaming at the mouth over shithole Invaders is #1 2020 campaign lightning rod. I sayed all along, Trump does not care about illegals, just keeping deplorables stimulated
mccullough said...Trump could have lost Wisconsin and Michigan and would have still won.
--
Trump campaign was initially writing off WI. Tommy Thompson felt it was within reach and advised them so.
see what I mean:
https://thebulwark.com/what-we-already-know-about-the-mueller-report-should-scare-us/
Cruz was every bit as strong on immigration as Trump.
I distinctly remember crowds going berserk when Cruz would start that “build the wall!” chant.
The votes in the key swing states are to a certain extent linked to the overall vote. But bottom line, its going to come down to who can win Florida, Ohio, NC, and Pennsylvania. Personally, I've become so disgusted over the Democrats behavior since November 2016, I will NEVER vote for another Democrat, unless Hell freezes over. And I'm shocked that others don't feel the same way.
The sad truth, is the Democrats will do ANYTHING to win, and we have 45% of the USA that is Yellow Dog Democrat. Thanks to Immigration and open border freaks like McCain and Romney, its getting harder and harder for Republican to win the POTUS. So, I'm glad Trump is doing better - but I'm not, repeat not, optimistic about 2020.
The never Trumpers say Trump is not guilty, but he probably needs to be removed from office anyway. Way to much cash bribes is at stake.
Trump fans don't realize that the polls are accurate although, in reality, the polls completely missed the Trump voter surge and the Hagedorn surge and the support for Bibi.
Trump fans keep thinking that Trump won a great victory because he is President, not Hillary. In reality, Hillary came in first if, in reality, reality had been different. From what it was.
Trump fans keep thinking that Trump was exonerated by the Mueller report. In reality, reality is what CNN, MSNBC, ABC, Wapo and others say it is; and realistically it would destroy their prestige to describe reality realistically in the case of the Mueller report so that realistically we can no longer expect realistic reality. From them.
Ted Cruz was my first choice in 2016. But he could not have won against Hillary. There's simply NO WAY Wisconsin, Michigan or Pennsylvania was going to vote for him.
Blogger Chuck said...
I'll rephrase that, to be careful because the Althouse commentariat (not to mention Althouse herself) will look at everything I write with the most critical scrutiny.
Trump may not have dropped into the most-net-negative period of any president. Rather, Trump is the most consistently negatively-rated president. He's never been in positive territory, ever. And that is unlike every other modern president.
That is, in fact true.
It's true because the Deep State / Dem coup attempt, with MSM support, completely nuked Trump's honeymoon starting period with their lies about Russian / Trump collusion.
However, while true, it's also irrelevant. If Trump goes in to Nov 2020 with his current approval rating, he's highly likely to win.
And pull the GOP across the finish line, too.
And that is all that matters.
If you go to the Rasmussen daily tracking poll you will see that Trump and Obama have had almost identical aproval numbers for the same time in their presidencies for the last 17 months.
The meme is that Obama was wildly popular and everyone hates Trump, but at least according to Rassmussen that is not true. Perception is not always reality. Obama easily won reelection in 2012, and Trump will do the same in 2020.
There has probably never been a more poorly-qualified Fed nominee than Herman Cain.
Herman Cain was chairman of the the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City from 1994 to 1996. The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City covers the 10th District of the Federal Reserve, which includes Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and portions of western Missouri and northern New Mexico. It is second only to the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco in size of geographic area served. These last two sentences are from Wikipedia.
It strikes me that Mr. Cain is very well qualified to serve on the Federal Reserve Board.
He's keeping you people foaming at the mouth over shithole Invaders is #1 2020 campaign lightning rod.
Howard, those are angels with dirty faces. Why do you lefties not want these peaceful immigrants who do jobs American won't do?
What makes this “dangerous” in Schiff’s eyes? Why would any Democrat oppose this? Why would any member of the left-wing media be outraged over this? Why wouldn’t they be fully supportive of sending illegals in need of sanctuary to their own self-described sanctuary cities?
We’ve been told for years by these people that illegal immigrants are a net positive. They supposedly commit less crime (they don’t), do the jobs Americans won’t do, and provide valued diversity. The Democratic party believes that so much that they refuse to do anything to stem the tide. The media believes it so much that they run cover 24 hours a day for lax immigration efforts. CNN’s Jim Acosta once quoted the poem on the statue of liberty asserting that it was our duty to allow illegal immigration.
You've got me stumped here, Howard,.
McConnell of course is doing everything possible to ensure a Trump loss in 2020. The POTUS knows that healthcare is the Democrats big issue and he wanted to get a great healthcare reform bill passed. But of course, McConnell is in the pocket of the Big Drug and Insurance Companies and doesn't want to change anything.
Same with immigration. Mitch LOVES open borders - although he pretends not to. Notice how, with the exception of a few like Cotton or Cruz, Trump gets ZERO verbal support from the Republcian Senators on border security. In fact, Trump gets ZERO verbal support from about 45 Republican Senators on almost everything, except tax cuts.
"Herman Cain was chairman of the the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City from 1994 to 1996."
Mitt Romney stabbed Cain in the back. There's no reason why Cain can't be on the Fed Reserve board, except he's not part of the "establishment". If Cain was smart, he'd call Mitt a Racist. That's one thing Mitt doesn't like.
Blogger The Vault Dweller said...
"Who can the Republicans possibly field after Trump? Honestly? I think smart money is on Trump winning in 2020, but who can they possibly have run that can win after that?"
Meanwhile, the Democrats are running hard toward bat-crazy socialism, thus becoming un-electable in much of America. The fault lines are starting to show between their identity groups as well. Legal Latinos are leaning right.
The Republicans had a strong field in 2016. Trump has redefined the issues in play. Another strong candidate will emerge. Trump has shown us how the game is played.
I’ve been real surprised at how anti Trump the gop Congress was for the first two years of Trumps term. And don’t even get me started on McCain... With the hand Trump had, he’s played it well.
Finally, the mueller investigation is closed. The Mueller investigation gives Trump a huge lever.
And finally the gop Senate is working with trump, so you will have a fully staffed WH soon!
And the border is in crises, opening more opportunities for Trump.
However, while true, it's also irrelevant. If Trump goes in to Nov 2020 with his current approval rating, he's highly likely to win.
And pull the GOP across the finish line, too.
And that is all that matters.
Timing is everything. Barr and the Inspecter generals reports on the Obama administration spying on a political campaign should be wrapped up before the primary voting. The FISA warrant that contained fake opposition contracted information paid for the Clinton's Wife and the DNC, is already a know quantity. There is no way to spin that warrant being presented by the FBI and DoJ. I invite someone, anyone, please give me a positive spin on that single item.
Next is the use of human asset sent after 4 to 8 of Trump campaign workers offering dirt on Clinton's wife. The Trump people did not bite on any of those offers. Luring Trump campaign affiliates to foreign lands and entrapping them.
All of these actions are known. Time, place, people involved.
All the Republicans have to do is remind the voters of what the Democrats on the Senate Judicairy committee attempted to do Justice Kavanaugh, and the Obama administration spying on a political opponent and ask if that is the political party that should have any power at all?
Let me say this as succinctly as I can, Trump is a buffoon and so are his supporters.
One Sane Democrat - Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) endorses Sen. Collins (R-Maine).
Yeah, I know Collins is kinda "uni-party," but still the country could use more of this bipartisanship and many more Manchins.
Let me say this as succinctly as I can, Trump is a buffoon and so are his supporters
And what, pray tell, does it say about folks who continually get beat by a buffoon?
" In Trump’s case he should have told Paul Ryan that his beloved tax cut"
I honestly don't think Paul Ryan really cares. He was pretty much a lame duck House Leader. He was probably more concerned with his future sinecure.
"His administration has INCREASED the number of work visas, a total reversal and betrayal of American workers."
These work visas are probably irrelevant to the real victims of unchecked illegal immigration — lower skilled African-American, and Hispanic, and white workers.
"Yeah, I know Collins is kinda "uni-party," but still the country could use more of this bipartisanship and many more Manchins."
I agree we need a lot more Manchins - and a lot fewer Collins.
Hey Howard, I'm a proud Deplorable so go fuck yourself.
As for polls, it seems as if the ones close to the actual voting are designed to keep the lower-polling candidate's people at home, thinking it's a foregone conclusion.
THEOLDMAN
I honestly don't think Paul Ryan really cares. He was pretty much a lame duck House Leader. He was probably more concerned with his future sinecure.
If he cared enough to squire the tax cuts through, he could have been made to care enough to allow an immigration bill through in exchange. But that would have required skill in the art of negotiation on Trump’s part. It’s not like any of this is really all that controversial — Trump already admitted he fucked up his immigration strategery with Congress.
The Vault Dweller said... "Who can the Republicans possibly field after Trump?"
1) We've got 53 Senators, 27 Governors and all of Trump's cabinet with the right "credentials".
2) If you'd asked me in 2014, I would have given you a long list -- and President Trump wouldn't have been on it.
Re: Cain for Fed...
He was NOT the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
He was the Chairman of the Board of the Omaha branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
It's still relevant experience, but it's like confusing a state senator for a U.S. senator.
Re: Immigration and guest worker visas...
From the very first speech Trump gave on immigration -- the very first speech of his campaign (you may remember it for the lie that he called all Mexicans rapists) -- he's drawn a clear distinction between legal and illegal immigration. The former is good for the country. The latter is terrible for us. And he's been very clear that just relabeling illegals as legals (aka amnesty) doesn't fix the problem.
There's no hypocrisy in expanding worker visas.
"I distinctly remember crowds going berserk when Cruz would start that “build the wall!” chant. "
I remember a whole lot of the commentariat here, including me, being pretty damn delighted when he suggested confiscating El Chapo's cash to build the wall.
But great job giving credit where it's due. I can't *imagine* why more Republicans don't come out in vocal opposition to illegal immigration, given that even the ones that do, even ones whose positions are actually even tougher than Trump's, are completely dismissed by the people who claim it's their most important issue - people like you - unless they do it by starting up crowd chants. You are the problem.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Let me say this as succinctly as I can, Trump is a buffoon and so are his supporters.
Do you speak Russian?
I disagree that Trump could have gotten anything done by Congress on the border when the GOP had the majority. They are bright and paid for, Trump is then only person in DC who is not on the make.
That is why they sent skippy Kennedy after hom:
https://www.steynonline.com/9295/the-craven-pile-on-of-hollow-conservatives
but still the country could use more of this bipartisanship and many more Manchins.
Yeah, he’s always there when you don’t need him.
Well, you know, you have those limousine liberals and country club Republicans with their multi-acre gated estates, and they've found an illegal who will mow their estates for $50. What they're hoping is that they can find some newly arrived illegal desperate enough to do it for even less.
My Republican former Congresswoman was for open borders and voted against AHCA. When she needed votes from us deplorables, they weren't forthcoming.
Timing is everything. Barr and the Inspecter generals reports on the Obama administration spying on a political campaign should be wrapped up before the primary voting.
I agree. Does anyone think the finding of no collusion was NOT reached before the mid-terms?
I disagree that Trump could have gotten anything done by Congress on the border when the GOP had the majority.
He turned down a deal on the wall because he thought he could get more and ended up getting nothing. Why the aversion to holding him to the dealmaking standard he set for himself? Failure Theater requires a willing audience.
Howard has gone full beta male conspiracy theorist.
He held out for a better deal. He didn't get one.
He's now free to pursue his own ends.
Earnest Prole said...
I disagree that Trump could have gotten anything done by Congress on the border when the GOP had the majority.
He turned down a deal on the wall because he thought he could get more and ended up getting nothing. Why the aversion to holding him to the dealmaking standard he set for himself? Failure Theater requires a willing audience.
**********
You seem to forget that we have a Uni-party now, one that has been united in its opposition to Trump.
The Republicans in Congress, venal and cowardly as they are, were not going to work with DJT to secure for him a political victory. They were too busy breathing through their perfumed hankies whenever they were around the OrangeBadMan.
(however, I have to congratulate you for your clairvoyance in knowing what Trump thought. Your ass is GENIUS!)
Big Mike said...
My Republican former Congresswoman was for open borders and voted against AHCA. When she needed votes from us deplorables, they weren't forthcoming.
So you withheld your vote from a Republican because you were miffed? How about I do that if I ever see Trump's name on another ballot? What sort of Republican will you think I am?
I'm actually not aware of ANY current Republicans who are "for open borders." Please define "open borders" and tell me which congressional Republicans are "for open borders."
Someday you Trumpists might need votes from us Republicans. And they won't be "forthcoming." Matter of fact, that day happened in November of 2018.
That was around the time that Durbin came up with that stupid statement, then a judge determined that daca existed even though there was no law.
What sort of Republican will you think I am?
A Democrat?
Chuck,
You pussy country club guys are the ones groveling before the Social Justice Warriors.
No one needs you. You are useless.
Someday you Trumpists might need votes from us Republicans. And they won't be "forthcoming." Matter of fact, that day happened in November of 2018.
At first, I thought that was Inga's post, but it was our favorite concern troll/LLR Chuckles.
I guess they are both part of the hive mind.
Doc Mike confirms my point. Trump is showman and knows to keep them wanting more theatre. Not a conspiracy, just a brilliant political strategy.
mccullough said...
Chuck,
You pussy country club guys are the ones groveling before the Social Justice Warriors.
No groveling this week. They are all in Augusta. Thanks for asking and have a nice weekend.
no that was on the Obamacare repeal and border enforcement, ryan went so far as to put up the curbelo, bill to draw votes from goodlatte,
Jim at said...
What sort of Republican will you think I am?
A Democrat?
I voted for all Republicans. Some Democrat I am. I even voted for Trump.
oh was that important,
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6903755/Kenneth-Starr-admits-omitted-report-Hillary-Clinton-triggered-Vince-Fosters-suicide.html
"Someday you Trumpists might need votes from us Republicans. And they won't be "forthcoming." Matter of fact, that day happened in November of 2018."
Fine by me. You guys are traitors. We held our nose and supported your RINO Cucks, Maverick Moderate and Mittens, for the good of the party. And when it was your turn to hold up your end of the deal you knifed us in the back.
I would rather lose to Hillary than trust you treacherous weasels again.
Can't decide if Kenneth Starr is a naif, idiot or fellow sociopath to Hillary!?
Hillary more than likely was privately gloating at own power to destroy life after the event.
Brings to mind Peter Keating and Lucius Heyer last meeting in the Fountainhead.
Blogger clint said...
Re: Cain for Fed...
He was NOT the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
He was the Chairman of the Board of the Omaha branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
Actually, he was both. From Wikipedia:
"Cain was chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Omaha Branch from 1989 to 1991. He was deputy chairman, from 1992 to 1994, and then chairman until 1996, of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City."
Seems like being chairman of one of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks (Private) would be good experience for being on the Federal Reserve Board (Govt) which is charged with regulating the banks.
I think it is racism. He is a negro who escaped the plantation. He is guilty of being black and republican. If he was a Democrat, or white, given the entire same CV, he would be fine and nobody would even be talking about it. He would just be confirmed.
John Henry
Chuck said...
I voted for all Republicans. Some Democrat I am. I even voted for Trump.
Nobody believes you Chuck.
You are an admitted racist and smear merchant.
Good bye.
We never want you to claim you voted for Trump again.
You had nothing to do with him becoming president. You thought it was a disaster he won.
well the usual suspects romney, Murkowski, and gardner, were against him, axelrod had waged a little round of harassment, that took him out of the first tier in December of 2011,
Adam Schiff republican Chuck: "I voted for all Republicans. Some Democrat I am. I even voted for Trump."
There is zero evidence that happened.
Zero.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"Let me say this as succinctly as I can, Trump is a buffoon and so are his supporters."
Hey Smarty Pants. Let me help you...
"Trump and his supporters are baffoons"
..is more succinct. Duh.
(I think you were looking for a different word, like "clearly", but you wasted your Daddy's money on a Diversity Studies degree. Ask your librarian to show you a Stegasaurus.
And hey (hay!), if Trump is a such a bafoon, how come you baboons keep getting your heads handed to you? Bad luck?
Chuck said...
You are arguing something that you think is important. All that I was pointing out was the fact that the 2016 polling was not wrong. All the polling taken broadly together was well within the margin of error. Trump fans keep thinking that Trump won a great victory, when he lost the popular vote.
The polling was wrong.
The only reason Hillary won the popular vote is because California had an absurd number of illegal voters voting in a dozen corrupt counties.
"Nobody believes you Chuck."
I can't believe how stupid he is. For 2 years all he's done is hate on Trump, and only now does he mention voting for him? Did he really think that would fly?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा