Voters have had it with Trump
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Voters have had it with Trump
APRIL 29, 2019
Americans in poll after poll continue to register their disapproval of President Trump and his policies. The Post-ABC poll taken after the release of the Mueller report shows 39 percent approve and 54 percent disapprove of his performance — roughly consistent with polls from Reuters/Ipsos (40/53), Politico-Morning Consult (39/57) and Monmouth (40/54) but less favorable than others.
The Post-ABC polls shows he gets poor marks on immigration (39/57) and his national emergency declaration (34/64). The special counsel’s probe didn’t change most Americans’ minds (58) about Trump but for those who were affected 23 percent felt more negatively and 11 percent more positively about him. By a wide margin, Americans understand he was not exonerated (53/31) and that he has lied to the American people (58/31).
A majority disfavors impeachment and reelecting him. A substantial majority (58 percent) say there is no way they’ll vote for him in 2020. A plurality say Trump’s handling of immigration, health care and trade makes them less likely to vote for him. Only on the economy does Trump’s performance narrowly weigh in his favor (39/32). Here too there is cause for worry for Republicans :
The result previews a fresh wave of populism that could reshape yet another presidential campaign with about 18 months to go before voters decide whether to return Trump to the White House. This sentiment runs the deepest among Democratic and independent registered voters, but also exists among a significant slice of Republicans. About 8 in 10 Democrats and more than 6 in 10 independents say the country’s economic system gives an advantage to those already in power, while nearly a third of Republicans share that view.
What was Trump’s big accomplishment, the tax plan, is now a symbol of his decision to abandon economic populism in favor of crony capitalism and huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
Finally, the Mueller report makes 36 percent less likely to vote for him and only 14 percent more likely to vote for him, with the rest unchanged.
Health care was the Republicans’ Achilles’ heel in 2018, and with Trump still vowing to repeal the Affordable Care Act it could be in 2020 as well. The Associated Press reports, “The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll finds that Democrats enjoy a 17 percentage point advantage over Republicans in Americans’ assessments of whom they trust more to handle health care, 40% to 23%.”
Democrats have a substantial upper hand, provided they pick the right plan:
Fifty-seven percent believe the federal government is responsible for making sure all Americans have health care coverage, while 41% think it is not. …
Among all Americans, 42% support a single-payer plan like the one espoused by [Sen. Bernie] Sanders, while 31% express opposition. Another quarter say they are neither in favor nor opposed. Support breaks down along partisan and ideological lines, with liberal Democrats about four times as likely as conservative Republicans to back single-payer.
Christine Knapp, a Republican from Fresno, California, is concerned that Sanders’ approach might affect her current Medicare coverage. …
The partisan gap narrows significantly, however, for the option of Americans buying into a government program.
Overall, 53% support the buy-in option, with 17% opposed and 29% on the fence.
Similar shares of Democrats back the two plans. But Republicans are nearly twice as likely to support a public option plan as a single-payer plan, 44% to 22%.
Put this all together and you have a wounded president who is widely regarded as a liar and whose singular domestic objective for a second term — repealing the ACA — is hugely unpopular. Things could get worse for Trump if, for example, the economy cools down or if the Democratic nominee champions the super-popular public option plan, in contrast to Trump’s vow to take away the ACA (and, to boot, cut Medicare).
This does not, however, mean the Democrats are home free. We learned in 2016 that as bad as Trump is, a weak Democratic nominee whom Trump can demonize still might lose. Trump’s best and perhaps only chance for political survival is a Democratic nominee who lures the spotlight away from Trump’s failings, either because he or she has serious personal flaws or because the Democratic nominee can be painted as ideologically extreme and dangerous.
Whether Democrats think that Trump is the cause or the symptom of disunity, grave inequality, cynicism about government and fraying of democratic norms and institutions, you will be hard-pressed to find any who disagree with the premise that unless Trump is removed before 2020 or loses in 2020, none of the repair work necessary to address the conditions in which Trump flourished can be undertaken.
Logically, then, the single most important factor for Democrats should be electability. Whether they will choose their nominee on that basis remains to be seen, but a party doesn’t often have the chance to run against an incumbent president this weak and unpopular. Democrats better make the most of it.
We await the compulsory positive spin from the Trumsters.
It doesn't matter what some poll says this early on.
The Democrats have done nothing lately to inspire the voters, and will end up with an unelectable stiff for a candidate.
Trump will easily be reelected.
His detractors and enemies forget that the DOJ will be getting very busy in next year and half attempting to unravel the lies and corruption that led to the Muller investigation. That's not going to be going away.
Progressive leftist liberal Democrat voters have had it with Trump. There I fixed it...
Once the milk goes bad you have to throw it away. This polling result recognizes that eternal fact. Many people who voted for Trump have come to the realization that he conned them. They will not go back to him , mainly because they don't want to continue to be suckers.
Seems the left have forgotten we don't elect anyone using polls. Otherwise Hillary would be president right now.
Which also shows that we aren't electing anyone based on American votes either. Moving further away from a Democracy and closer to Authoritarianism.
So, another person who does not believe in 1 person 1 vote as supported by the Constitution. Good to know.
True, it would require a constitutional amendment.
Actually, it would only take an electoral majority of States to pass a law giving their electoral votes to the popular vote winner. This has already passed in 12 States possessing 172 electoral votes. They just need an additional 98 electoral votes and already have bills that have passed at least one legislative chamber in 11 other states possessing an additional 89 electoral votes. If they can get those fully passed through their State legislatures we'll need just 9 more electoral college votes and we'll have effectively gotten rid of the electoral college in all but name.
Did I say that? Are you just trying to distract again? I am talking 1 person 1 vote as supported by the Constitution. If you are going to reply to my comment, try to keep it on subject.
the constitution supports the electoral college... LOL
states cannot change the constitution by passing mere laws.
that takes an amendment going thru the amendment process. and nothing less.
those "national majority vote" laws will be struck down by the supreme court the moment the states try to enact them. the people in the states who just lost their political voice? will sue the shit out of every one of those states.... and win.
the states will find they cannot ignore the votes of the majority of people in their states because of a contrarian national majority. because... that is unconstitutional.
My comment was about doing away with the electoral college - what Texan stated. That requires a constitutional amendment.
Did you not realize that I was supporting your comment?
I don't believe that at all. If they won the popular vote there's no doubt a large portion of California would have voted for them. If they can appeal across party lines I would vote Republican, I'm not tied to any party like many Republicans seem to be. Ronald Reagan was elected California governor before he was the Republican Presidential role model they claim to all revere.
those "national majority vote" laws will be struck down by the supreme court the moment the states try to enact them. the people in the states who just lost their political voice? will sue the shit out of their states.... and win easily.
the states will find they cannot ignore the votes of the majority of people in their states because of a contrarian national majority. because... that is unconstitutional.
no matter how much ya want it? the USA will never be a democracy
One person one vote would (in essence) pick the PotUS by popular vote. Implementation would be trivially easy. No changes would be made except to the Constitution. Changing the Constitution to allow that, however, would be brutally difficult since the smaller states (as was true during the formation of our nation) would not easily give up their influence as a state.
Well there's an optimistic view, for Putin and authoritarians everywhere. You claim the State passed laws would be "struck down" the moment they are enacted but provide absolutely ZERO evidence to back it up. The only one who might sue would be a potential electoral vote winner and they'd be laughed out of court. I thought Republicans supported States rights? But now it seems they want to demand the Federal government step in and force other States to comply to their will. States have every right to determine how they apportion their electoral votes even now. Some States give all their electoral votes to the popular vote winner in their State and others apportion them to the percentages each candidate won. States voted to decide how they would give their electoral votes and that has been allowed since our founding, thus if they vote to give their votes not to the majority State winner but to the national majority winner they would have every right to do so no matter how much some gnash their teeth and scream that it's not fair that the candidate who got the most votes should win the election. Of course those who have been enjoying two to three times their vote value because of the electoral college are going to go bananas, but lets face it, most were already bananas so really not much of a change.
I can certainly imagine smaller states objecting to this. And they will likely be joined by the minorities in the smaller states.
To me, I have always thought that the most logical incremental approach is to do away with all-or-nothing in states and have each electoral vote be determined by the popular vote in each corresponding district. The additional two votes for the state would come from the popular vote for the state. That way voters are still represented (the clustering is at the district level rather than the state) and the smaller states still hold their state influence.
This, however, requires cooperation and I doubt that the states would all cooperate and all forego the all-or-nothing rule.
The District of Columbia and 48 states have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate), takes all of the state's Electoral votes.
So already in almost every State, those who vote in the minority have their electoral vote portion going to the majority winner in the State.
The whole idea behind voting where the minority loses is "disenfranchising all those who vote in the minority". The electoral college is one of the only voting systems where the majority is actually disenfranchised.
What they are telling small States is that 1 vote equals 1 vote. What we've been telling small States is they are somehow more important than big States and their 1 vote should count as 3. And we've been telling big States like California and New York to go fuck yourselves, no matter how many Americans live there we're not allowed to have the same vote as someone from Montana.
I believe a national popular vote is inevitable. The big States are getting bigger and the small States are shrinking so the disparity is only going to grow. Someday, maybe every American will support the idea of 1 vote equals 1 vote, but I'm sure those who hold the 3 to 1 advantage will fight tooth and nail till their bonus votes are ripped out of their bitter fingers.
I tend to agree this isn't a great idea for the very reasons it ignores the minority. On the other hand if that small state population doesn't like it they can elect different law makers, like every other state, and have the law changed.
I agree. At the very least the electoral votes for each district should go to the winner of the district. The two state votes would then go to the popular winner for the state. I suspect the founders did not do this due to the complexities of tallying at the time. We could do this in a heartbeat today.
No more disenfranchising than the electoral system already is, in fact it would be less so.
There are 3.5 million residents of Connecticut with about 1.2 million registered voters. 70% would be 844,855 American citizens who would be effectively "disenfranchised" in your scenario. In the 2016 election 3 million American citizens had their votes effectively "disenfranchised" due to the electoral college.
Why should a voter from one States vote count for more or be more important not to disenfranchise than another? Are we not supposed to be equal citizens regardless of the State we come from?
If we got rid of the electoral college everyone would be exactly the same, and I don't give a fornicating fig about what States might be disenfranchised or have less say just because they have a lower population. If every voter gets 1 vote and it counts as 1 vote then no citizen is being disenfranchised regardless of the whiny low population States crying foul. A State is not a citizen. If your State has fewer citizens and thus less representation, then attract more citizens.
If every State changed from the winner-take-all system the outcome should essentially be what the popular vote outcome would have been. I believe either getting rid of the electoral system or getting rid of winner-take-all would have effectively the same results so I'd support either one. Either would be a far more accurate representation of what the majority of Americans desire instead of letting some dunce cap drop-out playing wannabe confederate Nazi with 3 times the voting power of a law abiding tax paying single mom from California.
There is no popular vote in our Constitution
to end the electoral college means we would cease being a Constitutional Republic of 50 Sovereign States. Ours is a Federal, not a National Government by design
"But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States." --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 32
Alexander Hamilton Speech to the New York Ratifying Convention
Date: June 17, 1788
The State governments possess inherent advantages, which will ever give them an influence and ascendancy over the National Government, and will for ever preclude the possibility of federal encroachments. That their liberties, indeed, can be subverted by the federal head, is repugnant to every rule of political calculation
James Madison Republic of Dual Sovereignty
“James Madison: Essay on Sovereignty
Dec. 1835
For security agst. oppression from abroad we look to the Sovereign power of the U. S. to be exerted according to the compact of Union; for security agst. oppression from within, or domestic oppression, we look to the sovereign power of the State. Now all Sovereigns are equal; the Sovereignty of the State is equal to that of the Union; for the Sovereignty of each is but a moral person. That of the State and that of the Union are each a moral person; & in that respect precisely equal". These are the words, in a speech which more than any other, has analized & elaborated this particular subject; and they express the view of it finally taken by the Speaker*, notwithstanding the previous introductory one, in which he says, "The States whilst the Constitution of the U. S. was forming, were not even shorn of any of their Sovereign power by that process" Tellegraph Mar. 23. 1834 or 3 et sequent in the Enquirer of Apl. 20.”
It would certainly come close. The difference of course is that we would still have a winner-take-all for each district but that does not strike me as a problem.
My guess is that removing winner-take-all would be easier than eliminating the electoral system. At least I can see the former having a chance to pass.
A bit too dramatic.
True: a popular vote for PotUS is not part of the CotUS. We are indeed a federated constitutional republic and the states are each semi-independent functioning entities that are constitutionally represented in the federal government.
False: a popular vote for PotUS would not end our federated constitutional republic. Congress would not change from its state-represented system. A popular vote for PotUS was briefly considered in the original constitutional convention and was dismissed because it was both impractical and not favorable, not because it would contradict the principles under consideration.
None of your response is historically factual
nor is there a right to vote for not only president, but members,of Congress. The Constitution only addresses what state and local governments cannot do to restrict voting
Americans are so terribly ignorant about the Constitution. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE CONSTITUTION. This fact has been observed by some on the left in the past few years.
“The Bill of Rights, as the name implies, lists a wide variety of privileges of citizenship that cannot be taken from Americans without due process. You have the right to free speech, you have the right to bear arms, you have the right to a fair trial, etc. The right to vote, however, isn’t mentioned.
By Steve Benen, Producer of Rachel Maddow Show
Matt Yglesias had a good piece on this yesterday.
All of which leads to the question about a constitutional amendment, making the affirmative right of an adult American citizen to cast a ballot explicit within our constitutional system.
For some in Congress, this isn’t just an academic exercise. TPM had this report back in May.
( This should be interesting .)
This makes no sense. I never said anything about a right to vote . ( Someone is not reading .)
I will spell it out for you. We were discussing how to change the way we elect the PotUS that would be closer to a popular vote . We were not discussing a right to vote . Two different things. See?
Want to try again? This time reply to what was being discussed.
nor is a conjunctive meaning since you want to assume lack in knowledge, to join two subjects together
Calling for changing the way we elect presidents involves also implementing a right to vote
Next I get back to answering your lack of historical fact
While a few people at the Constitutional Convention advocated for national popular vote, overwhelmingly, the sentiment was against it. Which was also why the Constitution did not allow for popular vote of Senators until the 17 th Amendment
The Founders rightly feared the Tyranny of the Majority which a Democracy would do to our nation.
“ Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, whose state eliminated slavery in 1780, opined that “the great evil of cabal and corruption” could not be avoided under a direct popular vote. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, a State which fully disposed of the institution even earlier, called a national referendum “radically vicious” for these same reasons. Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, a state that passed its gradual emancipation act of 1784, also raised explicit objections against a presidential election through the people at large.
Charles Pinckney of South Carolina noted that his misgivings against such a popular vote system were “obvious & striking,” declaring that one several of the most populous states would be led by a “few active & Designing men,” combining in favor of the same individual despite the chagrin of the rest of the country. John Rutledge of South Carolina opposed a national vote because he favored selection of the executive by Congress “
Madison and Hamilton, key authors of the Constitution both adamantly opposed any popular vote
“ In creating the basic architecture of the American government, the Founders struggled to satisfy each state’s demand for greater representation while attempting to balance popular sovereignty against the risk posed to the minority from majoritarian rule. [11] Smaller states in particular worried that a system that apportioned representatives on the basis of population would underrepresent their interests in the federal structure.
Out of this concern arose a compromise proposed by the Committee of Eleven at the Constitutional Convention, [12] which helped to balance the competing interests of large states with those of smaller states. By allocating electors on the basis of a state’s cumulative representation in the House and Senate, the Electoral College system avoids purely population-based representation but still gives larger states greater electoral weight.”
A grammatical strawman now?
So you find this to be different from what I wrote, eh?:
What does the phrase 'briefly considered' mean to you? You basically paraphrased my point. Did you notice?
So now you proceed to offer all sorts of information on how the founders dismissed the national popular vote. Given that is what I stated what do you hope to accomplish? After all, if I were to state: 'water is wet ' would it make a great deal of sense for you to come back and claim I am wrong with a detailed explanation of why water is wet?
We were discussing changes to the electoral system that would get closer to a national popular vote. Not only have you totally missed that (even though I made it clear to you in my prior post) but you are now fully involved in debating a point (the founders briefly discussed and dismissed a national popular vote) that I asserted upfront.
Hello?
The Constitution supports a lot of things, most of which I am not talking about. Get a life and stay on subject of my comments if you chose to reply.
sorry, that fact is, the constitution does not support your theory of one person one vote in a presidential election. the constitution only supports the electoral college in a presidential election.
is that on topic enough for ya?
without an amendment to the constitution, any attempt to "change" the electoral college will be deemed unconstitutional.
no state law passed today or next year can get around the electoral colleges intent.
Prove it.
States choose how they apportion their electoral votes. No change in the electoral system per the CotUS, thus what I proposed does not require a constitutional amendment. However, realistically, it does not matter because the states would all have to agree and that would never happen.
inside their own states and based on their own states majority vote? yes.
once the state ignores its own majority vote in favor of the national majority vote it will be going to court that very day if not that very minute. the election results will be put on hold and in an expedited manner that will be found unconstitutional.
ya can't legislate around the intent of the constitution.
and they can't ignore the voter's majority in a state because the national majority went another way.
that is never gonna fly past the supreme court = no chance. not even a little bit.
cheers
I was referring to every state apportioning its electoral votes on a per district basis:
If the 'winner take all' was changed to a district by district EC vote it would be more representative of each state's electorate.
I think I got conversations between you and dismayed mixed up. my bad yo.
I'm not opposed to states doing their own thing like that.
cheers
That is exactly my thought.
And it is so easy to do nowadays ... trivial even. But it is not the mechanics that prevent this from happening, it is the politics. And I see no way for the 50 states to all agree to this so ultimately (in a practical sense) this could only happen with a constitutional amendment. The amendment would not have to change the electoral system fundamentals (which might make it more likely to be passed) - it could simply remove the option for each state to apportion its electoral votes. The districts, in all 50 states, would determine the electors and the two state electors would be determined by the popular vote within that state.
Glad to see that. But, in reality what I am talking about removes each state's ability to do its own thing. If all 50 states did not apportion then the concept falls apart because there is an advantage to larger states to use 'winner takes all'.
I think this would be a much better system, but have little expectation that it would pass.
question.
would a state allocating electoral votes based on that states district majorities only amplify the problems some have with the electoral college at a national level down to the local level?
is there not a possibility that a state majority might get overridden by the way districts break down inside a state? this could bring gerrymandering to whole nother level.. no?
seems to me the notion of one person one vote goes out the window.
one persons vote only counts if they live in the right district in a state?
and if they live in the wrong district inside a state their votes mean nothing?
perhaps I missed something.
I do not see how. Each district would decide its electoral vote.
The districts are already gerrymandered for congressional representation. The slimy practices of Congress to gerrymander are already in place and fully motivated. Parties already do everything they can to get districts to align with them.
my point is if todays electoral college broken down by states can produce a national majority contrary to the electoral college results. this idea would do the same at the local level inside the states.
for congressional votes? yes. but, in the presidential election, every vote in the state is counted equally regardless of what district it came from.
in the presidential elections, currently, a red vote in a blue district is still counted with other red votes in the state. in this new plan, that would not be the case.
where I live now? with this new plan? my vote would be absolutely meaningless.
I like one person one vote with my state election for president... no mustard, and hold the fries thanks.
cheers
It is theoretically possible because each district would be 'winner takes all' but due to the fact that we are now dealing with 435 congressional districts rather then simply 50 states the chance for disparity is extremely unlikely.
The two electoral votes for each state would go by state popular vote. The electoral vote for each district comes from the district and that is exactly how congresspersons are currently elected. So, my point is that the gerrymandering would not change. If a district were to be changed for the presidential election it would already have been changed for the congressional elections. The Rs want Rs to win and the Ds want Ds to win.
So your congressional vote is meaningless today. You are a minority in your district, right?
Well another way to do it is to apportion the electoral votes based on state popular vote. So if 60% of the state votes for a particular candidate, that candidate gets 60% of the electoral votes.
You still will not get the congressperson of your choice (unless you vote for the majority candidate) unless you move to a better district.
Change COULD come incrementally. One state at a time, spread from state to state. With the way our social media is and with people migrating from state to state, the majority of states could change by 2024. We just need those that live in states that already use that system to promote it and to challenge the rest of the states to make their legislature change the rules so they are more fairly represented.
My state represents me better than yours. Why do you allow your state to ignore your district?
I moved here on purpose... congressional elections are not the same as a presidential election.
but. just for fun, explain exactly why I would want my vote for president to be meaningless as well???
please be specific here.
they are not the same thing nor should they be treated the same.
my vote for president is counted "equally" regardless of what district I live in. = this new plan does not.
my vote for president will not be erased or lessened because I live in a big city full of leftwing idiots.
after this discussion, I have to go back to, "this will never make it past the supreme court."
cheers
are you saying apportion electoral votes directly to congressional districts? effectively erasing state lines?
how did I miss that... LOL
one person one vote in state presidential elections? goes out the window...
this will never happen for a variety of reasons. "VERY unconstitutional being the biggest one.
here's the thing, regardless of how hard one thinks and even if smoke comes out their ears from thinking very hard... the system was designed the way it is for a reason. and states cannot just agree with a wink and a nod to ignore the intent of the constitution.
no amendment = no dice just lawsuits.
but I do agree it would be fun to watch them try and fail
setting conservative precedent at the supreme court is important too.
I even thank obama for the volumes of conservative precedent he set at the supreme court.
That is correct. The trick is to find a way for all 50 states to do it.
No, within each state. This is simple: electoral votes are defined, per the CotUS, as follows:
So, one method to better approximate a popular vote for PotUS is to not go with the "winner takes all" approach at the state level, but rather push it down to the district level.
Example: a state with 8 districts has 10 electoral votes. The popular vote for the state wins the 2 state votes. The remaining 8 votes are determined by who won in each of the 8 districts.
And, as I mentioned, an alternative approach would be to apportion the 10 electoral votes based on the state popular vote. So if a candidate for PotUS receives 60% of the popular vote in the state, that candidate gets 6 of the 10 electoral votes.
In both cases the fundamental structure of the electoral college is not changed.
I lived in a purple district for years. then the GOP redistricted and used tendrils to scoop out Dems from the district. Now I am in a solid blue district and the district I used to live in is solid red. I haven't moved...
The fun of gerrymandering, eh?
I am not following this. I have not made any comments about my state or district. Was this meant for someone else?
My bad, sorry for the confusion.
That's what I suggest that those that live in states where it works can say to people who live in 'winner takes all' states.
The simple way to do it is just like Nebraska and Maine did it, legislation. Yet we both know that those in power don't actually want 'representative' government.
Thing is, if left to the states those states with an advantage to use 'winner takes all' will continue to do so. I have little faith that political agents will act against their political interests. That is why I figure this would require a constitutional amendment. Not to change the electoral system (that would likely never pass) but only to do away with 'winner takes all' and have everyone use the same alternate system — one that brings us closer to a popular vote.
I do not see any real change happening, but the change in apportionment strikes me as the most doable.
As divided as the country is, the concept that ANY Constitutional Amendment would get the required amount of states is hard to imagine.
Agreed.
Sadly so. There are many changes that need to be made. We ALL know it. We just can't get it done because all too many demand the perfect.
... and because the level of partisanship is so high that people will fight anything that the 'other side' favors. There is almost no concept of doing what is right; mostly we see politicians driven by local power advantages.
Voters have had it with Trump
Well let us hope so, but (you know there is always a but) I would not bank the election on polls but on those who actually vote. As I have said before, I would not be so smug as to the demise of Mr. Trump as we found out not too long ago.
Good candidate along with good ideas and a game plan to implement them, then you'll have a win.
That's not even beginning to happen, and probably never will.
Ah. When the Russians and Saudis have finished with the Trump it is over. As far as the Trump voters? They can dig coal in the closed down mines.
The "Left" is ALWAYS "Poll Driven". We've all see how that worked out.
Ya think they'd have learned some kinda lesson from it.
Running on more "Hearings" and "Investigations", doesn't seem to be a good "Kicker" to getting elected. That doesn't get the failed Liberal "Health Care" re,re,re-fixed, or making the "middle class" more prosperous that Dems tout every fucking election cycle, or getting the "Green Smutz" to grow, etc.....
Every day we hear some BS about how popular Trump supposedly is. You would think that after 28 months in office there would be some concrete evidence of it. Instead, all the available evidence is that he the most unpopular president in modern American history. It is what it is, take a deep breath and deal with it.
Really? Truman was down around 19% in favorability. I can count on one hand all of the friends and family who don’t support Trump.
you seem like most on the left live in a leftist bubble that apparently has no real world contact with Americans outside of the Northeast and west coast cities. Out in the real world Trump is hugely popular. I see Pro Trump signs everywhere I go in the rural west
LOL. That I believe.
" This does not, however, mean the Democrats are home free. We learned in 2016 that as bad as Trump is, a weak Democratic nominee whom Trump can demonize still might lose. Trump’s best and perhaps only chance for political survival is a Democratic nominee who lures the spotlight away from Trump’s failings, either because he or she has serious personal flaws or because the Democratic nominee can be painted as ideologically extreme and dangerous."
ALL 21 Democrats running for President for 2020, meet the last statement. They'll agree with anything someone else comes up with !
Democrats are SCREWED !
An article in from a Trump hating web site, seeded by a person who is still in hissy fit mode over Trumps victory. Yeah, this is all the time I'm going to wast on this travesty.
The Washington Post is a Trump hating website?
What do you want me to do, seed from Breitbart? That's your job.
Jeremy, I hate to rain on your parade, but the majority of Americans will never approve of Donald Trump as president.
Yes Bezos hates Trump and has been using the Post to spread his hate of Trump.
Prove me wrong.
Give one example of me using Breitbart.
Apparently they approved of him enough to vote for him.