Keep Up the Tantrums, Kids: Trump’s Approval Up Nine Points Since Election Day

This replaces the article approval rating for October 23, 2016. LOL

The more the sore losers protest in the streets and act out on social media the higher Trumps poll numbers will go because of them.  

favorable rating has jumped 9 points since the election and now sits at 46 percent, according to a poll released Monday.

Jeez Louise, how many times and in how many ways are we going to be reminded of just how much a historical loser is now heading to the Presidency.

46% happens to also be the percentage of the vote Trump has gotten so far.

And over here one can see that no President has started office with approvals numbers this low in modern times.

Most presidents have to work years to look as bad as our new Paper Lion does now and we think this is somehow a good thing?

Most presidents have to work years to look as bad as our new Paper Lion does now and we're cheering this crap?

Absolutely true.  The approval ratings of both candidates were the lowest in my lifetime as I recall.  You had your chance to bring the people together in this country and you blew it.

You had your chance to bring the people together in this country and you blew it.

1 Million, 700 thousand more voting Americans and counting came together to elect Secretary Clinton to lead than voted for Real Estate mogul Trump.

Trump will be taking office while at the same time he is being rejected by the voters in historic numbers as he does so.

Yawn. The Constitution doesn't care about the popular vote. If the left didn't want to elect Trump they should have nominated someone more qualified. 

If the left didn't want to elect Trump they should have nominated someone more qualified.

American voters, by the millions, say they did.  Hillary.

Too bad the left didn't figure out how the Constitution works then. Maybe going back to eighth grade and taking civics will help. 

No candidate tries to win the popular vote. Holding it up as having some meaning is silly.

American voters, by the millions, say they did.  Hillary.

But they were in the wrong states. 

1 Million, 700 thousand more voting Americans and counting came together to elect Secretary Clinton to lead than voted for Real Estate mogul Trump.

Trump will be taking office while at the same time he is being rejected by the voters in historic numbers as he does so.

Look Arkansas, I know it is impossible for me convince you to reach out to the people across this nation as individuals in individual states.  The biggest difference in our line of thinking is you think collective and I think individual.  

You know two states provided over 6 million votes for Hillary and she still didn't beat Trump by over 1.5 to 3 million votes.  The reason the president is elected by the Electoral College is to give the individuals in each state a voice in our government.  The way you are proposing is mob rule.  This is where the hypocrisy of those who say they are for the individual rights of all are clearly not.

You know two states provided over 6 million votes for Hillary and she still didn't beat Trump by over 1.5 to 3 million votes.

Even with all the States that Trump won he still couldn't get within 1.7 to 3 million votes of Hillary's popularity with the American people.

The reason the president is elected by the Electoral College is to give the individuals in each state a voice in our government.

The EC made my vote a non factor in the Presidential election here in Arkansas and did the same to some conservative voter in California. 

Without the EC, every State becomes a battleground State, a swing State, because every vote carries equal weight throughout the United States of this Republic.

As far as I'm concerned Pres-Elect Trump is just more proof that the EC doesn't work as the framers intended.

Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers, ” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

A majority of Americans think Trump can't do the job.  A majority of Americans voted to keep him out of the job. 

Now, do you really think that the Electors will do their job as Hamilton intended them to and keep Trump out of the office?

Don't get me wrong, Trump won and will be president, baring divine intervention, and as I stated back on November 9th , "Congratulations to the new T-Party (trump-party).  Hope President Trump goes down as the best president ever."

I truly hope Trump can grown into the job but he's never given us any indication that his time in office will be anything but a complete cock up. 

During the first 69 years of his life Trump has never showed any interest in how the Government works, outside of how to game it to his advantage. 

Worse than than his lack of insight is his complete lack of curiosity about the very institution he is now in charge of. 

Trump will be President because of the EC and that fact alone is proof enough for me that the EC is well past is use by date.

The EC only thwarted the will of the American electric 3 time in the first 200+ years of our Nation but now it has done so twice, in less than the last 20. 

Time for this vestigial law to be removed.  It's already sickened us twice in recent decades so best to cut it out now, before it completely burst and kills our body politic, (as it were).  (smile)

I think the electoral college is a brilliant method of balancing smaller states' views against those of larger states in a federal system that was created by the states. Changing it would require an amendment to the constitution (which is also not by popular vote) and I doubt smaller states will ever vote to neuter themselves. But my problem is with the two-part system, not the electoral college. Whether the electoral college existed or not, these two parties gave me a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. If I voted to eliminate something, it would be political parties. 

If I voted to eliminate something, it would be political parties.

Hell of a lift 1ofmany, much harder to do than getting around the EC. 

The States agreeing to give their EC votes to the National popular vote winner is a done deal compared to all the changes we would need to implement for a Parliamentary style governing system here in America.

Even if we could get a multi party system going they would still have to basically govern like our current two party system.  One group in power and one group the loyal opposition. 

We'd still have some variation of the D's + the Green's + the Socialist etc.. banding together in common cause and the R's + L's + National Policy Institute folks doing the same to push their agenda.

Whichever party associations gain a majority in the House would then get to pick the Pres./Prim Minister?

A multi party governing system here in America looks pretty far away.

AH -- I don't think either is realistic. The smaller states have no more reason today to be dominated by the larger states than they did when the constitution was drafted. So the electoral college isn't going anywhere. As for political parties, the constitution doesn't mention them at all. States have a lot of control over how a two party system is encouraged or discouraged but they, themselves, are controlled by the parties. I guess I'll just watch them seesaw national control back and forth because neither one represents a majority view. 

The smaller states have no more reason today to be dominated by the larger states than they did when the constitution was drafted

1ofmany , the sad thing is how the results of the EC this go round harked back to the roots of its existence. 

Since the time of the 12th amendment, (allowing parties to designate one candidate for president and a separate candidate for vice president), the EC was no longer needed to keep an uninformed mass of voters from picking some dictator, since the parties now chose the candidates. 

Direct elections were proposed at that time but they decided to keep the EC on the books for the benefit of the slave states.

At the Philadelphia convention , the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

Now here's what's funny, ( ironic funny, not ha ha funny ), about that decision to keep the EC back in the early 1800's and the election a few weeks back, it's still helping out one group of Americans at the expense of other groups.

White voters are over-represented in swing states

The same approach also lets us introduce ethnicity into the picture, because we know the approximate ethnic composition of voters in each state — the proportion who are white, black, Hispanic, or “other.” We can average this across states and thus compute the average probability of decisiveness for everyone of each of these ethnic groups, across the country.

After running the numbers, we estimate that, per voter, whites have 16 percent more power than blacks once the Electoral College is taken into consideration, 28 percent more power than Latinos, and 57 percent more power than those who fall into the other category.

Based on our calculations before the election, the five states with the highest voting power per voter were New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. According to exit polls, the voters in these states were 80 percent white, compared with 70 percent in the country as a whole. Or, to take a slightly different tack, after the election the five closest states in percentage vote margin were Michigan, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Voters in those states were 73 percent white — again, higher than the nationwide figure.

Yep, a common racist argument that doesn't wash.

If what you say is true, it would all have been overturned with emancipation.

Yet it wasn't.

Anyone can extrapolate a racism argument for or against anything.

This particular argument, raised many times over the years by the elitists is a perfect example of it.

The emancipation proclamation eliminated the 3/5th compromise. Dumping a huge number of voters into the mix. which changed the redistricting of the states effected.

It didn't effect the election process at all.

What really gets me is the EC really really helps the democrats one hell of a lot more than the republicans.

The democrats control fewer districts than the republicans do, always have. But they control the most populated districts.

Which means that it takes fewer districts going their way to win a state and hence their electors.

The State of Washingtion is a perfect example. Ten districts and two senators, 12 electors. Three districts are reliably democrat which means three electors will always be democrat, two senators which are dictated by the overall vote, (reliably democrat) the other seven are either swing districts (60% republican) or republican outright.

Those seven districts that vote reliably republican are forced by winner take all to vote democrat cause of the population of the three districts that have reliable democrat population levels.

That is a dictatorship of the minority. One third of the state completely controls the other two thirds.

The electoral college helps the democrats greatly, and is an albatross around the neck of the republicans.

But I regularly hear liberals want to do away with the one thing that helps them the most with winning elections for president.

Strange people those liberals.

Do away with the electoral college will never happen, changing it to one district one vote, a state right, would eliminate democrat presidential victories in many close elections.

Republican districts dominate this country to the tune of 75%, without winner take all at the state level and the electoral college, it would be a rare year when the democrats won an election for president.

Good to see you again NWM.

If it's just majority rule, why have any states at all? Why should every state get two senators when some states are much more populous than others? Why not abolish the senate altogether? 

The whole purpose of our system is to balance state rights within a federal compact. It creates a balanced form of democracy so one party can't accumulate power without reaching out to a broad spectrum of the electorate. I think it's a great idea. 

Wow after that crushing defeat you are doubling down on the white racist crap?   So the left really has not learned anything from the election?

Crushing defeat ? Your candidate is going to lose the popular vote by more than 2 million votes. Never in the history of this country has some one who is going to take office lost the popular vote so badly. 

Yep, the EC was one of the most brilliant compromises the constitutional convention made. Without it there would not have been a constitution.

What is really being objected to is the winner take all aspect of it. No matter how the popular vote goes the winner of the state gets all the elector vote for that state.

The winner take all aspect is also written into the constitution in that the states have the right to decide how to allocate their electors. 48 states use winner take all, 2 states do it by district. Now this is a political decision by the parties.

What actually happens is at each state convention, while the convention are electing their delegates to the national convention, behind closed doors, the parties are also choosing their slate of electors. There is a republican slate and a democrat slate.

The parties in each state have decided that in the direction the state votes, whichever side wins, gets their slate of electors sent to the college.

This is why 538 is so important and dependent on the popular vote in each state.

In the 240 some odd years of the electoral college, there have only been two faithless electors. Because electors are chosen by their respective political parties ideologically. Only the most faithful and loyal republican and democrats become electors.

The national popular vote totals, although causing a lot of angst, mean nothing, it is the popular vote totals in the individual states that is what controls. That is what sets the electoral college to elect the president.

The popular vote total in each individual state.

You vote does count.

All the angst over the national popular vote is so much sour grapes. The popular vote did decide the election. It just isn't counted the way you think it should be, and the people to blame for that are the political parties themselves.

And if you think it through, the only way to improve it is to have electors that are bound to the district they represent.

Ie. they have to vote the way there district voted in the general.

If they did it this way, you would find that Trump won by a lot more electoral votes than the current method allocates.

The most populous districts cannot dictate the election, if they could, we would be in a dictatorship, not a representative democracy.

Yep, the EC was one of the most brilliant compromises the constitutional convention made. Without it there would not have been a constitution.

I agree completely Nowhere Man.  Tell me, does Gerrymandering have anything at all to do with the Presidential Election?  I understand it has everything to do with Congress, but nothing to do with Presidential Elections as I see it.  I don't believe in this one person one vote in Presidential elections.  I don't use the Constitution as an excuse for not being able to do that, I use the Constitution as a reason we have a Constitutional Federal Republic.

No Gerrymandering has no direct effect on any specific presidential election. And the number of electors are set by the constitution.

Gerrymandering does have an indirect effect though through districts being created that assures a specific political outcome. That directly effects the House of Representatives political makeup, and every ten years, redistricting.

But no, Gerrymandering, a democrat political strategy btw, (named for Elbridge Gerry , one of the signers of the constitution, representative from Massachusetts and the fifth vice president under Madison) has no real direct effect on the presidential election process.

Yep, the EC was one of the most brilliant compromises the constitutional convention made. Without it there would not have been a constitution

The EC & the Three Fifth Solution did save the constitution but I wouldn't call either decision brilliant just because of that.

Both were compromises to appease the Slave States and it still wasn't enough.  Took blood and fire to end slavery and the EC should have gone by by in the same time frame as the 3/5 solutions died.

No, my vote did not count toward the National position I was voting on because of the EC, it was suppressed by the State authorities.

Hey!, I wonder if anyone has thought to challenge the EC with the protections afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment. "The equal protection of the laws" laws part.

.......

I went looking and what do you know!

Shoot, life's just full of what if's & what could be's. (lol)

Constitution Check: Is winner-take-all Electoral College voting in trouble?

January 29, 2013

The only avenue for a lawsuit against a district system may well be a variation on one that worked in 2012 in several lawsuits challenging alleged voter-suppression efforts by Republican officials.  That is a claim that election laws may not be written, or enforced, in a way that denies voters equal opportunity to vote, and to have their votes counted equally.    In those cases, the voters complaining of barriers were minority voters, but there may be a broader principle at work.

The Supreme Court, in a 1986 decision involving the exclusion of a minor party from the presidential elector ballot in Ohio, ruled that it is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment to put a burden on “the right of individuals to associate for the advancement of political beliefs.”    That hints at a right to sue, by members of a political party, to challenge a system that, in practical terms, undermines their right to collectively make a political choice.

Lawyers are creative people, and lawyers who specialize in election law have very rich legal imaginations.  Thus, it is not beyond contemplation that a lawsuit might be put together to challenge a switch to a districting system when that is done – and is proved to be so – to guarantee that one party’s nominee will prevail no matter how the statewide vote went.

Yep, and that is what the EC was devised to prevent.

Any suit of such nature will eventually go to the Supreme Court and, as an issue of first impression, the court would have to be guided by the constitution and the intent of the framers.

Such position, no matter how brilliantly argued, would fail constitutional muster by the plain written language of the constitution itself.

Any changes to the election system we currently use will require an amendment to the constitution or a constitutional convention.

Under article five of the constitution there are two methods to amend the constitution.

A two thirds vote of both houses of Congress, or, a constitutional convention can be called by two thirds of the states (38 states) to amend the constitution.

The second method has never been called. And your NEVER going to get the politicians in congress to agree to change the constitution in the manner your thinking.

We have the fairest system one can devise, that allows the people to speak or effect real change without any one group running roughshod over any other.

And I personally think that most American are smart enough to understand that.

Any suit of such nature will eventually go to the Supreme Court and, as an issue of first impression, the court would have to be guided by the constitution and the intent of the framers.

Such position, no matter how brilliantly argued, would fail constitutional muster by the plain written language of the constitution itself.

Why would it fail muster when the Constitution clearly says that each States Legislature can direct the EC votes as they deem fit.

THE CONSTITUTION

Article II

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct , a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

If a State wants winner take all rules for their EC vote distribution, they can do that. 

If a State wants to break it down to where the winner of each voting district gets a proportional distribution of EC votes from their State, they can do that. 

If a State wants to rule that their EC votes will all go to the National Vote winner, then That's what will happen .

  EasyPeasy Lemon Squeezy. (smile)

Reality Check Time....

YOU, brought up an enterprising attorney SUING under the fourteenth amendment to force a state to assign it's electors in a certain way.

Based upon an issue of....

QUOTE:

“the right of individuals to associate for the advancement of political beliefs.”

I rejected that argument with specificity. The constitution specifically reserves said right to decide the way a state allocates it's electors to the individual states ....

And I stated that, and established with certainty, that the only way to change that is modify the constitution.

Now you come back citing the passage of the constitution that prevents any such lawsuit on any grounds.

Thank you for proving my case for me.

Your correct, EasyPeasy Lemon Squeezy.

The state decides how it allocates it's electors, and it will never allocate them based upon a national vote total. Why may you ask?

Why would any state want any other state to have input to how it's electors vote? A state will never give up that right to decide what happen within it's borders. Besides how voters vote in California has no impact in how voters vote in say Oklahoma.

What your arguing for is exactly that, whoever has the most votes wins no matter what the rest of the country says.

I'll let you decide on how much of an ignorant fool you look like. You really need to not embarrass yourself like this....

In the past you have usually represented yourself as smarter than this.

The EC made my vote a non factor in the Presidential election here in Arkansas and did the same to some conservative voter in California.

No it didn't.  Your vote counted and this time they didn't have enough votes like you to win the state, but if they had you would be happy about it, but if the Electoral College were to be eliminated the people of Wyoming and other small states would no longer have a voice in who was elected president from then on.

If you think California should elect the president and think your vote would count there, move there and you can be # 3,000,001 popular vote.  If you can't make it to the poll in 2020, no problem, they won't even miss you.

Like I've already said, people who are always promoting the idea they stand for everyone's rights are not being truthful about it when they want to take away the rights of others to benefit themselves when they see it will.

I can tell you I would feel the same way if the shoe were on the other foot.  I don't think you would be pushing this Popular Vote if the shoe was on the other foot.  You have to understand the flaw in your thinking.  You're smarter than that.

"A majority of Americans think Trump can't do the job."

No, not true.  A majority may have voted for Mrs. Clinton, but the reasoning is as individual as everyone that voted

"A majority of Americans think Trump can't do the job."

No, not true.

You're correct Spikegay. 

Just saw the recent polls showing that 53 percent now think Trump might fall into the good job range.

Guess I was still stuck on the exit poll results.

The 13 most amazing findings in the 2016 exit poll

10. Trump's personal image was and is horrible

Trump's victory should be in no way interpreted as a vote of confidence in him or his capacity to do the job. Less than 4 in 10 voters (38 percent) had a favorable opinion of him. Only 1 in 3 said he was “honest and trustworthy.” Thirty-eight percent said he was “qualified” to be president. Thirty-five percent said he has the “temperament to serve effectively as president.”

How can a candidate win with numbers like these? Because the desire for change was so great that it overrode all of the doubts — or at least many of the doubts — people had about Trump.

Only 40% of his voters thought he was qualified for the job the job when they voted for him?   Holly macaroni!

Yes, we do given that the Harridan would be worse.

You seem to be missing that he was at 37% before the left started rioting and crying racist at half the country. Keep up the juvenile behavior and Trump's approval rating will only continue to rise.  

Guess we're fortunate there are enough states who would be kicked out of the electoral process if a president were to be elected by the popular vote, since it would take these states to change the Constitution in order to cut their own throats and I don't think they will do that.

If he's really going to help make things better he's going to have to piss off a whole lot of people. Doing what is needed to plug the holes and stop this ship from sinking will not make those who think we should follow in the footsteps of the French and Greeks happy. 

Having been laughed at, his supporters might want to crow a bit longer.

I understand, to a point.  But there comes a time when we need to move forward and deal with our problems...  This is not helping, any more than the protests are...

I agree but this is the sad state of hyper partisanship: one side is so distraught that it's standing on the edge of a building threatening to jump while the other side is falling down in laughter saying "go ahead, make my day." We'll just have to wait for things to settle down. 

Don't underestimate the power of positive vibrations and boosting morale. 

Dowser, we'really not crowing.   I don't think there is anyone here who is satisfied with this election.  The blind followers of Obama were warned for the last 8 years and they failed to listen, so they are as much the blame for Trump being our president as anyone.  Harry and the filibuster is another one.

I have to be honest, Six, it feels that way sometimes.

I congratulate Mr. Trump on his win...  I congratulate all of you on his win.  I hope that the democratic party will finally listen to your legitimate beefs, as they rebuild the party.  But please, enough of us are raw to the bone after all of this.

Can't we just get along and talk?  Meet along the fence row and have conversation?  LIke adults?

Dowser, we'really not crowing.   I don't think there is anyone here who is satisfied with this election.  The blind followers of Obama were warned for the last 8 years and they failed to listen, so they are as much the blame for Trump being our president as anyone.  Harry and the filibuster is another one.

Donald Trumps approval rating went up because the 46% of the people who voted for him have to justify it to themselves. It's that simple. 

Donald Trumps approval rating went up because the 46% of the people who voted for him have to justify it to themselves. It's that simple. 

Trump knocked her out of the ring and into the audience. To me, the larger poll number is a reflection of more people clapping about her falling out of the laps of the audience and hitting the floor. 

This whole premise isnt much more than silly. Yes his approval rating went up to match the percentage of people who voted for him. No one wants to admit to themselves that they voted for a fool. 

This whole premise isnt much more than silly. Yes his approval rating went up to match the percentage of people who voted for him. No one wants to admit to themselves that they voted for a fool. 

No, it just makes him a popular fool. 

46% of the people voted for him and that appears to be the extent of his popularity. No way a mandate. 

For Donald Trump to have been a convincing winner of this election he would have to have at least 51% of the vote OR be far ahead of his closest challenger. Neither of those are true. He should be thankful the system favored him , instead of acting like he was a near unanimous choice. 

46% of the people voted for him and that appears to be the extent of his popularity. No way a mandate. 

For Donald Trump to have been a convincing winner of this election he would have to have at least 51% of the vote OR be far ahead of his closest challenger. Neither of those are true. 

The election is determined by electoral votes not popular votes. Hillary can get every single person in the state of California to vote for her and she would still only get 55 electoral votes. Trump trounced her in the vote that counted (the electoral vote) and he has the same mandate that she would have said she had if the situation were reversed . . . whatever that means.

Just in case anyone missed it, 84% of the american voters that voted believe that Trump is the legitimate President elect.

That includes 76% of the democrat Clinton Voters.

Gallup poll taken the day after the election. November 9th 2016 and wasn't released till the 11th.

Funny how you haven't heard this from the Alt-Left media that only wants to bring you the Alt-Left protests as representative of democrat sentiment.

But what it tells me, is the media is Alt-Left in their blind support of an Alt-Left party who refuses to accept the will of the people.

Even Hillary wasn't that stupid.

Jon Stewart nailed it, BOTH parties are to blame.

The Alt-Left Democrats can flame out if they want, of they can get with the program and start rebuilding what is left of this nation, after the destruction caused by their failed policies.

24 years of Alt-policies from an alt-leftist political establishment.

This election represents an end to such.

And it is about damned time.

No one who got 46% of the vote has a mandate to govern. Plus, since Donald Trump is a pathological liar, we really shouldn't want him to have one. 

The media utterly failed the American people in the election, maybe they will learn too late (for this cycle) to do their jobs. 

Was pleasantly surprised to see you here Nowhere-Man.  Welcome!

NWN accurately predicted the outcome of the election when the pros like Nate Silver got it wrong. Good call NWM. 

In all fairness, he did have a 50% chance of being right.  A coin flip in other words. 

Agreed but Silver used voodoo techniques instead of the coin flip. He was predicting a 70% Hillary win. He would have done better flipping the coin. 

The last few days of the election, I got 4-6 emails a day from Nate Silver predicting Ms. Clinton's loss.  So, at least from my inbox, he knew she was going to lose...  Note:  every email was asking for $$.

(((((((((((NWM))))))))))))))

I'm so glad to see you!  I've been missing you!!!  Please stay a while!!!

Yeah, NWM, take your shoes off and set a spell.

Agree that both parties are to blame!!!  

NWM!  I've missed you!!  Not necessarily your political views, but I've certainly missed you.

Polls are a waste of time