Passing Peak Trump?

[The Don]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Sorry, but that this is going to blow over quickly is just plain wrong.

Originally Posted by acbytesla

You mean that whopping 35 percent approval rating?

Sorry Don. Not even close. The public House hearing will go on for at least the next 2 months. Then we get the Senate Trial.

I hope you're both right but so far every scandal which would have sealed the fate of any other President has had no long term impact on his approval numbers.

During the Mueller investigation, each new revelation would dent his popularity briefly but then it would return to 40% which is where it's always been and which, combined with decent economic news and effective voter suppression may very well be enough to secure his reelection.

The GOP is adopting the same stance they did with the Mueller investigation, that it's a partisan hack-job carried out by political insiders, that it's being done in secret (and is thus suspect) and that the process and all evidence relating to it is illegitimate. That may be a load of hogwash but it's enough to keep the 40% on board.

If there was any doubt about this, look at the impeachment vote in the House. The GOP line is holding firm whereas there were tiny cracks in the Democrats'.

40% of the US electorate are firmly on board, are swallowing the GOP propaganda and/or are sufficiently disinterested for the impeachment process not to change their voting intention.

All of the above just IMO of course.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by The Don

I hope you're both right but so far every scandal which would have sealed the fate of any other President has had no long term impact on his approval numbers.

During the Mueller investigation, each new revelation would dent his popularity briefly but then it would return to 40% which is where it's always been and which, combined with decent economic news and effective voter suppression may very well be enough to secure his reelection.

The GOP is adopting the same stance they did with the Mueller investigation, that it's a partisan hack-job carried out by political insiders, that it's being done in secret (and is thus suspect) and that the process and all evidence relating to it is illegitimate. That may be a load of hogwash but it's enough to keep the 40% on board.

If there was any doubt about this, look at the impeachment vote in the House. The GOP line is holding firm whereas there were tiny cracks in the Democrats'.

40% of the US electorate are firmly on board, are swallowing the GOP propaganda and/or are sufficiently disinterested for the impeachment process not to change their voting intention.

All of the above just IMO of course.

I don't think this has anything to do with Trump or even the various lines of defense that the GOP is putting up. Rather, it has to do with the Trump base being so entrenched in their position that nothing can get them out. The Trump personality cult is built on the ego of every single Trumpist.

Because of this, it's entirely rational to blame individual Trump voters for the evils of the Trump admin.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by uke2se

I don't think this has anything to do with Trump or even the various lines of defense that the GOP is putting up. Rather, it has to do with the Trump base being so entrenched in their position that nothing can get them out. The Trump personality cult is built on the ego of every single Trumpist.

Because of this, it's entirely rational to blame individual Trump voters for the evils of the Trump admin.

Part of the deep divide is due to how the media has changed. We aren't exposed to both sides of the story as much as we used to be when there were fewer outlets that had to speak to all kinds of viewers and readers. This is, in my opinion, especially true for conservatives, who get their news from Fox.

I've been trying to read some conservative opinions but I can rarely get through an article by a conservative like Hugh Hewitt or, worse, Marc Thiessen. Reason.com either. The only conservatives whose arguments make sense to me are luke warm on Trump at best. If you're feeding yourself a steady diet of Fox, your opinion is bound to tend towards the view that Trump's critics are making mountains out of molehills.

Such folk are not evil. They've failed to get the other side of the story, but so have I often. Once an opinion is entrenched, it's painful to read an article on the other side. I tend to think that's because the other side presents terrible arguments, but I would think that, wouldn't I?

I don't buy that my Trump supportng friends are evil. I think they're terribly wrong.

[dmaker]

Originally Posted by phiwum

Such folk are not evil. They've failed to get the other side of the story, but so have I often. Once an opinion is entrenched, it's painful to read an article on the other side. I tend to think that's because the other side presents terrible arguments, but I would think that, wouldn't I?

I don't buy that my Trump supportng friends are evil. I think they're terribly wrong.

I'm Canadian, but I follow US politics. I think my inner liberal cannot help but recoil over what happens south of the border. My dislike for Trump is boundless. I believe him to be a terrible human being and a global threat. I find myself becoming so tribal and I don't even live in the US. This current situation brings to light traits in myself that I am not happy to see. I have become so prejudicial to other people. If someone does or says something stupid or right leaning, in my head I say "I bet you're a Trump supporter", or in my case, "I bet if we lived in the US, you would be a Trump supporter". And then I instantly dislike that person. Sometimes it's something petty, like a person with a distasteful bumper sticker like "Hung Like a Horse", or those stupid bull testicles hanging from their trailer hitch, and I think what an idiot--probably likes Trump.

In some cases, those are probably fairly accurate markers. But I maybe need to get better at seeing both sides. Not in the sense of moving my position on things. My liberal pillars are firmly entrenched. I'll never budge on things like a womans right to choose, or keeping religion out of state and school or equal rights for all, etc. But I could be better, at least, at trying to understand how the other side feels. As in people who support Trump. There is so much prejudice going around and I hate that I find myself participating in it. Not everything we do is defined by our politics or by the politicians we choose to support. How tested would my convictions be if I found myself supporting a liberal politician who was of questionable character but constantly fought for the things that I believe in? I don't know, I've never really found myself in that situation. I like to think that I would stand on principle, but that is easy to say when it has never been tested.

A silly recent example that occurred to me this morning in the Tim Hortons drive through line. There was a recent article in The Star titled "I hate Tim Hortons more than I hate Donald Trump". Basically the article talked down about those of us that like mediocre coffee. It came off (to me at least) very offensively. While waiting in line this morning, I remembered that article where the author thinks most people who like Tim Hortons probably also like Trump. Much like I equate things I find to be stupid or tasteless with Trump supporters. In my case, that author could not be further from the truth. But being lumped in like that did not feel good, and gave me pause.

The current political climate is so toxic and is bringing out such stark and tribal divisions that we see people defending the indefensible or find ourselves suddenly thinking in mean and base ways the we might not have done five years ago.

I don't like it.

The Star article:

https://www.thestar.com/entertainmen...ald-trump.html

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by dmaker

I'm Canadian, but I follow US politics. I think my inner liberal cannot help but recoil over what happens south of the border. My dislike for Trump is boundless. I believe him to be a terrible human being and a global threat. I find myself becoming so tribal and I don't even live in the US. This current situation brings to light traits in myself that I am not happy to see. I have become so prejudicial to other people. If someone does or says something stupid or right leaning, in my head I say "I bet you're a Trump supporter", or in my case, "I bet if we lived in the US, you would be a Trump supporter". And then I instantly dislike that person. Sometimes it's something petty, like a person with a distasteful bumper sticker like "Hung Like a Horse", or those stupid bull testicles hanging from their trailer hitch, and I think what an idiot--probably likes Trump.

In some cases, those are probably fairly accurate markers. But I maybe need to get better at seeing both sides. Not in the sense of moving my position on things. My liberal pillars are firmly entrenched. I'll never budge on things like a womans right to choose, or keeping religion out of state and school or equal rights for all, etc. But I could be better, at least, at trying to understand how the other side feels. As in people who support Trump. There is so much prejudice going around and I hate that I find myself participating in it. Not everything we do is defined by our politics or by the politicians we choose to support. How tested would my convictions be if I found myself supporting a liberal politician who was of questionable character but constantly fought for the things that I believe in? I don't know, I've never really found myself in that situation. I like to think that I would stand on principle, but that is easy to say when it has never been tested.

A silly recent example that occurred to me this morning in the Tim Hortons drive through line. There was a recent article in The Star titled "I hate Tim Hortons more than I hate Donald Trump". Basically the article talked down about those of us that like mediocre coffee. It came off (to me at least) very offensively. While waiting in line this morning, I remembered that article where the author thinks most people who like Tim Hortons probably also like Trump. Much like I equate things I find to be stupid or tasteless with Trump supporters. In my case, that author could not be further from the truth. But being lumped in like that did not feel good, and gave me pause.

The current political climate is so toxic and is bringing out such stark and tribal divisions that we see people defending the indefensible or find ourselves suddenly thinking in mean and base ways the we might not have done five years ago.

I don't like it.

The Star article:

https://www.thestar.com/entertainmen...ald-trump.html

I think you and I are on the same page. I think that anyone who likes Trump is terribly ignorant or biased, that they've let their egos, self-interest and desire to belong to a victimized class fighting back blind them to the horrible abuses and incompetence of the administration.

But very few of them would think of themselves as racist. A larger percentage hold genuinely negative racial stereotypes but think these biases are supported by the evidence and not that they are literally racist. After all, some of my best friends... And, I don't think they're literally evil for these racist views. I'd like to find a way to bring them to a better position, not punish them for enabling a scoundrel like Trump to remain in office.

The same goes for less egregious views. While we wonder what they would've said if Obama had done similar things, they wonder how we can't see that we are the hypocrites, that we excuse Obama for things that are just the same as what Trump is doing. Now, I don't think they have a real point there because the actual examples given aren't even close to comparable[1], but this is just reasoning gone horribly awry, not anything like evil. A strong desire to reinforce one's own views can lead to spurious arguments and we are all prone to this to a greater or lesser degree. The effect is much greater when we are surrounded by like-minded folk and exposed uniformly to similar views in the media.

We're not going to make things better by turning our opponents into legitimate victims, showering them with scorn and calling them evil. I'm not saying that we shouldn't hold them responsible for Trump but recognize that their support is due to a lot of unfortunate factors that indicate grave intellectual failings and some moral failings too, but not evil incarnate. Surely this view shouldn't be controversial. To the extent it is, I fear that another echo chamber is exerting its effect.

Note: I'm a hell of a lot less forgiving to Republican politicians who enable Trump's malfeasance and incompetence and pretend that this is normal and the other side is nuts.

[1] In a conversation with a Trump-supporting buddy, I asked him what he thinks of Trump selecting Doral for the G7. He asked why it was okay that Obama pushed Chicago for the Olympics site. It was a pitiful attempt at saying the Democrats are just as bad and I know this guy. He's clever enough to know better than to make this argument if only he wasn't surrounded by folks in rural Oklahoma who will reply "Good point!"

[ServiceSoon]

Originally Posted by phiwum

Part of the deep divide is due to how the media has changed. We aren't exposed to both sides of the story as much as we used to be when there were fewer outlets that had to speak to all kinds of viewers and readers. This is, in my opinion, especially true for conservatives, who get their news from Fox.

....

Anybody that wants well-balanced news can find it quite easily. It is the consumer that determines which news source they reference. I do not believe that any single news organization can be entirely credited with a monopoly on any particular political ideology.

There were around 150 million votes cast in the 2016 Federal election.

Average Fox viewership is 3 million. Fox news Prime Time viewers account for less than 1% of population. Source.

The vast vast majority of individuals who voted for Trump did not watch Fox News.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon

Anybody that wants well-balanced news can find it quite easily. It is the consumer that determines which news source they reference. I do not believe that any single news organization can be entirely credited with a monopoly on any particular political ideology.

There were around 150 million votes cast in the 2016 Federal election.

Average Fox viewership is 3 million. Fox news Prime Time viewers account for less than 1% of population. Source.

The vast vast majority of individuals who voted for Trump did not watch Fox News.

I don't know that your data supports your conclusion. The question is whether Fox was the major news source for most Trump voters. That question cannot be answered by looking only at viewership at any one time, since one may rarely watch Fox and yet Fox is still the major news source for that person.

I agree that one can become well-informed if he wants to. It's a lot more comfortable to watch sources that largely agree with your prior opinion and it's a lot easier to do so these days than in the days of Watergate.

I watch PBS and listen to NPR as my primary sources, along with WAPO, the Times and occasionally the Wall Street Journal. I think it's fair to say that my sources tend a bit to the left, but by and large I think PBS and NPR aim for fairness. (Amna Nawaz drives me nuts when she interviews anyone on the right, however. I wish PBS would rein her in.)

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon

Anybody that wants well-balanced news can find it quite easily. It is the consumer that determines which news source they reference. I do not believe that any single news organization can be entirely credited with a monopoly on any particular political ideology.

There were around 150 million votes cast in the 2016 Federal election.

Average Fox viewership is 3 million. Fox news Prime Time viewers account for less than 1% of population. Source.

The vast vast majority of individuals who voted for Trump did not watch Fox News.

I'd guess the vast majority of individuals who voted for Trump are simply life-long Republicans.

[Susheel]

Originally Posted by phiwum

Note: I'm a hell of a lot less forgiving to Republican politicians who enable Trump's malfeasance and incompetence and pretend that this is normal and the other side is nuts.

[1] In a conversation with a Trump-supporting buddy, I asked him what he thinks of Trump selecting Doral for the G7. He asked why it was okay that Obama pushed Chicago for the Olympics site. It was a pitiful attempt at saying the Democrats are just as bad and I know this guy. He's clever enough to know better than to make this argument if only he wasn't surrounded by folks in rural Oklahoma who will reply "Good point!"

Obama owns Chicago?

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Susheel

Obama owns Chicago?

Or working to benefit your adopted home town is just like forcing other nations to prop up your struggling resort in the off-season. What's the difference after all?

[applecorped]

maybe it will happen in 2025

[applecorped]

Have we passed Peak Trump now?

[ChristianProgressive]

When even that conservative scumbag Tucker Carlson turns on you, you know someone has peaked.

[dudalb]

Today was not a good day for Donnie at all.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by applecorped

Have we passed Peak Trump now?

We will only know if he's not re-elected.

However, your dear leader is a garbage. Always was, always will be.

[sackett]

A question that's been nagging me: How many genuine hard-shell, total immersion Trumpists are there? Is there any way to assess their actual numbers? Anecdotes won't cut it; we've all seen those interviews with various Alfred and Alfrieda Newmans, and been queasily amused at their dead brains. But that's just some tv presenter's selection. How large a poll would it take to collect enough data for a sound estimate?

And I think that the poll questions would have to include, "Will you support Trump NO MATTER WHAT?"

Yes, as blunt as that, so as not to challenge their dead brains.

[The Shrike]

Originally Posted by sackett

A question that's been nagging me: How many genuine hard-shell, total immersion Trumpists are there?

Why isn't the answer the 42% rock-solid support he's had through 31 indictments, impeachment, stock market crash, and bungled pandemic response?

[sackett]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Why isn't the answer the 42% rock-solid support he's had through 31 indictments, impeachment, stock market crash, and bungled pandemic response?

A good answer.

Alas.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Today was not a good day for Donnie at all.

"For me, it was Tuesday."

- M Bison, probably

---

I'm pretty sure the only people who seriously think this was a bad day for Trump are the people who find a reason to think every day is a bad day for Trump.

Whether Trump has actually shifted public opinion more against him than before, in any significant or lasting way, remains to be seen. Do you have evidence?

[The Great Zaganza]

When Americans are scared, they vote Republican.
I fully expect Trump to win at this point.

[llwyd]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

When Americans are scared, they vote Republican.
I fully expect Trump to win at this point.

Based on what empirical data?

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Why isn't the answer the 42% rock-solid support he's had through 31 indictments, impeachment, stock market crash, and bungled pandemic response?

That is what any POTUS would get out of sheer party loyalty.
it's the undecideds who decide electins, and I think Donnie is losing them.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

When Americans are scared, they vote Republican.
I fully expect Trump to win at this point.

people were scared in 2008, and Obama won.

[ChristianProgressive]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Why isn't the answer the 42% rock-solid support he's had through 31 indictments, impeachment, stock market crash, and bungled pandemic response?

NO ONE's support is that rock-solid. As recently as the eve of the Senate Removal vote a vast majority was polled as wanting Trump removed.

Someone's playing games with the numbers.

[ChristianProgressive]

Originally Posted by dudalb

people were scared in 2008, and Obama won.

Obama didn't have the GOP rigging the election for him though.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by llwyd

Based on what empirical data?

I don't have any empirical data myself, but it's consistent with my impression of human nature. In times of uncertainty and doubt, a conservative mindset prevails. Things have to be pretty bad, for a pretty long time, before people switch over to revolutionary progressivism.

Most progress actually happens incrementally, when times are good and people have enough surplus resources and surplus peace of mind to get out there and change things up.

IMO.

Do you really think we need empirical data for a discussion like this, at the level we're discussing it? Do you simply not *want* to discuss it? This is your way of trying to shut down a discussion based on personal opinion that you'd rather not have?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive

NO ONE's support is that rock-solid. As recently as the eve of the Senate Removal vote a vast majority was polled as wanting Trump removed.

Someone's playing games with the numbers.

Probably you playing games. Most polls showed the slimmest of majorities (51/45/4), not a vast majority. That is cited as the peak in this article:


https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...achment-101245

[ChristianProgressive]

Originally Posted by phiwum

but by and large I think PBS and NPR aim for fairness. (Amna Nawaz drives me nuts when she interviews anyone on the right, however. I wish PBS would rein her in.)

PBS and NPR aim for non-confrontation. Their reporters inevitably soft-ball questions to conservatives they have on.

[sackett]

All I was wondering is if we can translate poll results into absolute numbers, specifically of the impenetrably devoted trumpfers who will never abandon their semi-god and who will actually vote for him, no matter how egregiously he acts. That's the Lumpen that worries us all, the ones for whom the Constitution is at best a piece of paper, and (in their hearts) a tool of those revolutionary progressivists that Prestige just invented.


But everything's okay now that we have his opinion based on his impression of human nature.

[ChristianProgressive]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Probably you playing games. Most polls showed the slimmest of majorities (51/45/4), not a vast majority. That is cited as the peak in this article:


https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...achment-101245

Those numbers are discounted. The American public supported new documents and testimony at a nearly 70% rate. If they didn't support the removal of Trump they would not have bothered wanting the testimony to establish the legal record to do so.

[dudalb]

I think someone is angry that most of America is not as far to the left as he is.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive

Those numbers are discounted. The American public supported new documents and testimony at a nearly 70% rate.

I gave the correct number to correct the wrong number you gave. You're deliberately lying if you cite the answer to one question as the answer to another. Could you please help the side you claim to be on by not being as big a liar as their leader?

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive

If they didn't support the removal of Trump they would not have bothered wanting the testimony to establish the legal record to do so.

You claimed a poll demonstrated that not that you were reading minds which is what this is.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I don't have any empirical data myself, but it's consistent with my impression of human nature. In times of uncertainty and doubt, a conservative mindset prevails. Things have to be pretty bad, for a pretty long time, before people switch over to revolutionary progressivism.

Most progress actually happens incrementally, when times are good and people have enough surplus resources and surplus peace of mind to get out there and change things up.

IMO.

Do you really think we need empirical data for a discussion like this, at the level we're discussing it? Do you simply not *want* to discuss it? This is your way of trying to shut down a discussion based on personal opinion that you'd rather not have?

Can it also depend on the type of fear? Economic, like the Great Depression and Recession, people picked the left. Social - backlash against the Great Society, riots, desegregation/busing etc. - then to the right.

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by dudalb

people were scared in 2008, and Obama won.

That was only because of ACORN rigging the election, of course.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm pretty sure the only people who seriously think this was a bad day for Trump are the people who find a reason to think every day is a bad day for Trump.

Actually, the only people who think that have convinced themselves that Trump can do no wrong.

[The Shrike]

Other than a couple of little dips that didn't last, Trump has been polling ~40–43% since February of 2018.

[Craig4]

I'm not too concerned about approval ratings anymore. The fact that someone approves of him now doesn't mean that they won't approve of Biden more in November. The real numbers are Biden vs. Trump in Florida and the Rust Belt and voters who will not vote for Trump no matter what. In January, NPR/Marist put that number at 57 percent. That's compared to only the 30ish percent who say they will vote for Trump.

Florida is a dead heat right now but if Biden pulls it off, he just has to win one other swing state, any swing state. He's also polling well in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio, the Democrat trifecta.

[ChristianProgressive]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I think someone is angry that most of America is not as far to the left as he is.

I think someone is shilling for the Centrist/Third Way-ers when everything we know about the US on an issue by issue basis shows the populace is highly progressive.

[ChristianProgressive]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

I gave the correct number to correct the wrong number you gave. You're deliberately lying if you cite the answer to one question as the answer to another. Could you please help the side you claim to be on by not being as big a liar as their leader?

Did the people support more witnesses and documents by the rate I stated or not? People who had already made up their minds to back Usurper Trump would not ask for more witnesses and documents.

Quote:

You claimed a poll demonstrated that not that you were reading minds which is what this is.

No, it's simple logic. People do not whiplash their opinions as sharply as they would have to if your scenario is true.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive

Did the people support more witnesses and documents by the rate I stated or not?

That's not what you lied about and you know it. You lied about a vast majority of people supporting the removal of Trump from office. That is not what the polls showed.

You're helping make the anti-Trump side vulnerable by being a pernicious liar.