Try this Cajun.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx
Daily results are based on telephone interviews with approximately 1,500 national adults; Margin of error is ±3 percentage points.
The policy and politics of Trumpism
- Thread starter CharminTide
- Start date
- Status
Try this Cajun.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx
Daily results are based on telephone interviews with approximately 1,500 national adults; Margin of error is ±3 percentage points.
But note how misleading this can be.
Reagan's 68% came less than a month after he was shot. The surge of patriotism and 'support the President' made that one higher than should have been expected. His first two months he was right at 60%.
Clinton's 55% is another one that calls for clarity. When Clinton took office he was right at 60% (remember - he only got 43% of the vote a couple of months earlier). His 100th day came right on the heels of fiasco after fiasco - from gays in the military to three attempts at getting an Attorney General to the first WTC bombing to the Waco invasion....indeed, you have to remember that the fire at Waco that killed those folks was on Clinton's 90th day as President and the fallout had not yet begun. By June - less than sixty days later - Clinton plummeted from 55% to 37%, which was his all-time lowest rating.
Clinton probably had the most volatile approval ratings of any President during the polling era. He went from 59% on Inauguration Day to 37% in six months to 64% at the end of 1993.
And Truman's approval rating no doubt (even by primitive polling standards) would have been seriously inflated. Here's a guy who took office on April 12 and in his first four months saw Mussolini killed, Hitler commit suicide, the war in Europe end, and two atomic bombs end the Japanese phase of WW2. He was considered a failure as a President when he left in 1952 and has been continually re-assessed as ahead of his time on a lot of things.
I think leaning on any poll one way or the other too much is bad practice (and often can reflect a failure to actually show leadership). I don't dispute Trump's general unpopularity - but him being unpopular is ONE thing, beating him in an election is something altogether different.
i thought his 100-day plan would be more popular once people saw it in action
I heard a Republican talking head type say yesterday that anyone who voted for Trump based on "Trumpism" was sure to be disappointed, because it had become evident that "Trumpism" didn't exist, in view of all the reversals made by Trump. He went on to call him an "ad hoc president." On the same day, on TV news, they were interviewing West Virginians in bad health, on ACA, who would lose their healthcare without something similar. They all said that they would vote for Trump again because they believed that he would bring back coal jobs...
The White House continues to insist they had no idea that Flynn was linked to foreign lobbying. Jeff Sessions has now gone on TV and claimed that this simply fell through the cracks, and they can't possibly be expected to know everything about everyone. Mike Pence contends he had no idea until the day Flynn was fired.
These are lies, and it's strange that the administration thinks that lying about things that are easily disproven is their best move here. Thing is, I knew about Flynn's links to Turkish lobbying. I knew because it was widely reported in November. Mike Pence knew because Elijah Cummings sent him a letter during the transition alerting him to Flynn's worrying foreign ties, and Flynn's own lawyer alerted the Trump transition (which was led by Pence) of this connection on two occasions. Jeff Sessions' claim that this knowledge merely slipped through the cracks is only believable in a world where the Trump transition intentionally refused to look into the man they were appointing as National Security Adviser. This may be why their initial line of defense was, "hey, blame Obama -- it's just silly to expect us to review someone with active security clearance."
Only now, Andrea Mitchell at NBC is reporting that, despite the White House claiming it did not vet Michael Flynn and relied on security credentials granted under the Obama administration before being fired, the White House did in fact vet Flynn. Since the link between Flynn and foreign lobbying was public knowledge -- the guy wrote a freaking op-ed the day after the election arguing that we need closer ties with Turkey and we should to extradite a guy with legal U.S. residence for political retaliation by Erdogan -- it's inconceivable that even a cursory and superficial vetting process would miss this.
And now the White House outright refuses to release any documents to investigators related to Flynn's vetting process. It's unclear if they can't or simply won't, but it apparently is not going to happen. One must wonder, why is the White House and Trump's Cabinet -- this includes Mike Pence and now Jeff Sessions -- lying about their foreknowledge of Flynn's employment by a foreign power? And, if Andrea Mitchell's reporting is true, why are they burying any documents that may detail their awareness of this fact prior to his appointment as National Security Adviser?
I know half the board will refuse to watch this, but if you do, start at 10:20. She gives a good timeline.
These are lies, and it's strange that the administration thinks that lying about things that are easily disproven is their best move here. Thing is, I knew about Flynn's links to Turkish lobbying. I knew because it was widely reported in November. Mike Pence knew because Elijah Cummings sent him a letter during the transition alerting him to Flynn's worrying foreign ties, and Flynn's own lawyer alerted the Trump transition (which was led by Pence) of this connection on two occasions. Jeff Sessions' claim that this knowledge merely slipped through the cracks is only believable in a world where the Trump transition intentionally refused to look into the man they were appointing as National Security Adviser. This may be why their initial line of defense was, "hey, blame Obama -- it's just silly to expect us to review someone with active security clearance."
Only now, Andrea Mitchell at NBC is reporting that, despite the White House claiming it did not vet Michael Flynn and relied on security credentials granted under the Obama administration before being fired, the White House did in fact vet Flynn. Since the link between Flynn and foreign lobbying was public knowledge -- the guy wrote a freaking op-ed the day after the election arguing that we need closer ties with Turkey and we should to extradite a guy with legal U.S. residence for political retaliation by Erdogan -- it's inconceivable that even a cursory and superficial vetting process would miss this.
And now the White House outright refuses to release any documents to investigators related to Flynn's vetting process. It's unclear if they can't or simply won't, but it apparently is not going to happen. One must wonder, why is the White House and Trump's Cabinet -- this includes Mike Pence and now Jeff Sessions -- lying about their foreknowledge of Flynn's employment by a foreign power? And, if Andrea Mitchell's reporting is true, why are they burying any documents that may detail their awareness of this fact prior to his appointment as National Security Adviser?
I know half the board will refuse to watch this, but if you do, start at 10:20. She gives a good timeline.
You forgot the blue font because I think you and I both agreed on this point that just the opposite was true.
What most folks want from politicians is "take from them but not from me."
Like lies matter anymore. Clinton lied about getting a BJ from a staffer so treason is all the same right?
No. But taking seriously pedantic points from the same people who fudged over the fact that the real issue in the example you cite was perjury and obstruction of justice is also difficult. If we have some full-scale treason here then don't be deceived - the GOP would be all-too-willing to toss Trump overboard with some level of actual justification (beyond "we don't think he can win the election").
Furthermore, I suspect that as the layers of the onion are peeled away we are suddenly going to find ties/influence/whatever with the Democrats as well.
Let's face it, Jon - you and I both in this thing are Trump critics and to various degrees conservative/libertarian and as the old saying goes "have no dog in the fight." But the amusing thing is that the very same people who are sounding every post like "by Gawd, we're still gonna get even for losing that election" would be the very same folks saying "move on" if this was a HRC/Russian scandal with everything the exact same. And the very same Trump partisans who are "nothing to see here" would be screaming "lock her up" if they'd lost.
And THAT is what makes any investigation pretty much futile in terms of reality. If the opponent investigates and finds you clean (like, say, Ken Starr with Whitewater and the Clintons), you say, "See, even a (name the party) prosecutor found no wrongdoing." And if they DO find something (Starr with Lewinsky), you just say, "It's a partisan witch hunt."
The whole script has already been written and the game is rigged. Let's say Trump is found "well, he did distasteful and bad stuff but nothing illegal," guess what? The usual suspects here will be whining "Boo hoo, the Republicans shut down the investigation because blah blah blah, they own Congress, blah blah blah." If they find whatever, the GOP partisans will be "everybody does it, partisan blah blah" too.
And once again - unless someone has EVIDENCE that they controlled THE VOTES or HOW VOTES WERE COUNTED, then the entire story of "Russia hacked/stole the election" is baseless. Now - whether or not there was some bad stuff, treason, etc going on - that's actually an entirely different subject altogether. Fact is there are some folks who still will not accept the verdict of last November.
I was with you till the last paragraph. If they find evidence of collusion that is enough and it should be enough
Call me cynical, but I just don't see anything coming out of this entire Russian mess. Like everything else in Washington, it will drag on, cost millions investigating and provide the talking heads with filler material, but at some point it will simply fade away and everyone on Capitol Hill will get back to the real government business of lining their pockets.
I think you're right. Anything they had cooking with the Russkis has essentially been torpedoed by the PR and glaring light of media attention. So, we're back to "normal" diplomacy...
Also, in the same interview:
Anyone not worried by that kind of talk isn't really paying attention...
Or doesn't care as long as the dictatorship has their party name stamped on it.
and while this is going on, they are leveraging the presidency and making money hand over fist. but i'm sure that's ok because, reasons.
Queue the folks who say this kind of talk is completely fine because he'd need Congress' cooperation to tear apart the Constitution.
- Status
Latest threads
-
Maybe aTm's Pockets Aren't So Bottomless After All -- Layoffs In The Athletic Department
- Started by 4Q Basket Case
- Replies: 4
-
Time to un-vacate 2005-2007 on field victories and un-forfeit the 1993 season?
- Started by CmdrThor
- Replies: 16
-
-
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 11
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0