I imagine that this report is worth at least 10 points in his approval ratings. I wouldn’t be surprised if it jumps by 20.
Public opinion is a fickle beast. Clinton went into 2016 with with no one able to forget that she was under investigation. Now the only investigation that the majority of Americans will remember into DJT is finished, with what amounts to “he didn’t do it” being the official position of the DoJ. Those very same types of conversations where everyone could bring up “the emails” are now conversations that no longer have “but collusion” as an avenue to cast doubt on DJT. Right, wrong, or indifferent, any conversation about collusion is going to sound as crazy to people on the fence WRT support of DJT as pizzagate, Benghazi or “the emails.”
2018 is going to be most Americans “hey we tried, but the system is just rigged” moment, and I have a feeling most on the left are going to protest by staying home yet again in 2020. I’m just not seeing a candidate that is going to be able to use the current media landscape with near the capability of DJT. Say what you will about him, but either he, or someone pulling the strings, is a master of playing the American press and it’s love of pushing his narrative by feeding the beast through constant “breaking news: DJT says something controversial.”
IMHO while I do think there was/is collusion it is no longer a viable attack avenue against DJT. If Democrats continue push it, it will further aleniate the middle, making them seem no more stable than those that pushed Benghazi, pizzagate, and the tan suit controversy.
You pretty well summarized my thoughts on how it will play out here.
Excellent post.....well, except for the fact Trump is likely to get re-elected.
Side note: my Dem buddy and I were discussing this on the phone, and we both agreed that what has the potential to derail Trump with this is TRUMP HIMSELF (big surprise I know). We discussed how Reagan or Bill Clinton or Obama would handle the findings if they were in Trump's shoes, and we agreed the general approach would be:
a) state the findings
b) change the subject and act like a President
When the Tower Commission issued their report on Reagan, he basically said "it was a mistake", minimized the details, and pressed onward. His rating jumped nine points overnight (WaPo). Later on, his subordinates were found guilty but convictions overturned, and it was all but forgotten.
Clinton handled his acquittal with dignity and turned the page. Very few folks remember he reached a deal with Starr's replacement prior to leaving office that stripped him of his law license.
Obama, of course, never had anything like any of these three, but he'd have done the same thing.
The one saving grace here might possibly be (for the Ds) that he will continually keep this story in the news because he's dumber than dirt.