Trump approval ratings thread, 1.4

[libertpaulian]

ARG monthly economic survey, Aug. 17-20, 1100 adults

Approve 36 (-1)
Disapprove 59 (+2)

This is Trump's worst showing in this poll since February (36/60).

...and this is BEFORE Co-hunter-fort.

[libertpaulian]

Nah, Indiana went for Obama in his near-landslide win in 2008 with the positive effects of the larger Chicago area. With the entire region moving rightwards since then, I don't see Indiana being competitive for democrats in anything other than a true landslide.

Three possibilities:

1. Donald Trump is so awful that he can lose Indiana through his perception of corruption, despotic tendencies, and incompetence. That's one time or twice, with Republicans winning big in the state in 2022 as has been the norm in Indiana.

2. Rural dissent against Trump's tariffs and the likely trade wars that gut commodity prices, raise production costs of farming, and raise the overall cost of living? Tariffs are effectively sales taxes on imports, and they are bad taxes. This could be another way of looking at the first possibility. On the other side, most states cannot elect Republicans in statewide elections (and the vote for 'electors for the President" in almost all states is effectively a statewide election) without Republicans winning the farm-and-ranch vote. Indiana is as much in that category as Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Ohio... not to mention Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.   

3. Suburbanites around Indianapolis are following a pattern emerging around cities such as Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, Atlanta of trending D out of concern for the anti-intellectual tendencies of the GOP that goes far beyond consternation against wayward college professors and creative people to people whose jobs depend upon formal education beyond K-12. In this group are such people as teachers, accountants, engineers, and medical professionals -- groups that usually must be careful about political statements or usually think politics irrelevant to their jobs.

This would be big trouble for the GOP if a persistent and irreversible trend.

#2 and #3 literally cannot happen at the same time.

They can.  #2 isn't saying that Dems win rurals outright but rather improve on them.  So, let's say Hillary got 20% in a rural county in Indiana back in 2016.  Donnelly could win it by 30-40% in 2018 and the Dem Presidential nominee could win it by 30-33% in 2020.  Every bit helps.

[libertpaulian]

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1045675149360476162

(R)asmussen...take it with a grain of salt.

[libertpaulian]

The  rationale behind the Electoral College is that the States, and not the People, elect the President. It works against  certain forms of vote fraud (let us say a state having fabricated 90 million votes) or having a veritable single-Party system in which the second-largest Party is effectively shut out, as was true in much of the post-Reconstruction South. Thus the Electoral College recognizes no difference between winning a state 51-48 or winning it 81-18 in assessing the value of the votes. Thus if democracy failed in one state that state would not have inordinate power in the federal government.

The problem is that minorities within states become irrelevant -- like blacks in most of the South. maybe rural interests in New York State -- even if they are significant.  I want to see Democratic Presidential candidates seeking votes among Mexican-Americans in Texas, and I want Republican Presidential candidates seeking votes among agricultural interests in California.  Minorities matter in close elections.   

Agreed, but the EC also makes sure that rural and small-town voters aren't marginalized in the political process at the expense of the cities and the coasts.