Trump approval ratings thread 1.2

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

I think Trump has hit bottom. If he gets Obamacare finally repealed/replaced and real spending cuts (not holding my breath there) done in the first half of 2018, prepare for 50-60% approval.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

I think Trump has hit bottom. If he gets Obamacare finally repealed/replaced and real spending cuts (not holding my breath there) done in the first half of 2018, prepare for 50-60% approval.

Not holding your breath is a sound idea.  Neither of those has a chance of passing.

It also isn't in line with why people disapprove of Trump. It's not policy-related. On top of that, America isn't currently clamoring for cuts to social programs or crappier healthcare. Even if Trump's intense character deficits, perceived corruption and generally dishonest nature weren't turning so many people against him, I don't get why chronically unpopular policy proposals would suddenly right the ship.

I'm saying a middle 20% or so that don't hate him (or like/love him) will shift his way if those things get done, all just because he'll be "getting stuff done" and appear to be finally "draining the swamp". 

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

I think Trump has hit bottom. If he gets Obamacare finally repealed/replaced and real spending cuts (not holding my breath there) done in the first half of 2018, prepare for 50-60% approval.

Not holding your breath is a sound idea.  Neither of those has a chance of passing.

It also isn't in line with why people disapprove of Trump. It's not policy-related. On top of that, America isn't currently clamoring for cuts to social programs or crappier healthcare. Even if Trump's intense character deficits, perceived corruption and generally dishonest nature weren't turning so many people against him, I don't get why chronically unpopular policy proposals would suddenly right the ship.

I'm saying a middle 20% or so that don't hate him (or like/love him) will shift his way if those things get done, all just because he'll be "getting stuff done" and appear to be finally "draining the swamp". 

How would passing a historically unpopular healthcare bill improve his approval ratings by 20 points??

Ask Obama. More the spending cuts and HOW healthcare is reformed too.  This really isn't a bold prediction.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

I think Trump has hit bottom. If he gets Obamacare finally repealed/replaced and real spending cuts (not holding my breath there) done in the first half of 2018, prepare for 50-60% approval.

You sound very out of touch with the average american voter.

Cutting spending would hurt Trump's approvals. The average american loves tax cuts and loves government spending. How the hell would cutting spending make Trump's approvals go up. People (unfortunately) hardly care about the national debt.

Just look at how the Obamacare repeal went. At some point, the approval for that health care plan was 20% approval 60% disapproval.

LOL every red avatar in here was out of touch with the "average American voter" a year ago, predicting Hillary landslides.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

I think Trump has hit bottom. If he gets Obamacare finally repealed/replaced and real spending cuts (not holding my breath there) done in the first half of 2018, prepare for 50-60% approval.

Not holding your breath is a sound idea.  Neither of those has a chance of passing.

It also isn't in line with why people disapprove of Trump. It's not policy-related. On top of that, America isn't currently clamoring for cuts to social programs or crappier healthcare. Even if Trump's intense character deficits, perceived corruption and generally dishonest nature weren't turning so many people against him, I don't get why chronically unpopular policy proposals would suddenly right the ship.

I'm saying a middle 20% or so that don't hate him (or like/love him) will shift his way if those things get done, all just because he'll be "getting stuff done" and appear to be finally "draining the swamp". 

How would passing a historically unpopular healthcare bill improve his approval ratings by 20 points??

Ask Obama. More the spending cuts and HOW healthcare is reformed too.  This really isn't a bold prediction.

You think Obama got a 20-point bump from passing ACA (or, well, ever?)  Go look at his Gallup approval history.

That was more of a joke, but as they say "the left has no sense of humor".

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

I think Trump has hit bottom. If he gets Obamacare finally repealed/replaced and real spending cuts (not holding my breath there) done in the first half of 2018, prepare for 50-60% approval.

You sound very out of touch with the average american voter.

Cutting spending would hurt Trump's approvals. The average american loves tax cuts and loves government spending. How the hell would cutting spending make Trump's approvals go up. People (unfortunately) hardly care about the national debt.

Just look at how the Obamacare repeal went. At some point, the approval for that health care plan was 20% approval 60% disapproval.

LOL every red avatar in here was out of touch with the "average American voter" a year ago, predicting Hillary landslides.

I wasn't.

You weren't here. Or you were banned and this is an alt account:

Date Registered:   June 22, 2017, 01:21:18 pm

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

I think Trump has hit bottom. If he gets Obamacare finally repealed/replaced and real spending cuts (not holding my breath there) done in the first half of 2018, prepare for 50-60% approval.

You sound very out of touch with the average american voter.

Cutting spending would hurt Trump's approvals. The average american loves tax cuts and loves government spending. How the hell would cutting spending make Trump's approvals go up. People (unfortunately) hardly care about the national debt.

Just look at how the Obamacare repeal went. At some point, the approval for that health care plan was 20% approval 60% disapproval.

LOL every red avatar in here was out of touch with the "average American voter" a year ago, predicting Hillary landslides.

LOL. She won by almost 3 million votes. No one including most blue avatars with a clue predicted Trump would somehow pull an inside straight in the Electoral College by carrying states that had consistently gone Democratic for over a quarter-century

That's how the electoral college works, because we're a Republic. The people in Wyoming need as much say as Californians, otherwise it really is "tyranny of the majority".

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

LOL every red avatar in here was out of touch with the "average American voter" a year ago, predicting Hillary landslides.

In our defense, Hillary had consistent leads in every state poll before November. And as I've said before, the national polling average was more or less accurate. Eventually you guys are going to have to latch onto something else to try and discredit his terrible poll numbers and the republican losses hes contributing to.

Not to mention that it's perfectly reasonable to predict a landslide after Trump experiences quite possibly the worst presidential year October in history, where he got hit with everything from a leaked audio of him boasting about sexual assault to reports of him violating the Cubo embargo. His poll numbers were going down and Clinton was getting high single digits - double digit polls for a couple weeks. The problem here was that Clinton kept having her own problems, which included non-stop Podesta leaks and the Comey letter(s).

Obviously there was no landslide but it's a bit unfair to act like that kind of prediction was downright laughable or delusional, given the circumstances.

Yet, in the light of that major statistical failure - people are still relying here heavily on polls and statistics to try to predict everything.  It's like the chocolate milk from brown cows thing.  Do you think really Americans are that stupid, or are they just trolling the pollsters because they hate getting polled on everything or receiving calls during dinner?

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

That's how the electoral college works, because we're a Republic. The people in Wyoming need as much say as Californians, otherwise it really is "tyranny of the majority".

Actually the people of Wyoming have 3.6 times more say than the people of California, so this has become the tyranny of the minority.

Not when California has 67 people for every one in Wyoming.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

That's how the electoral college works, because we're a Republic. The people in Wyoming need as much say as Californians, otherwise it really is "tyranny of the majority".

Actually the people of Wyoming have 3.6 times more say than the people of California, so this has become the tyranny of the minority.

Not when California has 67 people for every one in Wyoming.

Um, do you understand what I said or is it too much for you to process?

You are talking to someone who believes that people don't matter, only states and corporations matter.

No I believe individuals matter. The smallest minority.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

That's how the electoral college works, because we're a Republic. The people in Wyoming need as much say as Californians, otherwise it really is "tyranny of the majority".

Actually the people of Wyoming have 3.6 times more say than the people of California, so this has become the tyranny of the minority.

Not when California has 67 people for every one in Wyoming.

Um, do you understand what I said or is it too much for you to process?

Yes, but it's supposed to be a balance.  The weight of a number of votes in heavily populated states vs people's wants getting ignored in sparsely populated ones.  If we were on pure vote count, why should people in Wyoming or Delaware or Rhode Island even bother voting in a national election? The electoral college isn't perfect and maybe we could tweak it some, but it's still better than just a raw count.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

That's how the electoral college works, because we're a Republic. The people in Wyoming need as much say as Californians, otherwise it really is "tyranny of the majority".

Actually the people of Wyoming have 3.6 times more say than the people of California, so this has become the tyranny of the minority.

Not when California has 67 people for every one in Wyoming.

Um, do you understand what I said or is it too much for you to process?

You are talking to someone who believes that people don't matter, only states and corporations matter.

No I believe individuals matter. The smallest minority.

But apparently some more than others. I don't understand why there is this fixation on procedural rights as opposed to substantive ones. Again, unless by "freedom", it is normally just meant the right own property, not to consent to be governed or to be governed only in a way that doesn't prevent you from consenting to be governed.

And I don't understand why people want to throw out a more balanced/fair system for a older, lesser one. I guess that's why the left is now "regressive".

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Yes, but it's supposed to be a balance.  The weight of a number of votes in heavily populated states vs people's wants getting ignored in sparsely populated ones.  If we were on pure vote count, why should people in Wyoming or Delaware or Rhode Island even bother voting in a national election? The electoral college isn't perfect and maybe we could tweak it some, but it's still better than just a raw count.

Every other Western democracy uses popular vote and they are doing just fine, thank you.

Wrong again, many don't even have an election for head of state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electoral_systems_by_country#/media/File:Electoral_systems_for_heads_of_state_map.svg

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Yes, but it's supposed to be a balance.  The weight of a number of votes in heavily populated states vs people's wants getting ignored in sparsely populated ones.  If we were on pure vote count, why should people in Wyoming or Delaware or Rhode Island even bother voting in a national election? The electoral college isn't perfect and maybe we could tweak it some, but it's still better than just a raw count.

Every other Western democracy uses popular vote and they are doing just fine, thank you.

Wrong again, many don't even have an election for head of state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electoral_systems_by_country#/media/File:Electoral_systems_for_heads_of_state_map.svg

... Perhaps because those countries have a head of state that's merely symbolic and the true power is held by the Prime Minister, which is indirectly elected through parliamentary elections...

So same thing, no popular vote for the figurehead or PM.  Or that matter, the head of the EU.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Libertarians4Trump, lol

Libertarians4ElectoralCollege
Libertarians4ConstitutionalGovernment

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Yes, but it's supposed to be a balance.  The weight of a number of votes in heavily populated states vs people's wants getting ignored in sparsely populated ones.  If we were on pure vote count, why should people in Wyoming or Delaware or Rhode Island even bother voting in a national election? The electoral college isn't perfect and maybe we could tweak it some, but it's still better than just a raw count.

Every other Western democracy uses popular vote and they are doing just fine, thank you.

Wrong again, many don't even have an election for head of state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electoral_systems_by_country#/media/File:Electoral_systems_for_heads_of_state_map.svg

... Perhaps because those countries have a head of state that's merely symbolic and the true power is held by the Prime Minister, which is indirectly elected through parliamentary elections...

So same thing, no popular vote for the figurehead or PM.  Or that matter, the head of the EU.

Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about. Have you considered to pursue a career as a Breitbart columnist?

Hmm, feeling's mutual. Perhaps you run Occupy Democrats?