Trump approval ratings thread 1.2

[junior chįmp]

Trump just tweeted about the Rasmussen poll. I think the amount of genuine hate I have for a polling company is unhealthy.

You should read the tweet after that one if you really want to lose it

[BudgieForce]

Trump just tweeted about the Rasmussen poll. I think the amount of genuine hate I have for a polling company is unhealthy.

You should read the tweet after that one if you really want to lose it

I need to go find a desk to bang my head against.

[IceSpear]

Trump just tweeted about the Rasmussen poll. I think the amount of genuine hate I have for a polling company is unhealthy.

It's pretty funny how low the bar is that a 46% approval rating is considered a triumph for him. I mean, it's blatantly obvious that he's going to be getting at least 45% of the vote in 2020 regardless, so it really doesn't make a difference if he's at 35 or 40 or 45.

[King Lear]

Latest Rasmussen survey:
Approval: 46%
Disapproval: 53%
These numbers are great for Trump and disastrous for Democrats, I predict that Trump will be at 50+ approval by the midterm elections, and Democrats will be in for a massive disappointment (failing to flip the house and losing several senate seats).

[Hindsight was 2020]

I'm calling it. Lear is also Limoliberal

[Dr. Arch]

I'm calling it. Lear is also Limoliberal

Yep, and he's also on ignore now too.

[adrac]

I'm calling it. Lear is also Limoliberal

I came to this conclusion as well. Their behavior is quite similar.

Another possibility is that they are trolls paid by the same organization, or that they are coordinating in some other way.

[krazen1211]

Trump has been the best for the democrat party. We would have never gotten Doug Jones + 1.7 without Trump. I strongly approve of Trump

A 3 year senate seat for an 8 year Presidency is an interesting trade. I approve!

We got a 21 point swing in a Kansas house election. We got a 45 point swing in a recent Tennessee state house election. Don't worry - there'll be more incredible and historic losses that have never before been seen in America under your doofus-in-chief! Thanks for the albatross around the GOP, Krazeidiot.

That already happened pal. The Democrat party suffered historic losses in the 2014 and 2016 elections and began wailing about the fact that they kept losing.

I guess being condensed into this rump fringe is kinda lousy.

[IceSpear]

Trump just tweeted about the Rasmussen poll. I think the amount of genuine hate I have for a polling company is unhealthy.

It's pretty funny how low the bar is that a 46% approval rating is considered a triumph for him. I mean, it's blatantly obvious that he's going to be getting at least 45% of the vote in 2020 regardless, so it really doesn't make a difference if he's at 35 or 40 or 45.

I think he's guaranteed at least 40% due to polarization (even Hoover managed that), but I don't know if 45% is his absolute floor. If nothing else, more of his voters are more likely to have passed away by the time 2020 comes around than Clinton's are. Consider also that he only got 45.9% in 2016. And then there's that tid bit about Obama being the only President in memory to have gotten a higher vote share than his approval rating, and that was by only a point. So if he's not near 45% approval come election day, I think his floor could very well be lower than 45%.

Yeah, the people that say they disapprove but will still vote for him over any Democrat will come home, and his approval rating will rise. I expect lots of bedwetting when, assuming Trump is still in office, he starts getting low to mid 40s numbers throughout 2020 despite it not meaning squat.

[IceSpear]

Trump has been the best for the democrat party. We would have never gotten Doug Jones + 1.7 without Trump. I strongly approve of Trump

A 3 year senate seat for an 8 year Presidency is an interesting trade. I approve!

We got a 21 point swing in a Kansas house election. We got a 45 point swing in a recent Tennessee state house election. Don't worry - there'll be more incredible and historic losses that have never before been seen in America under your doofus-in-chief! Thanks for the albatross around the GOP, Krazeidiot.

That already happened pal. The Democrat party suffered historic losses in the 2014 and 2016 elections and began wailing about the fact that they kept losing.

I guess being condensed into this rump fringe is kinda lousy.

Gaining 2 Senate seats and 6 House seats is an interesting definition of "historic losses."

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Trump just tweeted about the Rasmussen poll. I think the amount of genuine hate I have for a polling company is unhealthy.

It's pretty funny how low the bar is that a 46% approval rating is considered a triumph for him. I mean, it's blatantly obvious that he's going to be getting at least 45% of the vote in 2020 regardless, so it really doesn't make a difference if he's at 35 or 40 or 45.

I think he's guaranteed at least 40% due to polarization (even Hoover managed that), but I don't know if 45% is his absolute floor. If nothing else, more of his voters are more likely to have passed away by the time 2020 comes around than Clinton's are. Consider also that he only got 45.9% in 2016. And then there's that tid bit about Obama being the only President in memory to have gotten a higher vote share than his approval rating, and that was by only a point. So if he's not near 45% approval come election day, I think his floor could very well be lower than 45%.

Yeah, the people that say they disapprove but will still vote for him over any Democrat will come home, and his approval rating will rise. I expect lots of bedwetting when, assuming Trump is still in office, he starts getting low to mid 40s numbers throughout 2020 despite it not meaning squat.

The Democratic party may realize too late that Kamala Harris is not the best candidate to win working class whites in the midwest.

[Virginiá]

Gaining 2 Senate seats and 6 House seats is an interesting definition of "historic losses."

Evidently Democrats losing the White House after holding it for 8 years is grounds for historic. Although, I suppose he could mean Trump winning despite losing the popular vote by millions of votes. I don't know about you, but the last thing I'd want to be bragging about is how my party is constantly worming its way into the White House despite being rejected by a plurality of voters.

Yeah, the people that say they disapprove but will still vote for him over any Democrat will come home, and his approval rating will rise. I expect lots of bedwetting when, assuming Trump is still in office, he starts getting low to mid 40s numbers throughout 2020 despite it not meaning squat.

His favorables were stuck in the mid-high 30s like the entire campaign. Granted, it's not the same as approvals, but it shows that people just don't like him.

[Badger]

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.

Your question literally answers itself. Because their vote would matter every bit as much as someone's vote from Texas or California, or Wyoming or Vermont for that matter. More importantly it would matter as much as any voter from purple States like Ohio or Florida who get all the attention from candidates. Currently the voters in about two-thirds of solidly red or solidly blue States literally don't matter in the presidential election.

If you truly claim to care about the smallest minority of individuals, then you would oppose the Electoral College like it was cancer. Which insofar as a government based on popular representation, it kind of is.

[IceSpear]

Trump just tweeted about the Rasmussen poll. I think the amount of genuine hate I have for a polling company is unhealthy.

It's pretty funny how low the bar is that a 46% approval rating is considered a triumph for him. I mean, it's blatantly obvious that he's going to be getting at least 45% of the vote in 2020 regardless, so it really doesn't make a difference if he's at 35 or 40 or 45.

I think he's guaranteed at least 40% due to polarization (even Hoover managed that), but I don't know if 45% is his absolute floor. If nothing else, more of his voters are more likely to have passed away by the time 2020 comes around than Clinton's are. Consider also that he only got 45.9% in 2016. And then there's that tid bit about Obama being the only President in memory to have gotten a higher vote share than his approval rating, and that was by only a point. So if he's not near 45% approval come election day, I think his floor could very well be lower than 45%.

Yeah, the people that say they disapprove but will still vote for him over any Democrat will come home, and his approval rating will rise. I expect lots of bedwetting when, assuming Trump is still in office, he starts getting low to mid 40s numbers throughout 2020 despite it not meaning squat.

Oh, I do too. But I see no reason to think he's guaranteed 45% even if most of those 2016 Trump voters who disapprove do come home. A significant chunk of those that voted for him but disapprove now likely won't come home. Add that to the churn of the electorate, and I don't think it's far fetched to imagine him dipping below 45% against a decent challenger.

Maybe. I don't think it would be significantly under 45% though. Maybe 43-44% in a yuge Democratic tsunami situation.

[Rookie Yinzer]

If you truly claim to care about the smallest minority of individuals, then you would oppose the Electoral College like it was cancer. Which insofar as a government based on popular representation, it kind of is.

He doesn't. He wants the electoral college to remain because it is only through this archaic, convoluted system that Republicans can get elected in its current form. If you go to pure popular vote the Republicans would have to reform and back off from its current Nazi-friendly platform. He knows the Democrat would win every time because the Republicans are not popular. They won House Elections by only one point, yet have 50 seats on the Democrats. Gerrymandering and the Electoral College will not go away with extremist Republicans hanging around.

[Badger]

If you truly claim to care about the smallest minority of individuals, then you would oppose the Electoral College like it was cancer. Which insofar as a government based on popular representation, it kind of is.

He doesn't. He wants the electoral college to remain because it is only through this archaic, convoluted system that Republicans can get elected in its current form. If you go to pure popular vote the Republicans would have to reform and back off from its current Nazi-friendly platform. He knows the Democrat would win every time because the Republicans are not popular. They won House Elections by only one point, yet have 50 seats on the Democrats. Gerrymandering and the Electoral College will not go away with extremist Republicans hanging around.

Well, duh.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Trump has been the best for the democrat party. We would have never gotten Doug Jones + 1.7 without Trump. I strongly approve of Trump

A 3 year senate seat for an 8 year Presidency is an interesting trade. I approve!

We got a 21 point swing in a Kansas house election. We got a 45 point swing in a recent Tennessee state house election. Don't worry - there'll be more incredible and historic losses that have never before been seen in America under your doofus-in-chief! Thanks for the albatross around the GOP, Krazeidiot.

That already happened pal. The Democrat party suffered historic losses in the 2014 and 2016 elections and began wailing about the fact that they kept losing.

I guess being condensed into this rump fringe is kinda lousy.

Does Kookie Krazeidiot remember when the Democratic party suffered historic losses in 2012? Oh wait, the GOP got cucked out of easily winnable seats in Indiana, Montana, Missouri, and North Dakota because they are just that garbage. How does a party lose seats in 4 states that vote titanium republican?

[Landslide Lyndon]

The Democratic party may realize too late that Kamala Harris is not the best candidate to win working class whites in the midwest.

The guy who considers everybody to the right of Lenin a fascist is suddenly concerned about a candidate's appeal to Joe Sixpack from Redneckville, Missouri.

[CookieDamage]

The Democratic party may realize too late that Kamala Harris is not the best candidate to win working class whites in the midwest.

The guy who considers everybody to the right of Lenin a fascist is suddenly concerned about a candidate's appeal to Joe Sixpack from Redneckville, Missouri.

This. I don't get why leftists and Bernie bros are so concerned about winning working class white Trump voters when they're the ones okay with racism and a capitalist country... yet all these leftists never say sh**t about appealing to working class people of color and working class democrats who probably want to see a more socialized society.

[ProudModerate2]

Trump has been the best for the democrat party. We would have never gotten Doug Jones + 1.7 without Trump. I strongly approve of Trump

A 3 year senate seat for an 8 year Presidency is an interesting trade. I approve!

We got a 21 point swing in a Kansas house election. We got a 45 point swing in a recent Tennessee state house election. Don't worry - there'll be more incredible and historic losses that have never before been seen in America under your doofus-in-chief! Thanks for the albatross around the GOP, Krazeidiot.

That already happened pal. The Democrat party suffered historic losses in the 2014 and 2016 elections and began wailing about the fact that they kept losing.

I guess being condensed into this rump fringe is kinda lousy.

Does Kookie Krazeidiot remember when the Democratic party suffered historic losses in 2012? Oh wait, the GOP got cucked out of easily winnable seats in Indiana, Montana, Missouri, and North Dakota because they are just that garbage. How does a party lose seats in 4 states that vote titanium republican?

That was the year the GOP put-up too many "Wackos And Weirdo And Witches" as their candidates.

Conservative political analyst Michael Barone told an audience in Washington that Republicans put “too many” tea party “wackos, weirdos and witches” on the ballot this year (2012), costing them seats in the U.S. Senate.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/09/michael-barone-tea-party-wackos-and-weirdos-and-witches-cost-gop-senate-seats-video/

[Rookie Yinzer]

The Democratic party may realize too late that Kamala Harris is not the best candidate to win working class whites in the midwest.

The guy who considers everybody to the right of Lenin a fascist is suddenly concerned about a candidate's appeal to Joe Sixpack from Redneckville, Missouri.

This. I don't get why leftists and Bernie bros are so concerned about winning working class white Trump voters when they're the ones okay with racism and a capitalist country... yet all these leftists never say sh**t about appealing to working class people of color and working class democrats who probably want to see a more socialized society.

They’re just as threatened by POC as Deplorables are. They just tolerate us until we voice concerns about our specific issues or vote in a way they don’t like.

[BudgieForce]

I hate Rasmussen so much.

[Old Man Willow]

The Democratic party may realize too late that Kamala Harris is not the best candidate to win working class whites in the midwest.

The guy who considers everybody to the right of Lenin a fascist is suddenly concerned about a candidate's appeal to Joe Sixpack from Redneckville, Missouri.

This. I don't get why leftists and Bernie bros are so concerned about winning working class white Trump voters when they're the ones okay with racism and a capitalist country... yet all these leftists never say sh**t about appealing to working class people of color and working class democrats who probably want to see a more socialized society.

Well, Bernie in 2016 did best with whites and white states (NH, MI, WI, OR), while Hillary crushed among blacks, the southern states basically giving her an insurmountable delegate lead.

I suppose the desire to reach out to WCW comes from a combination of the fact that they voted for the more socialist candidate in the primary, and the fact that Trump barely skimmed by with PA, MI and WI, and the idea that appealing to just a bit more would be the recipe for victory in those areas. Of course, you could also argue that increased minority turnout would do the same trick.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The Democratic party may realize too late that Kamala Harris is not the best candidate to win working class whites in the midwest.

The guy who considers everybody to the right of Lenin a fascist is suddenly concerned about a candidate's appeal to Joe Sixpack from Redneckville, Missouri.

This. I don't get why leftists and Bernie bros are so concerned about winning working class white Trump voters when they're the ones okay with racism and a capitalist country... yet all these leftists never say sh**t about appealing to working class people of color and working class democrats who probably want to see a more socialized society.

Well, Bernie in 2016 did best with whites and white states (NH, MI, WI, OR), while Hillary crushed among blacks, the southern states basically giving her an insurmountable delegate lead.

I suppose the desire to reach out to WCW comes from a combination of the fact that they voted for the more socialist candidate in the primary, and the fact that Trump barely skimmed by with PA, MI and WI, and the idea that appealing to just a bit more would be the recipe for victory in those areas. Of course, you could also argue that increased minority turnout would do the same trick.

If Bernie bros really believe that the WWC who voted for Sanders in West Virginia, Oklahoma and Kentucky did it because they are socialism-curious, then they are even bigger suckers than I ever thought.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

If Bernie bros really believe that the WWC who voted for Sanders in West Virginia, Oklahoma and Kentucky did it because they are socialism-curious, then they are even bigger suckers than I ever thought.

I don't think they're "socialism-curious." I know for a fact some were already outright socialist.