if it wasn’t a reference to what the site said, then why the focus on the change at noon? The days covered by the poll don’t change at noon, do they? That’s fixed, right? The only thing that changes at noon is the number shown on the site, right?
I’m finding this “right?” thing addictive. Let’s hope I don’t start posting in super big text also, that would be super obnoxious.
[QUOTE=HurricaneDitka]
His actual approval rating yesterday was 39%, right? not 36%? I understand that it takes Gallup a few hours to compile the numbers and get it posted, but that delay doesn’t alter the fact that his approval rating was 39% yesterday (the 26th) right?
[/quote]
You’re quibbling over a percentage point or two when you’re the one who originally rounded it up by at least a percentage point?
[QUOTE=HurricaneDitka]
It wasn’t intended as a defense, just a plea for accuracy.
[/quote]
Your original rounding up was evidently not done in a noble attempt to wave the flag of accuracy and selflessly claim it for Spain.
40% (or 39% or 38.5%) is awful, which is why the tendency here to exaggerate it by cherry-picking polls baffles me. The truth serves your point just fine people, no need to try to mislead folks with cherry-picked polls.
Speaking for myself, I couldn’t possibly support a man with a 36% approval rating yesterday. 38.5% is peachy keen though. Before yesterday is the long ago, and doesn’t count.
Ummm, no, and WTF?!?. My original post had a link wrapped around “more like 40%” that pointed to exactly what I was referencing: the RCP average, which stood at 39.7% at the time. I rounded up 0.3%.
Did you deliberately remove the link from my quoted post? :mad:
The RCP averages polls going back to 7/8. Which wasn’t a problem in the heady days of your youth. Now, however, you know better.
Sure, people would give a shit, just as they’ve given a shit about everything else he’s done. See, I don’t judge Republicans by what they say, I judge them by what they do. And they’ve done nothing - absolutely nothing - to stop him. And if the House Judiciary Committee’s move yesterday is any indication, they’re not only not going to stop him, but they’re going to enable him where they can, unless he becomes so toxic that they just can’t.
Firing Sessions won’t make Trump toxic anymore than firing James Comey did. Trump doesn’t need Sessions to market to bigots. He probably does need Sessions’ competence in making the criminal justice system more racist, but that’s not something that’s going to register with his supporters, and it might actually have the added benefit of calming the nerves of some of his most ardent critics, who absolutely hate the current AG.
Trump actually would have become more toxic if, for example, he had signed a bill that would have taken healthcare coverage away from 20 to 30 million people and given tax cuts to the mega rich – that might have made him more toxic over the long run. Trump will eventually become more toxic at some point, when the consequences of his gross incompetence become too big not to see. But as it, the GOP rage machine isn’t going to blame Trump for failure to repeal Obamacare - that’s on the senate. And the senate and house are going to have to go back home and face their angry voters who were promised lower taxes and the repeal of a black man’s signature piece of legislation and they’re empty handed. That’s not on Trump in the eyes of red state voters; that’s on senate weaklings.
We’ve sort of entered the point in the debate about health care and about Sessions where someone has to suggest that the ACA has significant problems that will require a lot of study and effort to improve and which will never all be corrected…but it is a better system than any system that doesn’t involve government rules and mandates…except for single payer. Single payer would solve every voter promise difficulty Republicans already have and would please enough D’s to be successful.
Sessions? Again, maybe all his supporters and critics should understand that removing him in any fashion at this point would create chaos, chaos that is much worse than the systematic path we now have to either throw out half of Thrump’s administation for financial and policital crimes against the state, or, find their actions harmless and not worth pursuing. Thrump? Hell, we already know he is a lying crook with the IQ of a bean, so what more will be gained or lost by finding him woefully incompetent regards his financial relationships with Russian oligarchs? If the country survives, his name, after it is heard or said, will immediately produce spittle on the ground
Something like “you’re not supposed to be in here, Mister” or “where is our teacher” or “why is your face so red?”
The Senate has to confirm the Deputy AG appointee too. So if they sensed these shenanigans, and I kind of think they would, they could hold that up instead.
Your ignorance regarding Trump’s actions is really quite astounding.
Regardless of what Trump’s personal views are, he is most certainly governing as a conservative: much more so, in fact, than most politicians who make big noises about their conservative positions.
He named a committed proponent of charter schools and vouchers to the Department of Education.
His proposed budget is a conservative’s dream:
He is trying hard to fulfill many of his campaign promises. Many of the ones he has not been able to do yet are because of concerted, wide-spread opposition–but he’s still trying. If it weren’t for the RINOs in Congress, Obamacare would have been repealed at least a month ago.
Here’s another tracker, showing some different ones.
The problem with replacing Sessions is that when Trump nominates a lackey, the Senate will ask, “Are you going to fire Mueller?” That will be the only question that will matter, because that is the only reason Trump wants to fire Sessions.
If the Trump lackey to be named later says yes he cant be confirmed. If he says no, then fires Mueller anyway? Then I guess we see iwhat happens.
I don’t think anything happens, I also think they would simply not confirm any lackey without even bothering with the question.
Only if one defines RINO as “any Congressperson who doesn’t vote to repeal Obamacare”.
Let me ask you a simple question:
On which day did Trump last have the lowest approval rating of any president at this time in office since modern polling began?.
That would be today. And yesterday. And the day before. And the day before that. …
galen ubal was quite right. This is sheer diversion from the topic of Trump’s popularity, which skitters at the limit of the his core base within margin of error.
The issue of why he retains that popularity among that core is an interesting one that you might in theory have something to say about. My theory was given above: they hate who he hates - dark-skinned people, LGBQT people, the media, liberals, scientists, experts. Trump is the best hater we’ve had in the Oval Office since Nixon, who was also put into office by people who shared the same hates. Policies were and are distinctly secondary, although in both cases they tended to lash out at the hated groups. In One Day, Trump Administration Lands 3 Punches Against Gay Rights, including a move that most businesses are against.
You presumably disagree that approval rests upon hate. So disagree. Drop the diversion and make a case.
Well, you’re wrong about something. Which means you are wrong. About something. What that something is doesn’t matter as much as you being wrong. About something.
Sessions was the first significant GOP elected official, not ex-elected has-been, to endorse Trump. And to some degree Sessions was a ‘Trumpist’ (huge overemphasis on the immigration issue which hard line stance, plus anti-free trade and lukewarm to free markets: populist/nationalist more than traditional Reaganite conservative) when Trump was still a Democrat. Sessions appealed in part to the same people as later glommed onto Trump the most strongly.
OTOH since Sessions was a major elected GOP official and had a long career in ‘public service’ before that it’s also possible to label him ‘establishment’. And in fact the people running to his defense now include a lot of definitely ‘establishment’ including Never Trump type conservatives, and even Democrats (who said Sessions shouldn’t be AG, but now Trump shouldn’t fire him, shades of Comey).
But the populist talk radio right is giving Trump static over hazing Sessions, the presumable source of ‘99%’ of Trump’s popularity, I assume some populist/nationalist radio jock said that. They would not defend for example Ryan, McConnell or another conventional GOP conservative, rather than a Dixiecrat* like Sessions, in Trump’s cross hairs.
I think Trump might back off hazing Sessions, even if not ‘99%’ of Trump’s popularity.
*which is kind of what Trump himself is, a latter day Dixiecrat with a different accent. It’s good for conservatives Trump nominated Gorsuch, good he has some actual conservatives in his cabinet, not so good he can’t provide any leadership on legislation because he’s so clueless on all policy issues and constantly shooting himself in the foot. But Trump is NOT a conservative himself. And that matters.
I would agree with the OP the Sessions is the only person in the white house who is actually accomplishing anything towards Trump’s campaign promises. However, I doubt that the public at large realizes this and I also frankly doubt that Trump realizes this either. Trump’s narcissism is such that he accept all credit and reassigns all blame at an instinctive level. So any progress that Sessions has made towards his agenda, Trump will believe was due to his own hard work and amazing leadership abilities.
Sure, start another thread (one where I haven’t had my posts so badly mangled and mis-represented) with that as the topic and I’ll jump in and share my thoughts.
I don’t feel the need to “make a case” against a theory offered without any evidence to support it.
Well, I certainly understand why you wouldn’t want people to see your posts in this thread. However, I consider an OP about why his base supports Trump to be ideal for talking about why his base supports Trump.