Doubtful. Assuming there is no wooosh here. His base would probably say what a great man he was getting that blowjob.
Clinton’s polls may have gone up perhaps because the whole Starr investigation was grasping at any straw it could find and the public could see that. They went from Whitewater, jumped to the laughable
“Clinton death list”, to investigating travel agents, FBI files, and finally Lewinski. But by then it was obviously a pathetic fishing expedition that went on for years, went way beyond its scope, leaked like a sieve and made massive legal errors in the final report.
The economy was doing well, and it did so having come out of a nasty recession that was still in place when Clinton took office. That made people not in the mood for the GOPs nonsense. Trump, on the other hand, while presiding over a strong economy, inherited it. He’s jumped in front of a parade and pretending he led it from the start.
I believe this perspective is driven by pure partisanship. If the economy had tanked, as many on the left predicted, shortly after Trump’s election, you wouldn’t still be calling it “the Obama economy”.
I am surprised by the Gallup poll, but I have been surprised by polls before.
A recent article - Trump owns a shrinking Republican party by Brookings shows another side to the issue, so there are cites on either side. The trend line for both parties is bad - especially among the young.
Mostly tongue in cheek. However with three states having such narrow margins for Trump and clear evidence of Russian social media activities - I (sadly) would not be shocked to learn that there was direct vote rigging.
So, I still think that Trump will continue to have an increasing slice of a diminishing Republican Party.
I think whoever wrote that article is imaging things too. There was not a “sharp drop at the end of George W. Bush’s second term”. It basically bounced around within a few points of 28% through all of 2007, 2008, and 2009.
I think you’d be well-served to leave the wild theories without any evidence to support them to the conspiracy nuts.
Time will tell which analysis of voter affiliation is correct. Opinions-be-damned more than facts for me.
Moving on, other interesting opinions popped up recently. The Cook Political report has a new analysis of white voting patterns.
It goes a bit deeper than gender and education and shows a striking (to me) religious divide.
In the same vein, NPR interviewed an attendee at last weekend’s Whitehouse dinner for evangelical supporters. Robert Jeffress was quite clear in explaining Trump’s appeal to evangelicals.
And of course they will look the other way if/when it’s proven that he has paid at least one woman to have an abortion. The party of hypocrites has hypocrites for supporters. No big surprise.
Reagan was loved by religious folks but he pretty much never went to church. And he was a family values guy but did not meet one of his grandkids until they were around 1 year old.
Not just hypocrites. Stupid, hateful, evil, pestilential scum.
I mean, even if you believe abortion is a horrifying taking of a human life – which, while an idea I disagree with, is one I can acknowledge decent people might harbor – how can you look at all the harm the man is doing to actual, post-natal human beings and say, “Yeah, on balance, it’s worth it”?
I believe it isn’t. What policy of the Nazi-loving republican you support would you have us credit as being responsible for the economic trends started by President Barack Hussein Obama?
That latest point is a little bit of an outlier, possibly. Eyeballing, the R number is generally in the 24-29 range and the D number is in the 27-32 range, with of course some occasions including the most recent data point where R>D. A quick average of 2016-2018 gives me D + 2.7 (with no visual trend on inspection).
It’s amazing what the human mind is capable of - even adhering to a faith so brittle it cannot withstand questioning or scientific fact, yet so flexible that it can rationalize and justify any conclusion it likes.
a big problem is for most people in the US they only see 2 choices to vote for. If one guy/gal is not 100% OK by them , they vote for him/her anyway due to a strong dislike of the other guy/gal.
Ms. Clinton was bashed nationally since 1992 so a lot of people have a bad impression of her. She was the ultimate insider/old guard candidate.
The Brookings report I cited has a graph of many Gallup poll results that show clear trends in party affiliation since 2005 and Trump approval by age group.