Trump 39: The Return of the Wall

[AmazonGrace]

Talking about Spanky serving crap:

 

 

[Dandruff]

3 hours ago, formergothardite said:

I so hope you are right! My husband thinks that his taxes will in the end be his undoing. He keeps telling me that once they really start digging into his finances Trump is screwed. I think 2016 scarred a whole bunch of us for life. I know that I'm scared to get my hopes up after being so sure there was no way Trump would win and then seeing him win. 

It was traumatic.  I remember several people I know spouting pro-Trump and anti-Hillary remarks way prior to the election.  By the time the election was coming closer, and public disdain for Trump was apparent, they claimed they weren't going to vote.  I'm sure that they did, though - they had just realized when it was time to go quiet.

Some reasons I heard from people who admitted they voted for Trump were religious, loathing of Hillary, and vague stuff about Trump being a good businessman who will be a strong leader.  No matter what the other reasons were, there was loathing of Hillary.  Whatever negative PR was going on in the background was apparently very effective.  None of these people wore MAGA hats or were openly disruptive.  They all seemed to have gotten the same message though and I suspect they still are (based on "pat" defenses of Trump I've heard).  Campaigning is no longer just TV, door-to-door, and rallies, and it doesn't have to stop when the election is over.

I believe the Democratic party needs to choose their 2020 candidate very carefully.  Substance matters, of course, but so does public appeal.  They shouldn't underestimate the power of superficial traits and existing undercurrents of bias.  Sad as it is to say, I think there will be a likely difference between the candidate who's best and the one who's best and can win.

[AmazonGrace]

 

[Drala]

@fraurosena I hope you're right.  I feel like we're stuck in a never-ending nightmare.  I keep wondering what it will take for the Republicans in congress to turn on the Dear Leader.  As long as his base sticks with him, I don't see congressional Republicans voting for impeachment.   When the Reps turned on Nixon, his approval rating had dropped below 30%--in today's electorate, that  would represent about a 10% decline in support from the base.  I think that people who support Trump are well aware he's a pathological liar, a cheat and a conman.  I think it doesn't matter to them.  Evidence of criminal activity or conspiracy?  I don't think it will move his supporters to abandon ship.   

[AmazonGrace]

As long as Fox News shills for Trump his numbers will be pretty steady I think because faithful Fox viewers will miss much of what makes Trump look bad daily.

[onekidanddone]

24 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

 

"You People"?  See this....this is why I'm filled with rage. 

[fraurosena]

23 minutes ago, Drala said:

@fraurosena I hope you're right.  I feel like we're stuck in a never-ending nightmare.  I keep wondering what it will take for the Republicans in congress to turn on the Dear Leader.  As long as his base sticks with him, I don't see congressional Republicans voting for impeachment.   When the Reps turned on Nixon, his approval rating had dropped below 30%--in today's electorate, that  would represent about a 10% decline in support from the base.  I think that people who support Trump are well aware he's a pathological liar, a cheat and a conman.  I think it doesn't matter to them.  Evidence of criminal activity or conspiracy?  I don't think it will move his supporters to abandon ship.   

At this point in time there is still some plausible deniability -- it's tenuous, but still. Yes, there are rumors. But it's all circumstantial. Nothing has been irrefutably proven. Yet.

For two years, the Repugliklans have purposely stuck their heads in the sand. But no more. Now the Democrats in the House are acting to find direct and undeniable evidence. And as that evidence becomes public, you will start to see a decline in support for the presidunce. First, it will be those that voted for him because they didn't want Hillary and dislike what they see. They'll only need a little nudge. Then it will be people who are feeling financially and otherwise that they didn't quite get what they bargained for. And so it will go, support slowly but inexorably fading away, until only a small base remains. And even that base will crumble, when it becomes clear that impeachment and removal is imminent. After all, nobody wants to be seen backing a loser. Of course a few hardcore vociferous morons will remain faithful. But it will be a far cry from the support he now has. 

And don't forget, a lot of Repugliklans are up for re-election. Remember what happened in the Midterms last year? It produced a Democratic majority in the House. Next year, that blue wave will become a tsunami, never fear. And the Senate will have a Democratic majority as well.

They may not realize it yet, but the end of the Repugliklan party is nigh. I said this in another thread, but it bears repeating. Support for the Republicans is not as great as it seems, even in the so-called 'red' states. Because if you take away gerrymandering, voter suppression and voter fraud, you will find that there are far less Republican voters in the country than it seems right now. The majority of the American people leans Democrat. 

[Howl]

I'm hoping that AOC will simply ignite the sleeping masses of younger voters.  She rules on twitter. 

[Drala]

@fraurosena A poll came out today that showed Trump with a 46% approval rating.  That's close to an all-time high for him.  What has he done to get an unpward spike in approval?  Not a damn thing that I can see, but then, I don't feed at the Fox news trough.  His base lives in the Fox alternate universe, an infoworld where his recent summit with Kim Jun Un in Hanoi no doubt was touted as an event deserving of a Nobel peace prize.  I don't think that the information coming out of upcoming congressional hearings will be covered by Fox in any meaningful way, so I don't see his base turning on him.  My hope is that we will vote the bastard out of office in 2020.  Then the SDNY AG's office can indict his corrupt ass. 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

McCathyists are harassing the president 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[fraurosena]

6 hours ago, Drala said:

@fraurosena A poll came out today that showed Trump with a 46% approval rating.  That's close to an all-time high for him.  What has he done to get an unpward spike in approval?  Not a damn thing that I can see, but then, I don't feed at the Fox news trough.  His base lives in the Fox alternate universe, an infoworld where his recent summit with Kim Jun Un in Hanoi no doubt was touted as an event deserving of a Nobel peace prize.  I don't think that the information coming out of upcoming congressional hearings will be covered by Fox in any meaningful way, so I don't see his base turning on him.  My hope is that we will vote the bastard out of office in 2020.  Then the SDNY AG's office can indict his corrupt ass. 

@Drala, polls are my pet peeve, so I’m climbing on my hobby-horse to once again reiterate that I take absolutely no stock in polls whatsoever. It’s statistically impossible to glean any meaningful information from them. How can what 1000 people say ever be able to represent what 300 million think? The sample size is simply too small. There are so many variables to consider that influence the outcome. Who are these 1000 people, where do they live, for example. How many of them live ruraly, how many in cities? Which cities? What is their ethnical background? How old are they? What is their highest education level? What state of mind were they in when questioned? And those are just some examples of how the answers to questions can be influenced by whom is asked. And then there’s the way the questions themselves can influence the answer given. How the question is worded can oftentimes pre-determine the answer. People more readily agree with a question prefaced or ended with (a variation of) ‘Don’t you think...?’ So the question itself can render misleading answers. The exact wording can also give  unreliable answers. Here’s an example of what I mean. The question ‘The president has declared a National Emergency. Do you agree?’ is rather ambiguous. Because yes, the president has done that. But no, you don’t agree with his reasoning for it. Both answers are correct, and it just depends on how one interprets the question if one answers yes or no. 

Another influence on polling is who is asking the questions, what are their motivations, and what might they be doing to influence the results? Is it a right leaning organization, or centrist, or left? Is it a news organisation that benefits from sensational answers? Is it a politically motivated poll, seeking confirmation for preferred policy? Are the answers to ambiguous questions manipulated to yield predetermined results? Are the pollsters actually polling, or are they making things up? 

As you can see, there are way too many variables influencing the results. Ergo, polls are incredibly unreliable.

One glaringly painful example is how wrong the polls were in 2016. It’s part of why many were completely blindsided by the election results. Never dispair (or rejoice) at poll results.

/rant

[Ozlsn]

@fraurosena totally agree. I love the Yes Prime Minister clip that illustrates it so very well.

Spoiler

 

 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight has his approval rate at 42%, still high, but not as high as 46%. And he's quite more unpopular than he is popular.

[AmazonGrace]

 

[Drala]

@fraurosena You do make a good point about polls.  However, there is a science to doing these things, so that it is possible for a small sample to reflect a larger pattern.   I cited one poll that came out yesterday, which is insufficient.  I don't know anything about the sampling frame or the survey questions used by the NBC News/Wall Street Journal polling team.  Still, I don't see why any poll should show an increase in Trump's approval.   That's my bias speaking.  Nate Silver's 538 website reports a composite of current polls, and I don't think the latest poll from NBC News/Wall Street Journal is reflected in the current 538 graph.  Whether or  not Trump's approval rating is as high as 42% or not, it's clearly not in the range where his base has abandoned him or even appear to be turning away.   I'm still stuck on the question of what it will take for enough of his base to turn on him to support impeachment.  When Trump was first elected, I thought he would get impeached just because he would prove to be so incompetent and corrupt.  The way his base have stuck by him over time, I'm less convinced there will ever be a critical mass to support impeachment.  I could be wrong.  I'm just pessimistic about the portion of the electorate that put Trump in office. There are too many true believers, and it's too much a personality cult.  Their mantra is:  "My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts!"  That's a qualitative assessment; it's not supported by scientific polling. ?

 

 

[formergothardite]

7 minutes ago, Drala said:

The way his base have stuck by him over time, I'm less convinced there will ever be a critical mass to support impeachment. 

Not only his base, but the GOP. I think at this point Trump has enough material to blackmail his way out of impeachment. 

[SilverBeach]

7 hours ago, fraurosena said:

I’m climbing on my hobby-horse to once again reiterate that I take absolutely no stock in polls whatsoever.

ITA, I've never been asked my opinion about shit and other people don't speak for me. It's bullshit.

I've never understood rabid anti-Hillary sentiment. She was qualified to be president. I don't like more than one person in a family holding the office, which was my primary issue although I voted for her as there was no alternative for me. The dislike for her was/is so personal.

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, formergothardite said:

Not only his base, but the GOP. I think at this point Trump has enough material to blackmail his way out of impeachment. 

That there is still a base that follows the presidunce is, in my opinion, because of the fact that the GOP chose Trump to be their candidate . That they did so was reason enough for a lot of conservatives to follow him. They blindly support whomever the party supports, because they believe the party knows more than they do, and if they say a person is good enough to be their candidate, then they will support said candidate. It doesn't matter what anybody else says, the party, the group you belong to, is the one you follow regardless. People are stupid that way. The group says this, so I believe it's true, because I belong to the group. The group does this, stands for this, supports this, so I do too. For those people, being a conservative, being a republican, is not only what they are, it is who they are.

Of course this type of follower does not comprise the whole of the base, but it does represent a good portion of it. And as soon as the GOP moves away from the presidunce, then so will they. 

 

[Destiny]

 

Wait. He did this twice? Ffs!

[Howl]

20 hours ago, Dandruff said:

No matter what the other reasons were, there was loathing of Hillary.  Whatever negative PR was going on in the background was apparently very effective. 

and

1 hour ago, SilverBeach said:

I've never understood rabid anti-Hillary sentiment. She was qualified to be president. I don't like more than one person in a family holding the office, which was my primary issue although I voted for her as there was no alternative for me. The dislike for her was/is so personal.

The Hillary Hate Machine was an offshoot of the Clinton Hate Machine.  Richard Mellon Scaife started out with bankrolling The Arkansas Project to try to dig out dirt on the Clintons and churn up bad PR. 

Scaife and The Arkansas Project:  Among the Hillary Haters  Can a new, professionalized generation of scandalmongers uncover more dirt on the Clintons—without triggering a backlash?

Scaife, in later years, had a rapprochement with the Clintons and they came to a point of mutual respect, if not friendship. He met Hillary in person and liked her.   Scaife, as it turns out, was a Libertarian who supporting legalizing LGBT marriage early on, legalizing pot,  opposed the invasion of Iraq, gave generously to Planned Parenthood and the Clinton Global Initiative and endorsed Hillary's nomination.  However, Scaif's legacy lived on and I'm not sure he ever really denounced it. 

It didn't need much to fire up the Hillary Hate Machine to full strength during Hillary's tenure as Sec. of State and went ballistic with Hillary's presidential run.  

I remember the very first time I saw Hillary Clinton on TV.  She was sitting on an empty stage in a chair, taking questions from the audience.  Totally poised, unflappable and crystal clear in her responses. I've often thought that she is brilliant, smarter than Bill even, and Bill is no slacker. She just doesn't have the warm fuzzies and love of people that characterize part of Bill Clinton's particular political gifts.  Which reminds me, I remember the first time I saw Bill Clinton on TV.  Hmmmm, I thought, he's got a JFK haircut. 

Anyway, good Guardian piece on Hillary here:  Why do people dislike Hillary Clinton? The story goes far back

[Howl]

Preach it, Sister!  Glad to see people who matter calling out Trump's lies.  The MSM is still afraid of using the word LIE when so may things are outright lies! 

 

[AmazonGrace]

I saw somewhere that HRC had pretty high favorable ratings when she was mostly Bill's wife and it started falling when she started running for offices.  The same thing is happening to Warren, (I think), some people who in2016  were all, "I would vote for a woman, just not Hillary, Warren is more likable", are now saying they would vote for a woman, just not Warren because she's not likable.

Women in power are great, it's just that everyone who is currently running is a biotch

[Howl]

11 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

McCathyists are harassing the president 

Gosh, next he'll be saying that the Democrats are trying to lynch him.  Really, it's only a matter of time.