A strong majority of Americans say Democrats should look to cooperate with President Trump to strike deals, according to the inaugural Harvard-Harris poll provided exclusively by The Hill.
The survey found that 73 percent of voters want to see Democrats work with the president, against only 27 percent who said Democrats should resist Trump’s every move.
The findings are significant as Democratic leaders in Congress are under growing pressure by their liberal base to obstruct the president's agenda. The poll shows the party is divided on how to deal with Trump: 52 percent of Democrats polled say they should cooperate with him on areas of agreement and 48 percent saying they shouldn't.Of course, the Democrats are following the advice of pussy hat wearing protesters, nasty women, and celebrities who fantasize about blowing up the white house. Moreover, most of the Democratic office holders appear to close to the issue to see the forest for the trees. All distraction. No big picture.
Much of this is driven from the fact that their ego-driven concept of a changing demographic permanent majority for the Democrats seems to be crumbling around them. It's much easier to believe that Donald Trump somehow high-jacked the Presidency and that they must take the stand against caving in on the ransom demands... than to accept that their Party has driven themselves to century long political lows, that culminated with their chosen nominee for President being beaten by a billionaire reality television star.
One of the many reasons that Donald Trump is sitting in the White House right now is the fact that people felt like he was someone who would do what he said he would and make "getting things done" a priority. When the populist theme of early 21st century is that the political elite put Party and personal ego ahead of actually helping people... becoming absolute obstructionists doesn't appear to be a good strategy.
66 comments:
Oh it's exactly the right strategy for the Democrats.
Just keep going!!! :)
Speaks volumes how out of touch they are with America and Americans.
Dems time to get over the devastating loss to of all people Trump.
Time to get to work, diaper pin on your dresses and tough it out.
Unions voted for Trump and he is cementing them in the Trump wing of the Republican party.
TrumpEconomics is on fire, thank you Mr President and thank the real Frist Lady.
Seems to me that the dems would give the President exactly what he wants given that they believe everything he wants is bad for the country, let this play out IF it is so bad , we should know well prior to the nov 2018 elections, which HB already called a landslide win for Dems.
It is becoming evident that President Trump is not going to reach out beyond his base. His news conference was undeniably aimed directly at his base. That isn't the worst part of it, he is claiming that the Free Press is "An Enemy of The Country" Many Presidents have been unhappy with the coverage of them, but to my recollection, none of them said the free press was an enemy of the country. In his bizarre world, is to point out lies, or report the facts, they are attacking our country. The Firs Amendment was the first one for a reason. A free and unhindered press is vital to our democratic republic.
He apparently believes that he can effectively govern by pleasing his base. But there is a problem there, firs is his popularity is at an all time low for fist month of a Presidency. The bigger problem is that his base is only about 30% of the eligible voters. It's apparent that he is the motivation for millions of Americans, evident by the almost daily anti-Trump rallies across the country, even deeply red states.
As of this time, the Democrats have a problem, They are represented by the last generation of the party, who have not been able to motivate their own base. The turnout last election in key states was evidence of that. Approximately 72,000 votes in five states, Clinton should have carried, would have changed the outcome of the election that brought us the mos unqualified and narcissistic man in our 240 years of our country. So they have to find someone with the ability, somewhat like Bill Clinton had, to get not only the educated, white voters and minorities, but the blue collar voters who have voted against their best interest, because the Republicans have successfully portrayed them as elitists who look down on them. God, Gays and Gun control has been their weapons. But the country is getting less evangelical, is in favor of reasonable gun control, like keeping the mentally ill from purchasing a weaapon and the hatred for LGBT is fading into the past. So the door is open, but they have to find someone who has key to that door.
To answer my own question, given the directions of the polls, and the deep fear in the Republican congress, is not going to follow them into the grave. And remember this folks, our intelligence services dis trust him that they are already withholding information from him, in fear that it will end up on Twitter. And the leaks are going to turn into a river of leaks. The answer is no.
Roger - there is a very simple way of looking at his approval ratings. Who is being polled, and how much does that matter?
Likely Voter polls: Trump 55%
Registered Voter polls: Trump 45%
All Adult polls: 43%
Going into a mid-term election where you see a much smaller (and more conservative) electorate, why do you believe it's a bad strategy for him to concentrate on his base? If his base turns out for the midterms, that 46-47 percent will make up a much bigger percentage of the mid-term electorate than 47%.
The problem with the man currently leading the Republican party is that he is, as the Washington Post puts it, a hostage to the “fanatical policies of the extreme right.” His administration “insults women” and his unwelcome presence in public life “insults us all.” And, because the Republican party is all about the winning these days, the GOP establishment is “ready to forgive” . . . what? . . . “just about anything — as long as he wins.”
Donald Trump in 2017?
Na, Mitt Romney in 2012.
I think you can forgive people for ignoring the "chicken little" hand-wringing they are hearing from the media nowadays.
My number is the eligible voters. If the Democrats find someone with that "thing" and increase the percentage of voters, the numbers favor the Democrats. A lot more voters who generally are Democrats than Republicans, can turn things around rather quickly.
I think that you are ignoring that Trump is a motivational asset for the Democrats. His ratings are at 40% or lower. The wild card is Donald J Trump. If he does not improve his popularity, things can change dramatically.
Trump is easily a motivational asset for Republicans and independents (Reagan Democrats).
Right now he a man of the people the Democrats have abandoned.
If he's still that man in 2018 the Democrats are in for a bloodbath.
Right now he a man of the people the Democrats have abandoned. That is what he's telling you, but the polls show it just the other way.
If he's still that man in 2018 the Democrats are in for a bloodbath. You are ignoring the demonstrations that are occurring in every state, including all the red states. The Democrats are going to be far more motivated to vote in the off year elections as they have before. The Tea Party didn't really have a leader, it was spontaneous, and the same thing will happen in reverse if he does not grow the hell up and act like a President instead of a reality TV show host.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx
He went up 1% ! GOP landslide like he says he did !!!!!!
Roger - you are ignoring very recent history. People tend to vote for someone when they are given a reason to vote "for that person". Hillary made the campaign about Trump and she lost. Not only that, but across the Congressional races, the GOP had a 1.5 million vote advantage. That 1.5 million vote advantage (and not the vote on the Presidency) matters more to a mid-term.
Not only that, but there has been a surge in approvals for the Republican Party since the election. While Trump may or may not be popular, the popularity of his Party is rising.
And no... I am "not" ignoring "demonstrations".
In fact, once again... historically "demonstrations" turn off more people than they motivate. Remember what happened to McGovern in 1972 when he embraced the "demonstrators" of the time. He lost 49 states and barely managed 40% of the vote.
Media might have tried to rewrite the history of that time by making the protesters the drive of some sort of political revolution, but the reality of the time is that it turned people off. Women wearing pussy hats, and college protests shutting down free speech turns more people off than pulls them into the cause.
If Trump picks John Bolton build a fallout shelter.
Who is being polled, and how much does that matter?
The rasmussen poll of likely voters is the outlier and so is their methodology predicting who will vote 4 years from now......Complete BS!!! Just saw Gallup....have him at 38% which is approaching the bottom since his base is probably in the high 20% range.......
We must agree to disagree. I think that Trump will inspire the Democrats to get out in big numbers, big enough to get past the 1.5 million difference. In the senate especially, because they can't be Gerrymandered.
I see a much bigger movement than you see.
Cinton was not effective as the non Trump.
You have forgotten that the biggest motivation for the Tea Party were anti Obama. So yes, the negative can motivate large numbers.
Opie, http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx
His approval is 415 today, a 1% boost!! LOL
Opie... Guess how Rasmussen had the final Presidential tally?
(Hint, they had Clinton up two points which was spot on)
The reality is that Rasmussen has always used a Likely Voter sample, and (in spite of some dishonest arguments by Nate Silver) have been one of the most accurate pollsters historically. The fact that "accuracy" is considered bad because it is seen as a "outlier" should tell you something about how the media likes to rate their polls. They would rather see a poll tell them what they want to hear, than actually be accurate. I'd prefer a poll to be "correct" than follow a trend.
All that being said... I find it odd that someone who believes we can use formulas to accurately predict climate into the future, by the hundreds of a degree... wants to believe that a Pollster using a Likely Voter sample is "B.S." It seems a strange inconsistency.
Donald J. Trump Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
My statement as to what's happening in Sweden was in reference to a story that was broadcast on @FoxNews concerning immigrants & Sweden.
LOL, your President gets his data on history from Fox News.That is a just published tweet. Good God.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/833435244451753984
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample
Approve
Disapprove
Spread
RCP Average 1/31 - 2/18 -- 45.0 50.2 -5.2
Gallup 2/16 - 2/18 1500 A 41 55 -14
Rasmussen Reports 2/14 - 2/16 1500 LV 55 45 +10
Economist/YouGov 2/12 - 2/14 1100 RV 46 49 -3
FOX News 2/11 - 2/13 1013 RV 48 47 +1
Reuters/Ipsos 2/10 - 2/14 1774 A 46 50 -4
Pew Research 2/7 - 2/12 1246 RV 42 54 -12
PPP (D) 2/7 - 2/8 712 RV 43 53 -10
Emerson 2/5 - 2/6 617 RV 48 47 +1
Quinnipiac 2/2 - 2/6 1155 RV 42 51 -9
CBS News 2/1 - 2/2 1019 A 40 48 -8
CNN/ORC 1/31 - 2/2 1002 A 44 53 -9
It's not an outlier LOLOL
Why don't you apply your powerful analytical ability on the Rasmusse Report LV model
The Republican senate panel told the Trump administration to "Preserve Records" on Russia
Why don't you apply your powerful analytical ability on the Rasmusse Report LV model
Perhaps you can entertain us with another "wrong" prediction about how the Democrats will crush Republicans in the "next election". Seems like it's been "Kerry in a landslide" for you since you started spouting predictions.
Now as it so happens...my analytical ability almost exclusively allows me to be "right" about things. I don't pretend to have a prediction about the 2018 mid terms right now. But I will say that the only way Democrats can make any inroads in 2018 is to win very consistently across the board, including red states that Trump won by double digits. That will take Republicans flipping.
Right now Republicans are sitting at above 85% for Trump support and he is close to 50% with independents. These are consistent with where he was during the general election.
The reality (like it or not) is that all of this negative media coverage is doing little more than further polarizing the nation. A polarized electorate will make it harder for Democrats to win in Red Stats and harder for Republicans to win in Blue states.
This is basically a meaningless poll, like the ones where "generic Democrat" beats Trump in spite of the fact that "generic Democrat" has never been on a ballot.
It expresses the basic, longstanding desire by most Americans for both parties to work together, but it doesn't reference any specific policy proposals.
Polls that DO ask about specific Trump policy proposals show almost all of those proposals with underwater approval.
Which begs the question, which of these policies that the American people reject do they want the Democrats to support?
"Unions voted for Trump and he is cementing them in the Trump wing of the Republican party."
GayD is obviously a flaming leftist. An actual conservative would have a big problem with unions hijacking the Republican Party.
Perhaps you can entertain us with another "wrong" prediction about how the Democrats will crush Republicans in the "next election"
Awesome explanation of the LV poll. LOL...Seems you are developing the Loretta Russo method of discourse......silly gotcha's. Good one, CH....just means you again have nothing. And it sure looks like you believe the press is not relevant or protected by the constitution .....the next step you want is Pravda. LOL
Opie... Guess how Rasmussen had the final Presidential tally?
Please tell me how that is relevant now. And how is their tally compare to the final actual vote total. Nice try.
"Going into a mid-term election where you see a much smaller (and more conservative) electorate, why do you believe it's a bad strategy for him to concentrate on his base?"
You're forgetting what happened in 2006. The rule is NOT that the mid-term electorate is more conservative.
The rule is that the midterms go to the more motivated party. Often that's the party out of power, who see Congress as their only voice. In 2010 and 2014, that was the Republicans. In 2018, it may well be the Democrats.
Public approval or disapproval of the President and his policies also plays a role. Non-ideological independents are wish-washy and vote with the bandwagon. Right now, the bandwagon is forming against Trump. Gallup's poll puts Trump at 41% approval, and Gallup has historically been a very good indicator of how midterm elections will turn out.
No party represented by a seated President with a 41% approval rating has ever even broken even in the Senate in a midterm election. And none has ever suffered a less than 20 seat loss in the House.
The Trumpists who have hijacked the Republican Party, as well as the Party's sycophantic Vichy wing are feeling very overconfident right now. But they need to be urgently concerned about righting the ship, and the serious Republicans know that.
Otherwise, if Trump's Gallup numbers stay where they are, you're looking at a loss of up to 40 House seats and up to 5-6 Senate seats. In other words, a replay of 2006.
Before anyone pooh-poohs all of that, remember that I was the first here to give concrete predictions for the 2010 election (somewhere around June 2009 if I remember correctly), and I was dead-on accurate.
Before that, Indy Voter had used the Gallup/midterm correlation to predict the 2006 election. Again, dead-on accurate.
Well PNC - hate to tell you this, but there are only nine Republican Senators up for reelection, and that includes those from Alabama (Strange), Mississippi (Wicker), Nebraska (Fischer), Tennessee (Corker), Texas (Cruz), Utah (Hatch), and Wyoming (Barrasso)... all of these are considered "safe" seats.
Only Arizona (Flake) and Nevada (Heller) are considered even in play...
PNC, my model only predicted the House. That could swing big if Trump remains unpopular. The Senate is harder, since there are fewer races and 1/3 of the States don't vote in each cycle.
Sean Trende has a model that looks at the Senate, but I haven't seen any 2018 predictions from him yet. If Trump is still unpopular, it should be a good year for Democrats, but there aren't many Republican senators up for reelection in Democrat a friendly states.
"Well PNC - hate to tell you this, but there are only nine Republican Senators up for reelection, and that includes those from Alabama (Strange), Mississippi (Wicker), Nebraska (Fischer), Tennessee (Corker), Texas (Cruz), Utah (Hatch), and Wyoming (Barrasso)... all of these are considered "safe" seats."
Before 2006, Missouri, Montana, and Virginia were considered "safe" Republican seats.
Also, practically nobody would have expected to win a Senate seat in Massachusetts in 2009.
The lesson: Nobody is safe from a tsunami.
If Trump remains at these unprecedented levels of unpopularity, a tsunami may be just what we'll get.
More specifics: In 2006, Democrats won states where Republicans had won comfortably in the previous (2002) election, including Ohio where DeWine had taken 59.9% of the vote.
So in a 2006-level wave election, any candidate who won less than 60% of the vote in the previous election could be in trouble.
In that environment, Arizona and Nevada would be Likely Democrat pickups. Nebraska, Mississippi and Texas would be Leans Democrat pickup. Only Alabama, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming would be Leans or Likely Republican hold. That brings us to 5 Senate seats, which coincidentally is exactly where the Gallup Presidential approval / midterm correlation predicts we'll be.
It goes without saying that hopes for Republican pickups in Trump states like Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, and Ohio would be dashed on the rocks in a 2018 blue wave.
He'll, even *I* said it couldn't happen in 2006. I learned from my mistake and called 2010 after Obama had only been in office 5 months.
PNC - problem with the logic is that Trump's favorables "today" are actually better than when he won the election. In November his favorable/unfavorable was 39/57 and now it is 45/50. Granted, not a huge improvement, but it's hard to imagine how he would be considered a drain on the ticket with higher favorabilities (and not on the ballot) than he would have been in 2016 with lower favorabilities and his name at the top.
In other words... there isn't any evidence (tangible or otherwise) to suggest that Trump (with his 85-87 percent approvals within his own Party) will lower GOP turnout.
Your only basis for this would be an unwarranted assumption that he will actually drop far enough below the levels he was at back in November of 2016, that it would actually make a difference.
Again, I hate the belittle the obvious, but Trump is not really doing anything at this point other than further dividing the country by partisan breakdown (He's sitting at around a plus 75 with Republicans and a minus 70 with Democrats... which is completely different than actually losing support across the board, which is what you need to create a 2018 "wave" that moves into red states.
The more partisan and divided the electorate is, the less likely it will be for a red state Democrat or a blue state Republican to win. Many (if not most) of those have been picked off the past few elections.
President Trump is living in his own fantasy world, and he is at war with anyone who dares to intrude on his dream with reality. It's as visible as the sun rising in the east.
A sane person would not be repeatedly lie, over and over again despite the facts show beyond doubt that what he says is incorrect.
As the voters, see him as he is outside the campaign, they will see what he is. Fucking nuts.
"PNC - problem with the logic is that Trump's favorables "today" are actually better than when he won the election. In November his favorable/unfavorable was 39/57 and now it is 45/50."
Gallup shows him at 41% approval. Gallup has been the most reliable indicator when trying to model any association between Presidential approval and midterm election outcomes.
"Granted, not a huge improvement, but it's hard to imagine how he would be considered a drain on the ticket with higher favorabilities (and not on the ballot) than he would have been in 2016 with lower favorabilities and his name at the top. In other words... there isn't any evidence (tangible or otherwise) to suggest that Trump (with his 85-87 percent approvals within his own Party) will lower GOP turnout."
Trump actually WAS a drain on the ticket in 2016, but that drain was offset by Republicans turning out to vote in Senate and House races in order to maintain a Congressional firewall against Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton is not going to be on the ballot in 2018, so the number of Republican fear porn victims turning out to vote in Senate and House races will likely decrease.
"Your only basis for this would be an unwarranted assumption that he will actually drop far enough below the levels he was at back in November of 2016, that it would actually make a difference."
Now would be a good time to point out that midterms and Presidential election years are completely different animals. Specifically, Presidential approval ratings (ironically) have much more of an impact on Congressional races in midterm elections. Trump's approval levels today are already enough to make a difference in a midterm election--no party whose President had Trump's current approval rating has ever even broken even in the Senate or lost fewer than 20 House seats.
"He's sitting at around a plus 75 with Republicans and a minus 70 with Democrats... which is completely different than actually losing support across the board, which is what you need to create a 2018 "wave" that moves into red states."
Bush had 81% approval with Republicans on the eve of the 2006 elections. Trump is already in worse shape.
Bush had 81% approval with Republicans on the eve of the 2006 elections. Trump is already in worse shape.
By plus 75 I mean the difference between approval and disapproval. He is currently sitting above 85% approval with Republicans.
Again PNC... I am not willing to make a prediction about 2018 other than it's a very large uphill climb for Democrats to actually take the Senate. It's more likely than not that the Democrats will lose seats.
What will matter (above everything else) is the economy and how people are feeling about their financial future. People won't vote against their own opinions on the economy (if it is good)... certainly not because of mostly fake media driven scandals. If it's bad, then sure... it could be bad for the GOP.
Well, I'm willing to report what empirical models predict. If they turn out to be wrong, we revise the models.
Feed in Trump's current 41% approval rating, and this is what the linear models return:
2018 Senate: Democrats pick up 6 seats. Democrats take 54-46 majority in Senate.
2018 House: Democrats pick up 40 seats. Democrats take majority in House.
2018 Gubernatorial: Democrats pick up 7 governorships. Democrats may hold a majority of governorships depending on the outcomes of the 2017 gubernatorial races (which currently favor the Democrats).
As I said before, Republicans are fooling themselves if they think they're in good shape with their party's President at a 41% Gallup approval rating.
If these predictions are even about halfway correct, Democrats will have the House votes they need to impeach Trump, and the Senate votes they need to make him the first President to actually be removed from office via impeachment. If the Democrats have the votes in 2019, they WILL do it.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats make removing Trump their #1 campaign promise for 2018.
Looking ahead to 2020, if Trump's Presidency survives that long, his current approval rating of 41% results in the following predictions:
Democrats pick up a further 3 Senate seats, giving them a 57-43 majority.
Democrats pick up an additional 7 House seats, shoring up their majority.
Democrats pick up 2 more governorships.
Trump would lose the popular vote by just about the same margin as in 2016.
The models also predict Trump getting only about 217 electoral votes, losing his bid for reelection. Although one might expect 2020 to be a repeat of 2016 in the electoral college given these circumstances, it's worth noting that Trump won several states by razor-thin margins and it would take less than 200,000 voters flipping for him to lose them all--not at all improbable if the Democrats run anyone less unpopular than Hillary.
If Trump actually gets impeached and removed from office in 2019, Pence would likely be running for President in 2020, and we would be in completely uncharted territory with no model to predict what happens then.
In summary, the current Republican belief that they're on anything other than precarious ground right now is a self-destructive delusion. The current state of the GOP is not viable. The few remaining sane Republicans have to be very concerned about righting the ship. In order to do that, they would need Trump to pursue nationally popular policies instead of just throwing more and more broadly unpopular red meat to his base.
As I said before, Republicans are fooling themselves if they think they're in good shape with their party's President at a 41% Gallup approval rating.
The least useful polls in predicting elections are the "all adult" polls rather than register or likely voters.
Rasmussen poll of likely voters has Trump's approval at 55%.
If you're a Democrat strategist looking to defend 6 or 7 senate seats in states where Trump was elected by double digits, that factoid will keep you awake at nights.
That is what he's telling you, but the polls show it just the other way.
No, they really don't, see above. All adults includes a substantial amount of demographics they was never going like Trump no matter what he did. They also never bother to register or can't register or if registered, never bother to cast a vote.
That's why if you are looking ahead to the mid-term election Rasmussen's poll is a more significant indicator than Gallup.
And even then I think they are still missing a good portion of the shy Trump Voter.
You are ignoring the demonstrations that are occurring in every state, including all the red states.
Yeah because I should be concerned that women and men running around in pussy hats and idiots with f**k Trump signs will ever organized themselves into a political force.
Despite your wishful thinking they are more the second coming of OWS than the left's version of the tea party.
The original Tea Party was genuinely a self-motivated grassroots organization with specific issues on their agenda.
What we've seen from the left is merely a bunch of mindless lemmings who show up where they are told to show up chant the slogans they're told to chant.
So yeah, I'll ignore then until they actually do show up at a voting booth.
Well PNC... you can have your models based entirely on Gallup polling. I will wait and see where the economy is, and go from there. I am more than willing to bet that Trump can win reelection even with his gallup polling in the low 40s if the economy is doing well, and people are happy with the direction of the Country.
Also, I hate to tell you this, Ace... but you need 2/3 of the Senate to convict a President of the high crimes required to remove a President. That's 67 seats. Your heroes will have to pick up 19 seats during an election where only 9 Republicans are running.
Perhaps they can convince some of the gullible into believing this is possible... but even the Democratic rank and file are not that easily fooled.
This ACA replacement is all that I expected it to be......but, the failing times is misreporting what is going on. I'm sure everyone will pay more, as it always does, for the ineptitude of trump and ryan.
President Trump promised to replace the Affordable Care Act with something that is better, is cheaper and covers more people. Scratch that. Republican leaders in the House and Mr. Trump’s secretary of health and human services released a plan last week that would provide insurance that is far inferior, shift more medical costs onto families and cover far fewer people.
Well Opie...
When the bedrock of your law is the creation of a insurance exchange where the Government subsidizes the buy and subsidizes the seller... and still the buyer feels like they are paying too much, and the seller is losing money to the point where they must drop out all together.
It's a pretty low bar for replacement. Perhaps instead of having to go through all of that to purchase insurance that includes a whole bunch of stuff you don't want (but still have to pay for) at an outrageous price you cannot afford, someone from the Government can just come and kick you in the groin. Might be an improvement.
What will matter (above everything else) is the economy and how people are feeling about their financial future. "
That constant never changes, it polls as the number ONE issue.
Today, Economic Optimism for Trump and Republicans are high and as we get out of the mud of the former prez failed experiment, things will get better.
JOBS
When the bedrock of your law is the creation of a insurance exchange where the Government subsidizes the buy and subsidizes the seller.
Seems to me you are whistling past the graveyard. You would think a party that voted 60+ times to repeal would have something better waiting in the wings....you don't and complaining about the current system that has insured millions to be replaced with a system that will cost more and insure less, can only lead me to conclude you are again full or crap. It sill cost us all more, whether you like it or not. Just saying something, does not make it true, as you just keep saying things without merit. Since it is such a low bar as you say, you would figure the new plan would be out and running by now as donnie promised...Instead, congressman are running into buzz saws at home when the only thing they say are tax credits, which are worthless to most in lower brackets........Dayum you are foolish, CH and your rationale is one big wish management!!!
Social Security and Medicare/Caid two other failed socialist Ponzi plans.
People in the US in business have gone to Federal Prison for less.
The best thing about today, it is one more day knowing Hillary will never be President.
You need 67 Senators to remove the President from office, PNC. It would require a lot of Republican votes to achieve that. Heaven help us if Trump is SO bad that even his own party votes to remove him - or that Trump doesn't see it coming and resigns first.
It's simple Opie...
People were much much happier with their Health Insurance "prior" to A.C.A.
The industry relied on actuaries and market adjustments back then to determine what to sell and for how much. Under Obamacare they rely on the opinions or bureaucrats, who tell them what to sell. It's a failed system.
Democrats are using typical dishonest politics to scare people into believing that any changes to the system will cause 20 million Americans to lose their insurance. This, of course,is almost as truthful as "if you like your insurance, you can keep it"... but it's effective politics.
The fact of the matter is that any gains in insurance coverage has come almost entirely through medicare expansion. So one could simply do away with all of the mandates, penalties, exchanges, etc... and there would be very little effect to the amount of the insured... and a 70 year old man would no longer have to purchase insurance that covers birth control and pap smears.
"The least useful polls in predicting elections are the "all adult" polls rather than register or likely voters."
Wrong, actually, at least in the case of the midterms. There's a closer correlation in the data when you use Gallup's poll than when you use Rasmussen's likely voter poll.
Some sociologist can try to explain that.
"And even then I think they are still missing a good portion of the shy Trump Voter"
I'm guessing you're borrowing this from the idea of the "shy Tory" in UK politics.
One problem: There are no shy Trump voters. On of the Trump supporters' defining characteristics is that they're flagrant dickheads about it.
"Also, I hate to tell you this, Ace... but you need 2/3 of the Senate to convict a President of the high crimes required to remove a President. That's 67 seats. Your heroes will have to pick up 19 seats during an election where only 9 Republicans are running."
Trump's support among elected politicians has always been thin. If the winds shift significantly against Trump, you will see elected Republicans (who never really liked him in the first place) shift with them. If a tsunami takes place, it isn't hard to imagine 13 Republican Senators crossing over to vote for removal of Trump from office.
Remember that practically every serious Republican would have rather had Pence for a President anyway.
Wrong, actually, at least in the case of the midterms. There's a closer correlation in the data when you use Gallup's poll than when you use Rasmussen's likely voter poll.
If you say so...
I've been projecting elections since 2004, never missing more than one statewide race in any year. I have never "once" used Gallup presidential approval to help make any projection about any Senate seat or Presidential State.
"Heaven help us if Trump is SO bad that even his own party votes to remove him - or that Trump doesn't see it coming and resigns first."
He's already that bad, and his own party never really wanted him in the first place. They just go along with him at the moment because their party was hijacked and they're stuck with him.
I think you would be surprised at the number of elected Republicans willing to drop him at the earliest politically tenable moment.
Like I said, they would prefer Pence instead anyway.
it isn't hard to imagine 13 Republican Senators crossing over to vote for removal of Trump from office.
I guess if you are living in an alternate reality you might believe that 13 Republicans would vote to remove an elected President of their own Party.
But in the real world, a Republican Senator does not cross a Republican President who holds an approval rating in the mid 80s with Republican voters... not unless you are seriously considering switching Parties.
Wrong, actually, at least in the case of the midterms. There's a closer correlation in the data when you use Gallup's poll than when you use Rasmussen's likely voter poll.
Some sociologist can try to explain that.
I'm sure there's quite a lot of mental gymnastics involved in explaining how a poll of mostly non-voters is predictive of an historically low turn-out election.
"But in the real world, a Republican Senator does not cross a Republican President who holds an approval rating in the mid 80s with Republican voters... not unless you are seriously considering switching Parties."
We all know Republican Senators are easily spooked animals.
Suppose there's a wave election and these come true: No Republican pickups even in red states. Flake and Heller lose handily in Arizona and Nevada. Fischer and Wicker lose in Nebraska and Mississippi. They actually lose in Texas as Cruz goes down. Even Corker and Hatch get an unexpected run for their money.
Every Republican in the Senate will immediately shit his pants and do whatever it takes to keep the blue wave from overtaking them as well.
"I'm sure there's quite a lot of mental gymnastics involved in explaining how a poll of mostly non-voters is predictive of an historically low turn-out election."
If I had to make a guess, taking into account the rule that the midterms go to the more motivated party, I would suspect that some of the voters in the "likely voter" models become demotivated and stay home, while some of the unlikely voters in the "all adults" sample get motivated and turn out to vote.
It explains fairly well how the "likely voter" polls in 2006 all underestimated the wave that year.
Suppose there's a wave election and these come true: No Republican pickups even in red states. Flake and Heller lose handily in Arizona and Nevada. Fischer and Wicker lose in Nebraska and Mississippi. They actually lose in Texas as Cruz goes down. Even Corker and Hatch get an unexpected run for their money.
Can we get back to Reality here?
We just had an election, about three months ago where Donald Trump won the Presidency, every Red State Senate race went to the Republicans, three blue stats Senate races went Republican, and the House congressional national vote total favored the GOP by approximately 1.5 million votes.
You do recall that, do you not?
Currently the President's personal favorabilities has improved, people's feelings about the economy has improved, direction of the Country has improved, and the approval rating of the GOP itself has actually improved.
How exactly, are you getting from point A (today's reality) to point B (your future fantasy)?
How exactly, are you getting from point A (today's reality) to point B (your future fantasy)?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
roger's alky logic has become infectious.
Non sequitur.
For a supposedly experienced political analyst, you sure do need to be reminded a lot that midterm elections are different from Presidential election years.
Getting back to reality will begin with you acknowledging that a 41% approval rating less than a month into a new President's honeymoon is Weak As Fuck.
Yes, they would prefer Pence.
Getting back to reality will begin with you acknowledging that a 41% approval rating less than a month into a new President's honeymoon is Weak As Fuck.
I guess if Donald Trump was hugely popular three months ago, when he won the Presidency, and the GOP had a pretty good election considering the seats up for election were stacked against them...
Then him "dropping" down to 41% would be a concern.
But in spite of the fact that most Americans than not dislike the President, and in spite of all the "gotcha" moments in the campaign, and in spite of all the unforced errors, and in spite of whatever else you want to bring up...
Trump won and the GOP had what amounts to a pretty successful election all things considered.
So... 45% favorability and 41% approval is no worse than where we were back in November. There is no logical reason to believe that "suddenly" it will all make a difference, when it simply hasn't so far.
______
Now I happen to know plenty of Donald Trump supporters (I was a Gary Johnson voter). Not a one of them has abandoned him, and all of them are actually pretty excited about how things have gone so far. They love the fact he goes after the press. They love the fact that he calls people out. All of this is WHY they voted for him.
All the protests and riots? They use that as incentive to make sure they come out again in two years.
Division and partisanship doesn't win midterms... wave elections come when one Party is up and the other is down... it doesn't happen when you have two motivated Parties (which is what we currently have).
_______
Again... things could change. I would like to believe that this is your argument. But it seems to me that you believe if we held an election today, that it would be entirely different from the one we just had a few weeks ago. That belief, with all due respect, is simply a classic example of somebody not willing to accept reality.
Indy Voter said...
Yes, they would prefer Pence.
February 20, 2017 at 12:59 PM
Put you down for a vote for Pence in 2024.
Like to have the liberals here list which Senate Seats they see winning and name the Dem canidate that will defeat the sitting Repub.
Yes, they would prefer Pence.
According to a Morning Consult Poll back in October, 32% of Trump supporters wished that Pence was leading the ticket (that got headlines).
I guess that means that the other two thirds were okay with Trump at the top?
It means that, without Pence on the ticket, we wouldn't have Trump in the White House. It also means Trump needs to keep those voters, who as PNC notes are overrepresented in Congress, complacent or he may face a bipartisan revolt to remove him from office.
Post a Comment