Donald Trump: polls of approval and favorability

[Eric the Green]

(11-15-2020, 10:46 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: Will try naming those states most likely to divide amongst themselves. I would say Illinois, Pennsylvania and Texas. Who else?

I think so.

It would be hard keeping far-northern CA and southern OR blue, since they have already named themselves "The State of Jefferson." One guy put a big sign on Interstate 5 on a barn facing the highway near Yreka CA with that name. Some of the eastern rural parts of the west-coast triad of states might join in this "state." I guess the capital of the State of Jefferson would be Redding (now in CA). Roseburg OR would be a regional capital.

I can hope that the northern Ohio coast from Toledo to Cleveland would join the northern mid-western blue states, so the eastern part of them would be contiguous. Georgia and the Carolinas as well as Virginia might divide territories between urban/coastal and rural/inland territories. It might take a commission to redraw all these boundaries.

Would the two nations be hostile and unable to trade with each other? Red America likes tariffs and walls now. Tributes and tolls would have to be paid to cross the border between red and blue. Also, I doubt Red America would stay in NATO, even though it has the lion's share of US military bases. It definitely would not join the United Nations, and probably not the Organization of American States. It would withdraw from NAFTA and world trade organizations and banks. They would have to decide how much of its natural heritage and parks to destroy. What would they do with Mt. Rushmore?

I doubt Red America could survive for very long. It would have so much poverty that its population would decline and its industry and commerce stagnate. With its poor and black population moving to Blue America, and immigration from Latin America and Africa to it prohibited, it would have a severe labor shortage. Most of the border states with Mexico would probably be blue though, so most immigration would be to Blue America anyway.

[David Horn]

(11-15-2020, 11:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-15-2020, 10:46 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: Will try naming those states most likely to divide amongst themselves. I would say Illinois, Pennsylvania and Texas. Who else?

I think so.

It would be hard keeping far-northern CA and southern OR blue, since they have already named themselves "The State of Jefferson." One guy put a big sign on Interstate 5 on a barn facing the highway near Yreka CA with that name. Some of the eastern rural parts of the west-coast triad of states might join in this "state." I guess the capital of the State of Jefferson would be Redding (now in CA). Roseburg OR would be a regional capital.

I can hope that the northern Ohio coast from Toledo to Cleveland would join the northern mid-western blue states, so the eastern part of them would be contiguous. Georgia and the Carolinas as well as Virginia might divide territories between urban/coastal and rural/inland territories. It might take a commission to redraw all these boundaries.

Would the two nations be hostile and unable to trade with each other? Red America likes tariffs and walls now. Tributes and tolls would have to be paid to cross the border between red and blue. Also, I doubt Red America would stay in NATO, even though it has the lion's share of US military bases. It definitely would not join the United Nations, and probably not the Organization of American States. It would withdraw from NAFTA and world trade organizations and banks. They would have to decide how much of its natural heritage and parks to destroy. What would they do with Mt. Rushmore?

I doubt Red America could survive for very long. It would have so much poverty that its population would decline and its industry and commerce stagnate. With its poor and black population moving to Blue America, and immigration from Latin America and Africa to it prohibited, it would have a severe labor shortage. Most of the border states with Mexico would probably be blue though, so most immigration would be to Blue America anyway.

Interesting, but mostly impractical. There are several reasons, but let's take the obvious ones:

• The national debt has to be serviced. How is that divvied up, or more to the point, is it?  I don't see the Reds taking any they aren't forced to take, if that's even possible.
  
• Who get's what?  This should tie back to the first item too -- you want it, you buy the part that's not yours.  
  
• What if any provision will be made to change sides later?  I know that a lot of Western Virginia is more like West Virginia and Kentucky, than it is like the urban crescent.  Of course, the urban crescent pays for everything, so initial chest pounding may give way to rational thought after a while.
  

The list can go on and on.  It's BREXIT on steroids.

[Eric the Green]

(11-16-2020, 02:43 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-15-2020, 11:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-15-2020, 10:46 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: Will try naming those states most likely to divide amongst themselves. I would say Illinois, Pennsylvania and Texas. Who else?

I think so.

It would be hard keeping far-northern CA and southern OR blue, since they have already named themselves "The State of Jefferson." One guy put a big sign on Interstate 5 on a barn facing the highway near Yreka CA with that name. Some of the eastern rural parts of the west-coast triad of states might join in this "state." I guess the capital of the State of Jefferson would be Redding (now in CA). Roseburg OR would be a regional capital.

I can hope that the northern Ohio coast from Toledo to Cleveland would join the northern mid-western blue states, so the eastern part of them would be contiguous. Georgia and the Carolinas as well as Virginia might divide territories between urban/coastal and rural/inland territories. It might take a commission to redraw all these boundaries.

Would the two nations be hostile and unable to trade with each other? Red America likes tariffs and walls now. Tributes and tolls would have to be paid to cross the border between red and blue. Also, I doubt Red America would stay in NATO, even though it has the lion's share of US military bases. It definitely would not join the United Nations, and probably not the Organization of American States. It would withdraw from NAFTA and world trade organizations and banks. They would have to decide how much of its natural heritage and parks to destroy. What would they do with Mt. Rushmore?

I doubt Red America could survive for very long. It would have so much poverty that its population would decline and its industry and commerce stagnate. With its poor and black population moving to Blue America, and immigration from Latin America and Africa to it prohibited, it would have a severe labor shortage. Most of the border states with Mexico would probably be blue though, so most immigration would be to Blue America anyway.

Interesting, but mostly impractical. There are several reasons, but let's take the obvious ones:

• The national debt has to be serviced. How is that divvied up, or more to the point, is it?  I don't see the Reds taking any they aren't forced to take, if that's even possible.
  
• Who get's what?  This should tie back to the first item too -- you want it, you buy the part that's not yours.  
  
• What if any provision will be made to change sides later?  I know that a lot of Western Virginia is more like West Virginia and Kentucky, than it is like the urban crescent.  Of course, the urban crescent pays for everything, so initial chest pounding may give way to rational thought after a while.
  

The list can go on and on.  It's BREXIT on steroids.

I know it's impractical, but it seems we are already divided, and that the Red states are contiguous and could form a new nation easily. I don't know if the two nations can cooperate in the division process or not; it would be easier to split if they decide to do so. The blue side may be able just to require half the bond holders to switch to the red side. I guess who gets what just depends on where it is. This division into two states happened before without that much trouble (except that they went to war with each other), and I don't think much has changed; the red states are the gray states, and they have not changed their ways very much.

I think there does not need to be a special provision to change sides, other than anyone can join or leave one side at any time. It's not going to happen all at once anyway; a few states will secede and then others join them later, and then some may be readmitted in stages too, just like last time. I don't see why the red states, once they see the error of their ways, can't petition to come back to the real America, the blue states.

It is Brexit on steroids. It seems we're headed toward something like that. I don't really know just what. Perhaps two or three regional governments within the federal government? Another layer of government between state and federal, with the feds only providing minimal necessary services? Or we just stay divided in one country and go nowhere; just continue to stagnate and decline? Wait for a demographic change that may never come?

[pbrower2a]

1. Do you approve or disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as president? [IF
APPROVE / DISAPPROVE: Is that strongly (approve/disapprove), or only somewhat?]
** President Trump Job Ratings Summary Among Registered Voters **
Approve Disapprove (Don’t know)
Latest (6-9 Dec 20) 47% 52 2
High (4-7 Apr 20) 49% 49 2
Low (22-24 Oct 17) 38% 57 5
Average (2017-Present) 45% 53 3
-------------Approve------------- ----------Disapprove---------- (Don’t know)
TOTAL Strongly Somewhat TOTAL Somewhat Strongly
6-9 Dec 20 47% 30 17 52 8 44 2

(for legibility -- pb)
total approval 47% 30 strongly, 17 somewhat
total disapproval 52% 8 somewhat, 44 strongly

...this is fairly close to the electoral result of 47-51!




17. How do you think history will remember Trump’s presidency? Will he be remembered as:

1. One of the country’s greatest presidents 22%
2. An above average president 16%
3. An average president 10%
4. A below average president 8%
5. One of the country’s worst presidents 42%
6. (Don’t know) 2%


For reference (11-13 Dec 16)

What are your expectations for Donald Trump’s presidency? Do you think he will be:

One of greatest 11%
Above average 25%
Average 16%
Below average 12%
One of worst 31%
(Don’t know) 2%


6-9 Dec 20 22% 16 10 8 42 2
For reference: What are your expectations for Donald Trump’s presidency? Do you think he will be:


11-13 Dec 16 11% 25 16 12 31 4
For reference: What are your expectations for Barack Obama's presidency? Do you think he will be:
One of greatest 19%
A great president 43%
Average 23%
Below average 5%
One of worst 6%
(Don’t know) 4%

after one term in office:

14-16 Dec 13 6% 16 33 16 28 1
One of greatest 6%
A good president 16%
Average 33%
Below average 16%
One of worst 28%
(Don’t know) 1%

Obama:

(one of the greatest/good/average/below average/one of the worst/don't know)
9-11 Dec 12 12% 29 19 14 23 1
14-15 Dec 10 5% 24 33 19 15 3
8-9 Dec 09 13% 30 24 12 16 5
9-10 Dec 08 19% 43 23 5 6 4

https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/c...elease.pdf

[pbrower2a]

(11-15-2020, 11:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-15-2020, 10:46 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: Will try naming those states most likely to divide amongst themselves. I would say Illinois, Pennsylvania and Texas. Who else?

I think so.

It would be hard keeping far-northern CA and southern OR blue, since they have already named themselves "The State of Jefferson." One guy put a big sign on Interstate 5 on a barn facing the highway near Yreka CA with that name. Some of the eastern rural parts of the west-coast triad of states might join in this "state." I guess the capital of the State of Jefferson would be Redding (now in CA). Roseburg OR would be a regional capital.

I can hope that the northern Ohio coast from Toledo to Cleveland would join the northern mid-western blue states, so the eastern part of them would be contiguous. Georgia and the Carolinas as well as Virginia might divide territories between urban/coastal and rural/inland territories. It might take a commission to redraw all these boundaries.

I can also imagine the polarization which intensified late in the 3T and so far in the 4T can reverse. It will do so at some time, and late in a 4T is as good as any time for such. Shared experiences become the norm in a 4T. I expect shock-jock rhetoric of any kind to become stale and tired, and 1T political discourse to become more placid.  To be sure, American politics became placid early in the last 4T as Americans were in dire need of solutions early in the Crisis and weren't in such dire need (for long) in this one. 

We could be in for a political alignment.  

Fully thirty-one states were decided by 15% or more in 2020!  It is possible to say that the Trump Administration flooded some farm states with farm subsidies to distract voters in those states from the damage that his trade war with China caused.  How the states have voted beginning in 2000:



all six for the Republican
5 R, 1 D
4 R, 2D  
(white - 3R, 1D)
4 D, 2 R
5 D, 1 R
all six for the Democrat

That is six elections and the biggest changes since then have been 

(1) that several states that once favored Democrats in Democratic wins and that even voted twice for Bill Clinton in the 1990's have swung completely to the GOP and haven't gotten close
(2) the West Coast went from the fringe of competitiveness for Republicans to out of reach for them 
(3) Virginia went from the sort of state that never voted for a Democrat except in a landslide (from 1952 to 2004 it had gone D only for LBJ in 1964) to strongly D; New Mexico went from shaky D to strong D; Colorado went from iffy in D landslides to solid D. 
(4) the fast-growing Mexican-American vote in the southwestern United States is making Arizona and even Texas shaky for Republican nominees for President.
(5) The Republican Party has lost its appeal to the educated part of the urban middle class.

(colors reversed from what you would usually expect, but this map is taken from another site in which I do much posting).

...Since when has America had such stability in voting as a pattern between the states? Twenty states have not voted for a Democratic nominee for President in the last six elections, and fifteen states and DC have not voted for a Republican nominee for President in the same time. It is not so much the North-South divide as the one between urban and rural America. If I am to use two states that voted only once one way, Atlanta votes more like Detroit than the more rural parts of Michigan and Georgia, and western Michigan votes more like southern Georgia than like southeastern Michigan. In states that haven't voted any but one way in the last twenty years and six Presidential elections, there are very R-leaning areas in New York state (rural areas): Memphis and Nashville are very D cities, but the rest of Tennessee is strongly R.       

Quote:Would the two nations be hostile and unable to trade with each other? Red America likes tariffs and walls now. Tributes and tolls would have to be paid to cross the border between red and blue. Also, I doubt Red America would stay in NATO, even though it has the lion's share of US military bases. It definitely would not join the United Nations, and probably not the Organization of American States. It would withdraw from NAFTA and world trade organizations and banks. They would have to decide how much of its natural heritage and parks to destroy. What would they do with Mt. Rushmore?

Is there much effort to revive Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, let alone something so messy as the Austro-Hungarian Empire? 

Quote:I doubt Red America could survive for very long. It would have so much poverty that its population would decline and its industry and commerce stagnate. With its poor and black population moving to Blue America, and immigration from Latin America and Africa to it prohibited, it would have a severe labor shortage. Most of the border states with Mexico would probably be blue though, so most immigration would be to Blue America anyway.

Red America would have a severe lack of high-quality labor, which is even more troubling than a lack of labor suited for sweatshop labor.  Figure that much of Texas would rather join Mexico than become a part of a fascistic "Red" America. "Red America" is rich... in opiates, meth, and fentanyl. "Blue" America has the bulk of the creative activity in the creation of software and highly-marketable intellectual property. The only place in "Red" America that seems to be a big creator of intellectual property is Nashville, center for the recording industry.

[pbrower2a]

This is an aggregation of polling results. Multiple pollsters are involved, but not the most sympathetic ones to Trump (Rasmussen and Trafalgar) or the one most hostile (Quinnipiac).




Enough said.

[mamabug]

(01-15-2021, 07:00 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: This is an aggregation of polling results. Multiple pollsters are involved, but not the most sympathetic ones to Trump (Rasmussen and Trafalgar) or the one most hostile (Quinnipiac).

Enough said.

 Notice, though, he still has 40% approval.  The shift from 'approve' to 'disapprove' I would guess could wholly coming from the center-to-moderate right.  Speaking from what I've heard on that side, they disapprove of Trump now because they want him to get out of the way. They see his continued participation in the public sphere as being a way for media and democrats to marginalize any objections to their agenda.

That more disapprove of Trump, does not necessarily correlate to people disowning Republican ideas.  For those who seem to think that Trump is the sum total of what this Crisis is about, defeating him does not mean automatic buy in to continued government takeover of the economy and imposition of intersectional ideology.  That is why I maintain this Crisis has not yet hit a point where it can be said to be resulting in a renewed social fabric that is the primary benefit of the High.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-16-2021, 04:46 PM)mamabug Wrote:

(01-15-2021, 07:00 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: This is an aggregation of polling results. Multiple pollsters are involved, but not the most sympathetic ones to Trump (Rasmussen and Trafalgar) or the one most hostile (Quinnipiac).

Enough said.

 Notice, though, he still has 40% approval.  The shift from 'approve' to 'disapprove' I would guess could wholly coming from the center-to-moderate right.  Speaking from what I've heard on that side, they disapprove of Trump now because they want him to get out of the way. They see his continued participation in the public sphere as being a way for media and democrats to marginalize any objections to their agenda.

That more disapprove of Trump, does not necessarily correlate to people disowning Republican ideas.  For those who seem to think that Trump is the sum total of what this Crisis is about, defeating him does not mean automatic buy in to continued government takeover of the economy and imposition of intersectional ideology.  That is why I maintain this Crisis has not yet hit a point where it can be said to be resulting in a renewed social fabric that is the primary benefit of the High.

I'd say most don't like his personality and his lack of decorum/professionalism. I gave him a pass on that and ignored his tweets because I was comparing him to those on the Left.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-16-2021, 04:46 PM)mamabug Wrote:  Notice, though, he still has 40% approval.  The shift from 'approve' to 'disapprove' I would guess could wholly coming from the center-to-moderate right.  Speaking from what I've heard on that side, they disapprove of Trump now because they want him to get out of the way. They see his continued participation in the public sphere as being a way for media and democrats to marginalize any objections to their agenda.

That more disapprove of Trump, does not necessarily correlate to people disowning Republican ideas.  For those who seem to think that Trump is the sum total of what this Crisis is about, defeating him does not mean automatic buy in to continued government takeover of the economy and imposition of intersectional ideology.  That is why I maintain this Crisis has not yet hit a point where it can be said to be resulting in a renewed social fabric that is the primary benefit of the High.

I have the crisis problems as COVID, the economic fallout of COVID, systematic racism, red violence, with a honorable mention to global warming.  Trump didn’t invent these.  Racial oppression, red violence, pandemics, greenhouse gas burning and economic collapses have existed for a long time.  Trump just managed to embody the wrong side of all these crisis problems just as the crisis trigger hit.  He brought things into focus.

The renewed social fabric depends on the new administration successfully tackling the crisis problems.  With the red violence dependent on a big lie, the vaccine, and a possibility of passing civil rights legislation, it could happen.  Still, the proof is in actually implementing it all well.  Looking at how things usually resolve in a crisis, there may be reason for optimism.  Still, we are just entering the crisis heart.  We will have to see if folks start rolling up their sleeves and doing it.

[pbrower2a]

(01-16-2021, 04:46 PM)mamabug Wrote:

(01-15-2021, 07:00 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: This is an aggregation of polling results. Multiple pollsters are involved, but not the most sympathetic ones to Trump (Rasmussen and Trafalgar) or the one most hostile (Quinnipiac).

Enough said.

 Notice, though, he still has 40% approval.  The shift from 'approve' to 'disapprove' I would guess could wholly coming from the center-to-moderate right.  Speaking from what I've heard on that side, they disapprove of Trump now because they want him to get out of the way. They see his continued participation in the public sphere as being a way for media and democrats to marginalize any objections to their agenda.

That more disapprove of Trump, does not necessarily correlate to people disowning Republican ideas.  For those who seem to think that Trump is the sum total of what this Crisis is about, defeating him does not mean automatic buy in to continued government takeover of the economy and imposition of intersectional ideology.  That is why I maintain this Crisis has not yet hit a point where it can be said to be resulting in a renewed social fabric that is the primary benefit of the High.

America still has old-fashioned conservatives, the sorts who can accept that economic inequality is a necessary spur to toil, skill, enterprise, thrift, and stewardship. These people try to distinguish themselves from the economic sadists who believe that they deserve everything not necessary for keeping working people alive. 

The Democratic Party has become more culturally conservative as it takes over the "cosmopolitan" types often exemplified among model minorities  who are much more conservative in style and substance than America as a whole. They may be preserving something exotic in some cases, and they strongly support individual enterprise (ordinarily a conservative value, but expecting people not white Christians to accept subordination to white Christians would offend them). These people are not at all postmodern. 

...Anti-Trump conservatives are real. They  would be delighted to cast off the superstitious and mean-spirited populists who so define Trump and make him so capricious. They would be delighted to take the cosmopolitan types and less-extreme liberals (who at least aren't crazy enough to want some extreme socialist agenda) into the GOP and make the GOP more like the Eisenhower-era GOP. Maybe America's GOP can become more like the German CDU.

[pbrower2a]

This pollster (Quinnipiac) has been less sympathetic in its numbers to Trump than just about any. Still, this is the first to follow the treasonable insurrection of January 6:

Quote:Following last week's mob attack on the U.S. Capitol during a joint session of Congress to formally certify Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election, nearly three-quarters (74 percent) of voters say democracy in the United States is under threat, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University national poll of registered voters released today. Just 21 percent of voters say that democracy in the United States is alive and well.

"When it comes to whether American democracy is under threat, both Republicans and Democrats see a raging five-alarm fire, but clearly disagree on who started it," said Quinnipiac University Polling Analyst Tim Malloy.



The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts gold standard surveys using random digit dialing with live interviewers calling landlines and cell phones. The Quinnipiac University Poll conducts nationwide surveys and polls in more than twenty states on national and statewide elections, as well as public policy issues.

Visit poll.qu.edu or http://www.facebook.com/quinnipiacpoll

1. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president?

Approve 33 (26 strong, 7 somewhat), Disapprove 60  (strong 54, somewhat 4 -- rounding error), don't know/no answer (hereafter DK/NA) 7%

(this is down from 41 approve, 55 disapprove on December 10, 2020)

2. Do you believe there was widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election, or not?

Yes. so believe -- 37%; no 58%; DK/NA 5%... no real change from December

3. As president, do you think that Joe Biden will be able to unite the country after he takes office, or do you expect partisan divisions to remain the same as they are today?

Yes (can unify) 31%; no (expect divisions) 56%; DK/NA 14%

 
4. Which comes closer to your point of view: democracy in the United States is alive and well or democracy in the United States is under threat?


alive and well 21% under threat 74% DK/NA 5%


5. Do you think that extremism is a big problem in the United States, or don't you think so?

yes (big problem 81%) no 12% DK/NA7%

6. Do you think that - the Republican members of Congress who tried to stop the formal certification of Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election were undermining democracy or protecting democracy?

undermining 58% protecting 34% don't know/no answer 8%

7. Do you think that - President Trump is undermining democracy or protecting democracy?

60% undermining 34% protecting 6% DK/NA


8. Do you think that - the individuals who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6th were undermining democracy or protecting democracy?

undermining 90% protecting 10% DK/NA 10%


9. Do you think that President Trump should resign as president, or don't you think so?

yes/resign 53% no 43% DK/NA 4%

10. Do you think that President Trump should be removed from office, or don't you think so?

yes/remove 52%  no 45% DK/NA 3%


11. Do you think that President Trump is mentally stable, or not?

yes/stable 45% no 38%. DK/NA 7%


12. Do you consider what happened at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th a coup attempt, or not?

yes/coup 47 no 43 DK/NA 10


13. Do you want to see the individuals who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6th held accountable for their actions, or not?

91% yes/hold responsible 6% no 3% DK/NA

(I'm not ordinarily showing partisan or other demographic breakdowns, as those are in the source... but the split is 89-8-3 among Republicans, 99-1-0 among Democrats, and 89-9-2 among Independents... it does not look good and it probably never will look good from hereon.

14. Do you hold President Trump responsible for the storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, or not?

56% yes/responsible 42% no DK/NA 3%

15. Do you think that law enforcement officials did everything they could to prevent the initial storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, or don't you think so?

19% yes/they did  71% no 10% DK/NA

16. How concerned are you about the safety of elected officials in the United States: very concerned, somewhat concerned, not so concerned, or not concerned at all?

35% very concerned
35% somewhat concerned
13% not so concerned
16% not concerned at all

2% DK/NA

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-det...aseID=3686

[David Horn]

(01-16-2021, 04:46 PM)mamabug Wrote:

(01-15-2021, 07:00 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: This is an aggregation of polling results. Multiple pollsters are involved, but not the most sympathetic ones to Trump (Rasmussen and Trafalgar) or the one most hostile (Quinnipiac).

Enough said.

 Notice, though, he still has 40% approval.  The shift from 'approve' to 'disapprove' I would guess could wholly coming from the center-to-moderate right.  Speaking from what I've heard on that side, they disapprove of Trump now because they want him to get out of the way. They see his continued participation in the public sphere as being a way for media and democrats to marginalize any objections to their agenda.

That more disapprove of Trump, does not necessarily correlate to people disowning Republican ideas.  For those who seem to think that Trump is the sum total of what this Crisis is about, defeating him does not mean automatic buy in to continued government takeover of the economy and imposition of intersectional ideology.  That is why I maintain this Crisis has not yet hit a point where it can be said to be resulting in a renewed social fabric that is the primary benefit of the High.

I agree with most of this.  The GOP is between a rock and hard place on what to do with Trump.  They know they can't keep him, and they can't throw him overboard either. They would prefer to have the Dems do it for them, then they can act all incensed, while quietly cheering on the move.  My guesses for: 

• Impeachment and conviction -- my guess: Trump stinks-up the 2022 race, but recedes in the 2024 time frame unless he's convicted of a crime that his own followers can't stomach.  That makes it a Biden race to win or lose.
  
• No conviction -- Trump continues to stink-up the political atmosphere, and the GOP takes a beating in 2022 and less in 2024.
  

[pbrower2a]

Obvious explanation: Trump disapproval could have hardly gotten worse among Democrats!

Say what you want, but most Republicans really are patriots, and they now must choose Trump and their country (not to mention its political norms that have been around longer than they have as persons). Put together the two and average them, and figure that the few real independents there are are likely about the same as this average, and you get about 30% approval.

[pbrower2a]

(01-17-2021, 03:07 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-16-2021, 04:46 PM)mamabug Wrote:

(01-15-2021, 07:00 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: This is an aggregation of polling results. Multiple pollsters are involved, but not the most sympathetic ones to Trump (Rasmussen and Trafalgar) or the one most hostile (Quinnipiac).

Enough said.

 Notice, though, he still has 40% approval.  The shift from 'approve' to 'disapprove' I would guess could wholly coming from the center-to-moderate right.  Speaking from what I've heard on that side, they disapprove of Trump now because they want him to get out of the way. They see his continued participation in the public sphere as being a way for media and democrats to marginalize any objections to their agenda.

That more disapprove of Trump, does not necessarily correlate to people disowning Republican ideas.  For those who seem to think that Trump is the sum total of what this Crisis is about, defeating him does not mean automatic buy in to continued government takeover of the economy and imposition of intersectional ideology.  That is why I maintain this Crisis has not yet hit a point where it can be said to be resulting in a renewed social fabric that is the primary benefit of the High.

I agree with most of this.  The GOP is between a rock and hard place on what to do with Trump.  They know they can't keep him, and they can't throw him overboard either. They would prefer to have the Dems do it for them, then they can act all incensed, while quietly cheering on the move.  My guesses for: 

• Impeachment and conviction -- my guess: Trump stinks-up the 2022 race, but recedes in the 2024 time frame unless he's convicted of a crime that his own followers can't stomach.  That makes it a Biden race to win or lose.
  
• No conviction -- Trump continues to stink-up the political atmosphere, and the GOP takes a beating in 2022 and less in 2024.
  

The polls that I have seen after the insurrection show his approval ratings sinking into the low thirties. 

As a rule I do not predict breaking news or trends in approval ratings, and ordinarily I see the past as precedent for the future in such things as war and politics. In war, the side that runs out of troops collapses; just think of the Battle of Petersburg, a veritable stalemate until the Confederacy ran out of soldiers to defend Richmond, and after which General Robert E. Lee was caught in a trap at Appomattox. 

Ordinarily I would expect Democrats to lose big in 2022 because midterm elections ordinarily go against the Party that has the Presidency. Illustrating this tendency, I look at two Presidents similar in ability and temperament, with scandal-free and disaster-free administrations, but opposite Parties (Eisenhower and Obama, and whose Parties lost badly in two midterm elections. 

Should I expect anything other than a Republican wave in 2022? The big difference will be that the stench of Donald J. Trump will still be upon the party of the most recent ex-President. I can't imagine anything redeeming the effect of Donald Trump upon the 2022 election. Still, I expect Republicans to do everything to stop any effort at political reform unless that reform has as its purpose the enhancement of the ability of the super-rich to get what they want. Investments in the political sector can be far more remunerative than investments in plant and equipment -- especially since plant and equipment create jobs.

[Classic-Xer]

pbrower2a

Obvious explanation: Trump disapproval could have hardly gotten worse among Democrats!

Say what you want, but most Republicans really are patriots, and they now must choose Trump and their country (not to mention its political norms that have been around longer than they have as persons). Put together the two and average them, and figure that the few real independents there are are likely about the same as this average, and you get about 30% approval.
Trump will be out of office tomorrow. The Republicans aren't as fortunate and they're pretty much in the same boat as the Democrats. I'm cool with the Democrats fucking up. running amuck and further angering and dividing the country. I'm cool with a mentally incompetent Democrat in the White House and a group of unknowns making decisions for him and a token VP who is guilty of supporting and assisting insurrection replacing him. I'm also okay with a Democratic House and Senate that's loaded with arrogant and insecure politicians won't don't listen to any other than themselves as well. I think its the perfect situation myself.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-19-2021, 11:00 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Put together the two and average them, and figure that the few real independents there are are likely about the same as this average, and you get about 30% approval.
Trump will be out of office tomorrow.

The problem is that many of these supposed patriots think the US is for white males and not for the latest group of immigrants. Others who might also consider themselves patriots hold that all should be equal under law. What you are reluctant to admit is that those that hold the former position are becoming the minority, and that the values of the first group of supposed patriots will as a result fade.

[pbrower2a]

(01-17-2021, 01:04 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-16-2021, 04:46 PM)mamabug Wrote:

(01-15-2021, 07:00 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: This is an aggregation of polling results. Multiple pollsters are involved, but not the most sympathetic ones to Trump (Rasmussen and Trafalgar) or the one most hostile (Quinnipiac).

Enough said.

 Notice, though, he still has 40% approval.  The shift from 'approve' to 'disapprove' I would guess could wholly coming from the center-to-moderate right.  Speaking from what I've heard on that side, they disapprove of Trump now because they want him to get out of the way. They see his continued participation in the public sphere as being a way for media and democrats to marginalize any objections to their agenda.

That more disapprove of Trump, does not necessarily correlate to people disowning Republican ideas.  For those who seem to think that Trump is the sum total of what this Crisis is about, defeating him does not mean automatic buy in to continued government takeover of the economy and imposition of intersectional ideology.  That is why I maintain this Crisis has not yet hit a point where it can be said to be resulting in a renewed social fabric that is the primary benefit of the High.

I'd say most don't like his personality and his lack of decorum/professionalism. I gave him a pass on that and ignored his tweets because I was comparing him to those on  the Left.

I loathed him from before he got into politics. If I see creepiness in someone, then I am usually right. Someone out for himself all the time or someone too good to be true... Even I catch that.

[Eric the Green]

(01-17-2021, 01:04 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-16-2021, 04:46 PM)mamabug Wrote:

(01-15-2021, 07:00 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: This is an aggregation of polling results. Multiple pollsters are involved, but not the most sympathetic ones to Trump (Rasmussen and Trafalgar) or the one most hostile (Quinnipiac).

Enough said.

 Notice, though, he still has 40% approval.  The shift from 'approve' to 'disapprove' I would guess could wholly coming from the center-to-moderate right.  Speaking from what I've heard on that side, they disapprove of Trump now because they want him to get out of the way. They see his continued participation in the public sphere as being a way for media and democrats to marginalize any objections to their agenda.

That more disapprove of Trump, does not necessarily correlate to people disowning Republican ideas.  For those who seem to think that Trump is the sum total of what this Crisis is about, defeating him does not mean automatic buy in to continued government takeover of the economy and imposition of intersectional ideology.  That is why I maintain this Crisis has not yet hit a point where it can be said to be resulting in a renewed social fabric that is the primary benefit of the High.

I'd say most don't like his personality and his lack of decorum/professionalism. I gave him a pass on that and ignored his tweets because I was comparing him to those on  the Left.

It's true, mamabug and classic. The nub of the problem is really people not disowning Republican ideas. It is Trump's policies that are the most dangerous. Like brower I knew decades before that Trump was an immoral clod, and said so on the old T4T forum over 20 years ago. I didn't yet know what would be the full extent of the destructive harm of his future presidency's policies. So long as opposition to Trump focuses only on his personality, and even only on his corruption and treasonous sedition, it misses the point. It is the Republican ideology that needs to be disempowered. 

I expect this (and have predicted this) to happen gradually; not all at once, but through the 2020s. We'll see if it happens. Unless it does, our society remains mired in this delusive, unnecessary detour given us by the horrible charming faux-macho actor 40 years ago. It remains truly tragic in every way, and destined for total failure, for our country and for the world. The nation truly MUST decide whether to continue this horrible, destructive, neo-liberal, trickle-down, xenophobic and racist social darwinism, or not. Before this happens, indeed, "this Crisis has not yet hit a point where it can be said to be resulting in a renewed social fabric that is the primary benefit of the High."

http://philosopherswheel.com/freemarket.html

[pbrower2a]

(01-19-2021, 11:00 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: pbrower2a

Obvious explanation: Trump disapproval could have hardly gotten worse among Democrats!

Say what you want, but most Republicans really are patriots, and they now must choose Trump and their country (not to mention its political norms that have been around longer than they have as persons). Put together the two and average them, and figure that the few real independents there are are likely about the same as this average, and you get about 30% approval.

Trump will be out of office tomorrow is no longer President. (pb) The Republicans aren't as fortunate and they're pretty much in the same boat as the Democrats. I'm cool with the Democrats fucking up. running amuck and further angering and dividing the country. I'm cool with a mentally incompetent Democrat in the White House and a group of unknowns making decisions for him and a token VP who is guilty of supporting and assisting insurrection replacing him. I'm also okay with a Democratic House and Senate that's loaded with arrogant and insecure politicians won't don't listen to any other than themselves as well. I think its the perfect situation myself.[/quote]

I want Democrats to succeed not so much in consolidating power in a country as Republicans try to establish themselves without Trump while ideologically adrift, but instead in effective service in making America better for more people. Ideally they will do something for the poorest parts of America, including the very white parts of rural America that now vote heavily Republican.  Donald Trump is identity politics at its most extreme, and he tried to serve one side of the political spectrum at the expense of the other... which never goes well. 

We have just left one Skowronek cycle and entered a new one. I hope that Donald Trump has effectively (if ironically) humbled enough of us to recognize that we have big problems that we solve with reason, conscience, and empathy. We are not in the same conditions that we had at the start of the neoliberal, plutocratic era that began with the "Reagan Revolution".   The people born since the Reagan era began have known little more than a political ethos, at least among the Right, in which the only purposes in life for people not already rich is to make people already filthy-rich even more filthy-rich. Nobody ever asked the Millennial Generation whether they wanted that.

Political failure is not a viable option. Political failure implies more of the same of what many of us despise. At worst isn't some imminent revolution; it implies instead the bad trends that came into being in the 3T become institutionalized as indelible traits in national character and both economic and political practice. Donald Trump is the end of the line for the Reagan Revolution. 

We are in new and uncharted waters, but we have gotten away from the realm of the Kraken, the Medusa, and the maelstrom.

[mamabug]

(01-22-2021, 05:15 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's true, mamabug and classic. The nub of the problem is really people not disowning Republican ideas. 

So, basically, the problem of the crisis is 'wrong think'.  Or, to borrow from an earlier era, "The Crisis will not end until those evil papists turn from their sin and embrace the King as the head of the Church!"

I think I've read enough of your views to understand I have little hope in convincing you of why I see this as an incredibly dangerous mentality to take hold in those who control the levers of power, you seem fully immersed in the stereotypical Boomer 'Black vs. White' thinking.  I'm sure if, in the coming months, a few eggs need to be broken to form the coming utopia I will be able to read your justifications of it.

I'm just going to repeat my earlier assertion that a Crisis Era does not arise because there is an actual, real problem that needs drastic action to solve.  The 'problem' is just a manifestation of underlying splits in society - you could subtitle this hypothesis 'King George was Right.' The Crisis Era arises when generations align in a structure that fosters a social belief that not only does a given, selected 'problem' need to be solved, but it is so important they become willing to solve it via force and are able to morally justify marginalizing, impoverishing, imprisoning and/or outright killing their neighbor.

In the last turning, we directed most of that willingness outward. The two turnings before that we directed it inward (North vs. South, loyalists vs. freedom fighters). Both were very bloody. Of course, in the modern era, we could have a kinder, gentler suppression where we simply 'unperson' people by depriving them of their jobs, access to federal services, the ability to access the public square, and equal protection under the law.

If you disagree that the democrats could or would do this, please explain to me how you would resolve the Crisis of 'people holding Republican ideas' if almost exactly 1/2 of the country hold one or more ideas that could be considered 'Republican.'