|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Christopher AOC
Sixth Man
Joined: 26 Jun 2018
Posts: 32
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Progressives Cheer NYT Editorial Board Endorsement of Zephyr Teachout for Attorney General
New York Democrats can find in Teachout "their most effective champion for democracy and civil rights, good government and the environment, workers' rights, fair housing, and gender equality," the editorial board writes.
by Andrea Germanos | August 20, 2018
| Quote: | The New York Times editorial board just made "a wise choice" and endorsed Zephyr Teachout, the most outspoken progressive among the candidates in the Democratic primary for New York state attorney general.
Teachout, whose progressive platform includes abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), ending cash bail, increasing access to the polls, and making fossil fuel companies liable for the climate crisis, is "an independent-minded lawyer unusually well prepared to curb abuses of power and restore integrity and pride to this office," the Times writes. In fact, she "has written the book on political corruption—literally."
[...]
"We believe that Democrats who are seeking a means of standing up to the Trump presidency and graft in Albany can find in Ms. Teachout their most effective champion for democracy and civil rights, good government and the environment, workers' rights, fair housing, and gender equality," the editorial board concludes.
[...]
New York Democratic congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez similarly cheered the Times' endorsement of Teachout—the pair endorsed each other—tweeting: "A lot of folks talk tough on Trump, but Zephyr would be one of the few w/ direct power to act. She knows that we can't tackle 45 without tackling our shady system of money in politics." |
Common Dreams |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Goldenwest
Star Player
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2802
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChefLinda wrote: | | Goldenwest wrote: |
63 million people voted for trump, enough to get him elected. they voted for him cause the two party system failed them, and many were disgusted by the two party business as usual system. And they did not see a better alternative. Again, if your throwing racism all over that your missing the real issues. Which are economic and class war related. Trump maybe racist (many of his ilk probably are), and he may not be the solution, but most of those 63 million voted for him in the desperate hope he would better their lives. because the dems and republicans have been failing them (the middle class) economically for the past 50 years. Laws and regulation designed to protect the common people have been eroding in that time and people feel it. Were ignoring that fact. Most people, who cares what they're color is, want security in life, they really don't care about anything else. they're not diabolically out to suppress other groups. The racist part that support trump is a minority fringe group.
This is a class war more than anything, I firmly believe that, and sometimes it seems the way things are going the rich and elite that control this country want racial tension to keep the masses divided and distracted from the truth.
....I'm done. |
There is class warfare in this country. And voting for the rich white billionaire who sits on a gold toilet, plays golf all day at his private clubs and hasn't been a grocery store to personally buy something in 30 years is not the person you logically vote for if that's your issue. If people voted for him thinking he was their populist savior, then they willfully deluded themselves because there was ample evidence of Trump's business failures, stiffing workers and outright fraud such as Trump University where he screwed middle class people out of their life savings then had to settle for $25 million dollars right before the election. The only way you say you voted for him for economic reasons is if you were ignorant of the facts or willfully ignorant because you like his white populist (i.e., racist) message, or you were rich and knew he'd take care of you.
Race discrimination and sex discrimination aren't issues people are concerned with because they've bought into a distraction. Those are life and death issues for people of color and women. And they are also economic issues. (Women and people of color earn less than white men for the same jobs. If Roe v Wade is repealed, women's educational, employment and financial opportunities will be set back decades.) To be sure, the Republican party uses these issues to further divide the electorate. That doesn't mean the issues themselves aren't important. I'm sorry, it's a symptom of white male privilege to want to wave away these issues to focus solely on income inequality. All these issues are important and need to be addressed.
Income inequality matters. Voting for Trump or GOP is the last thing you do if that's your issue. The Democrats put forth legislation every day to address issues important to the middle class -- but they aren't in power so the legislation never comes to the floor for a vote and the press never reports on it. The Democrats do have a responsibility to discuss these issues (and they have been winning most of the special elections this past year by doing just that). And voters have a responsibility to inform themselves and not just wait for simplistic slogans to be spoon-fed to them. |
I have to respond to this one more time. People lost trust in the establishment, perhaps you don't realize how much. The democrats have been in office 16 of the last 26 years and since that time, working families been decimated by outsourcing of jobs and destruction of their wages, lost their homes in 2008, and have not experienced any of the recent 'recovery' under Obama; that was reserved for mainly the college educated wealthy. The number of middle wage jobs has dropped significantly (about a million) and been replaced by low wage jobs by the time Trump took office. That can be blamed on both republicans and democrats but the democrats were naturally in the cross hairs of the working class since the country was under their watch for the previous 8 years.
Trump addressed these peoples concerns as did Bernie - while Clinton talked about 'family friendly work places', no wonder many people didn't vote for her.
So I totally get why many people voted for Trump and perhaps he did lie to get into office; one of the first things he did was to cut taxes massively for the wealthy, and his tweets are often terrible and demoralizing. But if the democrats want to win back the presidency they have to start truly reaching the working class (working class knows no race or gender btw) with a meaningful message and plan and not just sling mud with trump. these are not 'simplistic' issues, these are everyday life and death struggles for many working class people. I hope the dems will address these issues like you say they will, but since Clinton's signing of the NAFTA agreement, they haven't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2018 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just out of curiosity, how many years out of that time have the democrats actually been in power, as in, controlling the White House and both houses of the legislature? 4? In two two year stints? Both of which cost them the house because of seeking healthcare for all.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67720
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is it lying to Congress or fear of Trump revoking his clearance? Note the time of the tweet.
Trump: ‘Clapper is being nice to me so he doesn't lose his security clearance’
LINK
| Quote: | Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Even James Clapper has admonished John Brennan for having gone totally off the rails. Maybe Clapper is being nice to me so he doesn’t lose his Security Clearance for lying to Congress!
3:55 AM - Aug 21, 2018 |
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Last edited by jodeke on Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:09 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChefLinda
Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24166
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Goldenwest wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: | | Goldenwest wrote: |
63 million people voted for trump, enough to get him elected. they voted for him cause the two party system failed them, and many were disgusted by the two party business as usual system. And they did not see a better alternative. Again, if your throwing racism all over that your missing the real issues. Which are economic and class war related. Trump maybe racist (many of his ilk probably are), and he may not be the solution, but most of those 63 million voted for him in the desperate hope he would better their lives. because the dems and republicans have been failing them (the middle class) economically for the past 50 years. Laws and regulation designed to protect the common people have been eroding in that time and people feel it. Were ignoring that fact. Most people, who cares what they're color is, want security in life, they really don't care about anything else. they're not diabolically out to suppress other groups. The racist part that support trump is a minority fringe group.
This is a class war more than anything, I firmly believe that, and sometimes it seems the way things are going the rich and elite that control this country want racial tension to keep the masses divided and distracted from the truth.
....I'm done. |
There is class warfare in this country. And voting for the rich white billionaire who sits on a gold toilet, plays golf all day at his private clubs and hasn't been a grocery store to personally buy something in 30 years is not the person you logically vote for if that's your issue. If people voted for him thinking he was their populist savior, then they willfully deluded themselves because there was ample evidence of Trump's business failures, stiffing workers and outright fraud such as Trump University where he screwed middle class people out of their life savings then had to settle for $25 million dollars right before the election. The only way you say you voted for him for economic reasons is if you were ignorant of the facts or willfully ignorant because you like his white populist (i.e., racist) message, or you were rich and knew he'd take care of you.
Race discrimination and sex discrimination aren't issues people are concerned with because they've bought into a distraction. Those are life and death issues for people of color and women. And they are also economic issues. (Women and people of color earn less than white men for the same jobs. If Roe v Wade is repealed, women's educational, employment and financial opportunities will be set back decades.) To be sure, the Republican party uses these issues to further divide the electorate. That doesn't mean the issues themselves aren't important. I'm sorry, it's a symptom of white male privilege to want to wave away these issues to focus solely on income inequality. All these issues are important and need to be addressed.
Income inequality matters. Voting for Trump or GOP is the last thing you do if that's your issue. The Democrats put forth legislation every day to address issues important to the middle class -- but they aren't in power so the legislation never comes to the floor for a vote and the press never reports on it. The Democrats do have a responsibility to discuss these issues (and they have been winning most of the special elections this past year by doing just that). And voters have a responsibility to inform themselves and not just wait for simplistic slogans to be spoon-fed to them. |
I have to respond to this one more time. People lost trust in the establishment, perhaps you don't realize how much. The democrats have been in office 16 of the last 26 years and since that time, working families been decimated by outsourcing of jobs and destruction of their wages, lost their homes in 2008, and have not experienced any of the recent 'recovery' under Obama; that was reserved for mainly the college educated wealthy. The number of middle wage jobs has dropped significantly (about a million) and been replaced by low wage jobs by the time Trump took office. That can be blamed on both republicans and democrats but the democrats were naturally in the cross hairs of the working class since the country was under their watch for the previous 8 years.
Trump addressed these peoples concerns as did Bernie - while Clinton talked about 'family friendly work places', no wonder many people didn't vote for her.
So I totally get why many people voted for Trump and perhaps he did lie to get into office; one of the first things he did was to cut taxes massively for the wealthy, and his tweets are often terrible and demoralizing. But if the democrats want to win back the presidency they have to start truly reaching the working class (working class knows no race or gender btw) with a meaningful message and plan and not just sling mud with trump. these are not 'simplistic' issues, these are everyday life and death struggles for many working class people. I hope the dems will address these issues like you say they will, but since Clinton's signing of the NAFTA agreement, they haven't. |
Page 1 of Hillary Clinton Policy Issues
A fair tax system
Addiction and substance abuse
An economy that works for everyone
Campaign finance reform
Climate change
Criminal justice reform
Early childhood education
Fixing infrastructure
Jobs and wages
She talked about her policies to address these things daily. But the press was too busy covering Trump 24/7 and the white male media spent their time bashing her for her clothes, tone of voice, being too prepared, emails, Clinton Foundation, almost fainting, you name it.
You bought into the caricature of her just like the Trumpsters. Sorry, that's on you. All of her actual polices would have been 1000 times better for them than Trump's. Ditto ANY DEMOCRAT.
Right now you could go look at Nancy Pelosi's time line, speeches, press releases and you would see her advocating for all these things daily. But the press doesn't report it because -- they are too busy covering Trump 24/7 and the white male press doesn't think it's important to cover what the female minority leader has to say, even though she was the most effective speaker of the house, passing 100 times more positive legislation than Paul Ryan who the deify daily.
Just no. I said this right after the election and dozens of studies have since reinforced it: this election boiled down to racism and sexism. That's not to say people didn't have real economic issues on their minds, but their decision on who to vote for was colored by underlying attitudes about race and gender. All the Democrats can do now is realize they have that working against them and address the issues directly.
Their time is better spent on registering new voters, educating new voters about their policies then getting out the vote. Then if they win, address voting rights and gerrymandering - because that's another way the Republican's cheat using structural mechanisms.
Chris Hayes had another sad stat on his show. The Unites States Senate actually only represents about 18% of the population. It's because of those big red states in the middle with lots of land. The Democrats have 3 strikes against them in trying to gain representative power in order to address any of these issues.
Also due to current gerrymandering, the Democrats have to get about 8% more raw vote than Republicans nationally - JUST TO BREAK EVEN, That's why a blue wave is needed.
And someone must have been listening to Hillary Clinton because she got 3 million more votes that he did. But again, the structural quirks of the Electoral College (and a whole lottta Russian meddling, hacking and propaganda) gave us Trump. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChefLinda
Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24166
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| And if Bernie had gotten 3 million more votes than Trump and lost, people wouldn't be bashing Bernie for having "bad ideas" or being a "bad candidate." They would be screaming about how the system is unfair and claiming that he was more popular because he got 3 million more votes. /irony |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think you guys (Dems/Libs) are potentially falling into the same trap that Republicans did in 2010/2012.....and btw, many parties in the minority have taken a similar path in history. The entire strategy appears to be built on "anti-Trump" or "we are not Trump". It is a very effective....and easy strategy to use for mid-term wins, but has a long history of failure in Presidential elections.
In 2010, we (Republicans/Conservatives) destroyed Democrats in the mid-term elections with one primary lazy message...."we are not Obama". We spent little time on a real message, policy promotion, or identifying an electable Presidential candidate.....and by that point, it was nearly impossible to change course on strategy for the 2012 Election. We went with the next guy up against an unpopular President coming off a historical mid-term beat down....and lost. It looked promising early....but eventually running against an individual is not a winning strategy in a national election.
I see the same thing happening today.....Democrats spend about 99% of their time talking about Trump. Any message they hope to communicate is being drowned out by their own voices. I still do not see a viable candidate that appears to have any wind at their backs.....and Democrats are so intoxicated with the "we are not Trump" message at this point, it will almost have to be the message they take into 2020.
Maybe it will work, but history is not on that side.....and I have serious doubts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChefLinda
Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24166
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
We are anti-Trump individuals posting on a message board. Talking heads on talk shows are anti-Trump. But the individual candidates are running on issues like healthcare and whatever applies to their district.
Why is that so hard to separate? The Democratic candidates for the most part are not running "just" on anti-Trump. That's simply not accurate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ChefLinda wrote: | We are anti-Trump individuals posting on a message board. Talking heads on talk shows are anti-Trump. But the individual candidates are running on issues like healthcare and whatever applies to their district.
Why is that so hard to separate? The Democratic candidates for the most part are not running "just" on anti-Trump. That's simply not accurate. |
it is not personal.....but the message is whatever is being used to get voters to the booth.....and the emotional voters in the Democratic party will being going to the polls in 2018 on an "anti-Trump" message....just as voters did in 2010. It was not about free trade, limited regulations or even wedge issues like gay marriage.....it was all about a big F U to Obama.
My guess is Romney wanted to talk more about his platform in 2012.....but the pollsters and RNC likely kept showing him that "I am not Obama" was getting the best responses. I just think it is a losing strategy for a national election against an incumbent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ^^^^just to add to my thoughts....if I was in charge of setting the strategy for Democrats in 2020.....I would focus on Ginsburg's court seat.....I mean I would really focus on it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChefLinda
Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24166
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ChefLinda wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: | | As former CIA director, Brennan has seen information none of have. It must be pretty damn compelling if that's the conclusion he draws. |
you nailed it.....which is why it was extremely irresponsible for him to make these type of statements on Twitter. This was not Maxine Waters throwing mud out there to get some headlines.....this was the former Director of the CIA....his words have weight. So flip that...because there is also a chance he knows nothing related to his statements.....still find it "courageous"? |
Not that I expect adkindo to come back and read this, but it's still important for people to understand how serious this is. This man is a journalist and director of the annual Aspen Cyber Security Conference:
| Quote: | Garrett M. Graff Verified account @vermontgmg
THREAD: I want to take a moment to elaborate why we should be so concerned that Jim Clapper, John Brennan, Admiral McRaven, Mike Hayden, and other officials feel it necessary to speak out against Trump:
1) Lost amid the controversy last week about Trump yanking Brennan's security clearance is just how unusual it is for any of these officials to be speaking publicly—and that fact alone should be cause for concern....
2) This is no ordinary political criticism. Do not fall into Trump's trap that this is just more of the same, more partisan sniping from the Swamp from swamp creatures....
3) These officials are not—repeat not—monetizing their security clearances by being on cable TV. In fact, having covered many of these officials for years, I can tell you that they would prefer to be doing anything but being on TV.
4) What they are doing is offering the clearest warning they can, speaking—as intel officials are supposed to do—truth to power, telling hard truths, that America faces a dire situation.
5) I spent months profiling Jim Clapper when he was DNI; back then, he went out of his way to say nothing, to avoid controversy, to eschew politics, to focus on the work before him.
6) All of them would have preferred to sit on the sidelines of politics. They spent their careers avoiding it and would prefer to remain off the public radar.
7) All Clapper wanted to do when he left office was slip quietly into the night and clean out his basement. He'd been retired before—for six years—and never did TV commentary or cable news before. But those were "normal" years, under Clinton and W.
8) Altogether, Clapper spent nearly 50 years in public service. Hayden did about 40 years. McRaven 36. Brennan too, more than 30. These are not partisan hacks. They don't scare easily. They don't cry wolf.
8) All of them were trained to keep quiet on politics. So the fact that they're not silent, that all of them—all of them—are screaming from the rooftops about Trump's threats to our country, our rule of law, our democratic institutions, should chill us.
9) I was there last summer at @aspensecurity as Clapper and Brennan let loose on Trump. I was gobsmacked. I had read every word Jim Clapper has said in public in a decade. I had never imagined I'd hear him speak as ominously and fearfully as he did.
10) I remain stunned by the words and warning that come from Brennan, Clapper, Hayden, McRaven, and others today.
11) They are telling us this is a dark and dangerous time. And they have spent their lives, devoted their entire careers, to protecting the country from just these sorts of events overseas. That they're warning us we're under threat at *home*. That's a warning worth listening to. |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29354
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | I still do not see a viable candidate that appears to have any wind at their backs.....and Democrats are so intoxicated with the "we are not Trump" message at this point
|
At this point in 2006. Few people knew who Barack Obama was. Let alone think he'll be a two term President. There are plenty of viable candidates.
I'm actually impressed by our restraint when criticizing Trump. If you take Trump's comments and actions and then compare it to the response. Trump comes off intoxicated.
Heck even intelligence members calling out Trump. You can lump them with us. But pre-Trump. Most of those guys were Republicans.
FWIW. After 1 year ,Trump was the least popular President in modern US history. And he's on pace to get that distinction again after year 2.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
splashmtn
Star Player
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3961
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | ^^^^just to add to my thoughts....if I was in charge of setting the strategy for Democrats in 2020.....I would focus on Ginsburg's court seat.....I mean I would really focus on it. |
and you would lose. which is why it would not be smart to just focus on that. most people dont understand or pay enough attention to the courts. thats just the reality of the situation. so focusing in on something to bring awareness is one thing. but to keep talking about something most people dont concern themselves with will only turn a lot of people off that dont like to think deeply or read up on stuff.
The dems only have to put the candidate up there that will win enough swing states. thats it, thats all. and that will show itself in enough time to choose that person. Now that person may be a bad choice overall. but as far as winning for winning sake. thats the only strategy they need to use to win the white house. and you dont need to get republican voters to vote for you in order to win swing states. there's enough minority votes, white women votes(non republicans), and lefty ideology votes to win some of these swing states. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | I still do not see a viable candidate that appears to have any wind at their backs.....and Democrats are so intoxicated with the "we are not Trump" message at this point
|
At this point in 2006. Few people knew who Barack Obama was. Let alone think he'll be a two term President. There are plenty of viable candidates.
I'm actually impressed by our restraint when criticizing Trump. If you take Trump's comments and actions and then compare it to the response. Trump comes off intoxicated.
Heck even intelligence members calling out Trump. You can lump them with us. But pre-Trump. Most of those guys were Republicans.
FWIW. After 1 year ,Trump was the least popular President in modern US history. And he's on pace to get that distinction again after year 2. |
I disagree about Obama....I just do not think things work the way it appears sometimes. Obama was placed on the fast track to national office after his speech at the 2004 convention. Did everyone expect him to take out Clinton in 2008....maybe not, but the people in control of the party clearly had him as a contingency if her #'s were not strong enough. Similar to now, you do not think party insiders have already decided that Gavin Newsom will seek a national office within the decade. I get the romantic side of the voters plucking Obama from obscurity.....but that is not really how it happened. This takes nothing away from him....many of these guys fail before they even get their turn/chance.
Also, in regards to Trumps approval rating which is at 46% in the latest poll (Economist/YouGov).....it is very similar to Obama's #'s going into the 2010 mid terms. I think people tend to forget how unpopular Obama was for much of his presidency.....many times hovering around 40%.
Obama Approval |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| splashmtn wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | ^^^^just to add to my thoughts....if I was in charge of setting the strategy for Democrats in 2020.....I would focus on Ginsburg's court seat.....I mean I would really focus on it. |
and you would lose. which is why it would not be smart to just focus on that. most people dont understand or pay enough attention to the courts. thats just the reality of the situation. so focusing in on something to bring awareness is one thing. but to keep talking about something most people dont concern themselves with will only turn a lot of people off that dont like to think deeply or read up on stuff.
The dems only have to put the candidate up there that will win enough swing states. thats it, thats all. and that will show itself in enough time to choose that person. Now that person may be a bad choice overall. but as far as winning for winning sake. thats the only strategy they need to use to win the white house. and you dont need to get republican voters to vote for you in order to win swing states. there's enough minority votes, white women votes(non republicans), and lefty ideology votes to win some of these swing states. |
Ok...we will just agree to disagree that voters are not motivated to go to the polls if they think a court seat will open up. As a Republican, i guess I hope the party follows your lead, and does not focus on what the effect of the court adding another Alito or Gorsuch would have on shaping this country for the next 30-40 years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29354
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Donald Trump’s Approval Rating Has Never Averaged Above 50 Percent During 18 Months as President
Those figures represented one of the low points of Obama’s time in the Oval Office, following the signing into law of Obamacare and ahead of the 2010 midterm elections when the Democrats suffered bruising defeats. Similar losses have been predicted by many for Republicans in November, with GOP control of the House of Representatives, and perhaps even the Senate, under threat.
Obama, though, enjoyed an average approval rating above 50 percent through his first eight months in office and a positive net approval rating for his first 17 months as president. He also finished his two terms with a 57.2 approval rating |
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-approval-rating-50-percent-1056940
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29354
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pretty remarkable Trump's approval ratings and disapproval ratings are worse than Obama's. Considering Barack inherited a recession from his predecessor. And Trump inherited an economy on the upswing.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | Quote: | Donald Trump’s Approval Rating Has Never Averaged Above 50 Percent During 18 Months as President
Those figures represented one of the low points of Obama’s time in the Oval Office, following the signing into law of Obamacare and ahead of the 2010 midterm elections when the Democrats suffered bruising defeats. Similar losses have been predicted by many for Republicans in November, with GOP control of the House of Representatives, and perhaps even the Senate, under threat.
Obama, though, enjoyed an average approval rating above 50 percent through his first eight months in office and a positive net approval rating for his first 17 months as president. He also finished his two terms with a 57.2 approval rating |
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-approval-rating-50-percent-1056940 |
his average was heavily influenced by the outlier initial approval rating right after the election....which was at or near a historical high.....but regardless, your post and my rebuttal have not effect on my post.....it does not matter in a historical context where his poll numbers were after the election or at the end of his term.....the important date of discussion is where they were going in to the mid term election of 2010. and the general election in late 2012. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | | Pretty remarkable Trump's approval ratings and disapproval ratings are worse than Obama's. Considering Barack inherited a recession from his predecessor. And Trump inherited an economy on the upswing. |
I disagree....you desire to take over at or near the bottom from a political perspective. Reagan and Clinton greatly benefited from taking over economies that had showed trouble recently. Nobody wants to enter office when the economy is doing great, especially near a peak. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think Gallup's Historical Statistics and Trends puts how each president stacked up in popularity in recent history.....as you can see, Obama would not be considered a popular president in recent history compared to other US Presidents. He averaged < 50% for both terms....he is the only 2 term president to not average over 50% in either term. Only Carter, Ford and Truman had lower average approval ratings.
LINK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29354
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
538 has Trump 42% Approve and 52% Disapprove.
Gallup from Aug 16-22 had Obama at 43% Approve and 50% Disapprove. His worst rating of the whole year and the only time in 2010 his disapproval hit 50%.
Meanwhile Trump has been above 50% disapproval for the last 15 months.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
https://news.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx
Sure if you snapshot THIS week and compare the two. They aren't far apart. I mean Trump is still worse, but it's close.
But by September 2010. Obama was back to even at 46% to 46%. Meanwhile Trump will remain a -10% approval vs. disapproval rating indefinitely.
Maybe there is a better Trump argument that could be made not using national polling numbers. I mean there is a reason why he lost the popular vote and his predecessor didn't.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | 538 has Trump 42% Approve and 52% Disapprove.
Gallup from Aug 16-22 had Obama at 43% Approve and 50% Disapprove. His worst rating of the whole year and the only time in 2010 his disapproval hit 50%.
Meanwhile Trump has been above 50% disapproval for the last 15 months.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
https://news.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx
Sure if you snapshot THIS week and compare the two. They aren't far apart. I mean Trump is still worse, but it's close.
But by September 2010. Obama was back to even at 46% to 46%. Meanwhile Trump will remain a -10% approval vs. disapproval rating indefinitely.
Maybe there is a better Trump argument that could be made not using national polling numbers. I mean there is a reason why he lost the popular vote and his predecessor didn't. |
I am not sure what your saying? You feel the Economist/YouGov poll is incorrect? I have no opinion of it, just grabbed the most recent poll listed on RCP.
In general, yes all that matters in this discussion is the current poll numbers leading into the mid term election if a comparison is being made from a historical view. Your statement on where Trumps poll numbers will go is speculation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
This just in. Cohen is in plea and cooperation negotiations.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90307
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Also, Manafort jury has asked about the ramifications of being hung on a single count. Implies they are together on most. Barriers being put up outside the court.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hector the Pup
Retired Number
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 35946
Location: L.A.
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | Also, Manafort jury has asked about the ramifications of being hung on a single count. Implies they are together on most. Barriers being put up outside the court. |
When I hear something like that, it disturbs me because there are only two reasons for them to be asking at this stage. Either the jury instructions were poorly explained or the jurors themselves are incapable of understanding them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
