• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poll: Trump approval sinks 5 points after Mueller report, tying all-time low

upsideguy said:
Let's see if I can better illustrate my point..... Let's say we have a sample of 1000. In that sample size it is determined that 390 need to be Democrats to reflect the population and their proclivity to vote*. The problem is that "Democrats" are comprised of multiple subgroups more so than Republicans. If 10% of the Democratic vote is Hispanic, for example, merely polling 39 Hispanics will tend to give you a distortion of how Hispanics will vote (its not a valid sample).... so, to understand the 39 votes that are Hispanic, they do a full survey of Hispanic votes, maybe drawing 100-200 Hispanics (repeat for other subgroups) That sub-sample, however, exists ONLY to give us a good read on the 39 Hispanic votes. It does NOT effect the outcome of the overall poll, it is only there to give us better precision within the poll.

https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/190452_crosstabs_POLITICO_RVs_v2_AP.pdf

* - Where polls go askew, and where you may have a point, is in the determination of likely voters. That one is very hard to nail, as "likely voters" shift with the wind. If one side excites their voters more than expected, they can beat the polls.

Opinion polls are easy - you just survey a population. They can usually be done with impressive precision. Election polls, however, are difficult as you have to take an opinion poll and THEN project the likelihood of the subgroups actually voting.

The oversampling, however, is generally their to add precision to the opinion aspect of the poll, not the forecast of likely voters.
Click to expand...
Exactly!
 
Chomsky said:
Then you're risking political backlash jeopardizing the 2020 election.
Click to expand...

I've come to believe that kind of thinking communicates a lack of sincerity in our principles. We either communicate that we hold the rule of law sacrosanct or we communicate that we want to win elections.

While we can draw important lessons from 1974, 1999, 2016 and 2018, it would be erroneous to force today's circumstances to be a mirror image of any of those years. To whit...

1974: The charges that led to Nixon's impeachment would be at least the same set of charges that would lead to Trump's impeachment. Problem: Nixon was not the head of a populist movement and was therefore vulnerable to changing sentiments within his own party. (Note that this does not help my argument, and I'm not claiming that it does).

1999: Impeachment of Clinton led to rising approval of Clinton and crashing approval of Republican. Problem: Republicans won control of the Executive and Legislative branch in 2000 anyway.

2016: Clinton emphasizes criticism of Trump (or, at least, the media prioritizes her criticism of Trump), causing any of her policy positions to appear to be ancillary. Problem: Yes, she lost the election, but there is a metric butt-ton of reasons why she lost, and it's difficult to single this out as a driving factor for her loss. There are other more measurable reasons for her loss than this.

2018: Democrats overwhelmingly take back the House based on candidates pushing policy over anti-Trumpism, in particular due to their emphasis on health care messaging. Problem: at that point in time, Democratic candidates could afford to let Mueller handle the investigation, giving them the space they needed to focus on policy. Only now, the Mueller investigation has ended, and he concluded with a report that quite specifically handed off responsibility to Congress to address. To ignore this responsibility is to pretend that Mueller has not placed the ball squarely in their court.

There's a final problem you're not factoring in, which I laid out in post 23 (a post that you hit "like" for):

If Democrats don't move forward with impeachment, they'll create a vacuum that Trump will fill. And what he will fill it with are massive investigations into the FBI, Democrats, Clinton, Obama...you name it...all with AG Barr as his general. Barr will roll right over the traditional barrier between the DOJ and the SDNY as surely as Trump steamrolled over the traditional barrier between the White House and the DOJ, and one after another, every Federal investigation into Trump and his businesses will be terminated. And by 2020, you'll see one or more Democratic Presidential candidates under investigation by the DOJ.

Democrats may think they have the luxury of waiting, but Trump has no intention of waiting for anything. Trump is in full authoritarian mode now, and if he senses weakness and hesitation in the Democratic party, that's it.
 
Last edited:
Chomsky said:
Understood; but keep in mind impeachment is a political process.
Click to expand...

I fail to see any meaningful utility of this comment. Politicians and government are involved. It's not possible for it not to be a political process.
 
haymarket said:
I have always thought Trump support numbers are half-baked in.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I've never seen more consistent Presidential approval numbers; Trump seems to be both strongly celebrated & despised, causing a highly polarized electorate. Few are neutral on him.
 
Last edited:
Chomsky said:
I disagree. I've never seen more consistent Presidential approval numbers; Trump seems to be both strongly celebrated & despised, causing a highly polarized electorate. Few are neutral on him.
Click to expand...

I agree with that... the numbers do not lie. But if we can isolate the hardcore Trumpkin support - lets say that is about 33 to 35 points - Trump can be defeated as he loses the rest.
 
Chomsky said:
Thatnk, I've been watching Trump's regression line very slowing edging up (it seems) as of late.

Interesting the article claims how Trump's 9th Q numbers are the very worst of any President besides Reagan. Well Reagan won a second term!
Click to expand...

Trump doesn't have the personality of Reagan. Reagan was likable, Trump is very easy to dislike. In fact one of the main reason many independents give for disliking Trump is his crass behavior and his obnoxious personality. An example is independents give Trump a 43 approval on the economy 32 disapproval, question 56D, but their overall approval/disapproval is 38/46 question 55. Independents on Trump's likability is 25% like, 41% dislike among independents. Question 61. It's gets worse for Trump, independents who want Trump to run for reelection, 33% of independents say yes, 46% say no. Question 68

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/egvqvgp5a7/econTabReport.pdf

Trump is no Reagan, I don't think Trump could ever recover or get at or above the 45% approval rating. His numbers as you put it, are too baked in. Actually Reagan had a 41% approval rating 15-18 Apr 1983 and rebounded to 61% on election day 1984. I don't think Trump is capable of even a 5 point jump/rebound let alone a 20 point rebound by election day. My opinion only. Reagan averaged 50% approval for his first term, with a range of 37-68. Trump has average 40% so far with a range between 37-45. Trump could bring peace to the world and his approval rating wouldn't jump over 45%. People just don't like his uncouth and brass persona. Trump could cause WWIII and a great depression much worse than the one in the 1930's, Trump would never drop below his 37%.
 
Cardinal said:
I've come to believe that kind of thinking communicates a lack of sincerity in our principles. We either communicate that we hold the rule of law sacrosanct or we communicate that we want to win elections.

While we can draw important lessons from 1974, 1999, 2016 and 2018, it would be erroneous to force today's circumstances to be a mirror image of any of those years. To whit...

1974: The charges that led to Nixon's impeachment would be at least the same set of charges that would lead to Trump's impeachment. Problem: Nixon was not the head of a populist movement and was therefore vulnerable to changing sentiments within his own party. (Note that this does not help my argument, and I'm not claiming that it does).

1999: Impeachment of Clinton led to rising approval of Clinton and crashing approval of Republican. Problem: Republicans won control of the Executive and Legislative branch in 2000 anyway.

2016: Clinton emphasizes criticism of Trump (or, at least, the media prioritizes her criticism of Trump), causing any of her policy positions to appear to be ancillary. Problem: Yes, she lost the election, but there is a metric butt-ton of reasons why she lost, and it's difficult to single this out as a driving factor for her loss. There are other more measurable reasons for her loss than this.

2018: Democrats overwhelmingly take back the House based on candidates pushing policy over anti-Trumpism, in particular due to their emphasis on health care messaging. Problem: at that point in time, Democratic candidates could afford to let Mueller handle the investigation, giving them the space they needed to focus on policy. Only now, the Mueller investigation has ended, and he concluded with a report that quite specifically handed off responsibility to Congress to address. To ignore this responsibility is to pretend that Mueller has not placed the ball squarely in their court.
Click to expand...
You make a good point that these earlier instances do not directly translate to today's circumstance. Each instance is indeed unique, and needs to be uniquely evaluated (as you've nicely done - thank you!).

I do very much want to impeach, because I am convinced it is the right thing to do in constitutional terms. But man, possibly jeopardizing the election scares the living bejeezus out of me.

I find censure an interesting idea, but I fear I'm now seeing a building momentum to impeach. If it happens, I'll just accept it as Dems doing the right thing; let's hope it doesn't bite us. Maybe it won't. Maybe the majority of the electorate will see the scope of what Trump is doing, versus Clinton's sexual indiscretion seemingly being little compared to Trump. I hope my fear here is unwarranted. It may be.

There's a final problem you're not factoring in, which I laid out in post 23 (a post that you hit "like" for):

If Democrats don't move forward with impeachment, they'll create a vacuum that Trump will fill. And what he will fill it with are massive investigations into the FBI, Democrats, Clinton, Obama...you name it...all with AG Barr as his general. Barr will roll right over the traditional barrier between the DOJ and the SDNY as surely as Trump steamrolled over the traditional barrier between the White House and the DOJ, and one after another, every Federal investigation into Trump and his businesses will be terminated. And by 2020, you'll see one or more Democratic Presidential candidates under investigation by the DOJ.

Democrats may think they have the luxury of waiting, but Trump has no intention of waiting for anything. Trump is in full authoritarian mode now, and if he senses weakness and hesitation in the Democratic party, that's it.
Click to expand...
Well - I liked your post because your points here are hard to refute; so I'll let them stand without debate. I'm already seeing signs of what you believe may happen, so you're making a good case here. Though with only 17 months until the election, I'm not sure how far Trump & Barr can go with the election hanging in front of them. Trump's overt authoritarian overtures likely will have a negative effect upon the Indies, jeopardizing his chances.

Cardinal said:
I fail to see any meaningful utility of this comment. Politicians and government are involved. It's not possible for it not to be a political process.
Click to expand...
My comment was written in response to your claim to remove politics from the impeachment equation. My claim is "you can't", as impeachment is inherently a political process.
 
Chomsky said:
My comment was written in response to your claim to remove politics from the impeachment equation. My claim is "you can't", as impeachment is inherently a political process.
Click to expand...

No, I said "When you remove political tactics from the equation." In other words, if worrying over the strategy* is so perfectly detouring one from what one knows is the morally right thing to do, then maybe the strategy is morally wrong.







*I have no military background, so I honestly can't tell if I'm suppose to use the word "tactics" or "strategy." They frequently confuse me.
 
Cardinal said:
No, I said "When you remove political tactics from the equation." In other words, if worrying over the strategy* is so perfectly detouring one from what one knows is the morally right thing to do, then maybe the strategy is morally wrong.







*I have no military background, so I honestly can't tell if I'm suppose to use the word "tactics" or "strategy." They frequently confuse me.
Click to expand...
I don't see the flip-side of "politics" as "morals", but rather as "constitutionality".
 
Chomsky said:
I don't see the flip-side of "politics" as "morals", but rather as "constitutionality".
Click to expand...

Political strategy (the strategy is the thing I'm really focusing on, here) can be smart and it can be stupid. It can be useful in moral guidance and it can yank you away from a clear moral path.

I believe this is one of those situations where the perceived "smart strategy" is actually the wrong the thing to focus on (morally!). And when you focus on the wrong thing, you lose the national argument. And when you lose the national argument, you've lost...period.
 
Cardinal said:
Political strategy (the strategy is the thing I'm really focusing on, here) can be smart and it can be stupid. It can be useful in moral guidance and it can yank you away from a clear moral path.

I believe this is one of those situations where the perceived "smart strategy" is actually the wrong the thing to focus on (morally!). And when you focus on the wrong thing, you lose the national argument. And when you lose the national argument, you've lost...period.
Click to expand...
I must admit your last paragraph is a decent argument. I very much believe that when you strive to do the right thing, it often prevails; not always, but often enough.
 
Chomsky said:
Source: (Politico) Poll: Trump approval sinks 5 points after Mueller report, tying all-time low

[FYI - This thread replaces & supersedes my previous defective thread of the same title]

An immediate 5 points drop? I'm a bit surprised. I figured by now, Trump's numbers were more baked-in.

It's only one poll, the first I'm aware of, though the article claims other polls are reflecting similar results. So we'll just have to see, I suppose.

But we've seen Trump slump before, and he always seems to come around to that same 42% regression line. So I don't particularly think this is too bad for him. I just wish there was a deeper break-out by party & demographics. If it's Indies he lost, then perhaps he is taking a hit from the report.
Click to expand...

'click click-- click click click' damn I can only click once for 'like'
 
Cardinal said:
I know you're aware of the Pod Save America crew, but do you regularly listen to them? They echo my arguments in their latest podcast, though perhaps more eloquently.

“Impeach ‘em if you got ‘em.” | Crooked Media
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm not aware at all; but I'll check it out.

I haven't had a chance to check-out cable or my usual websites today yet, but as of yesterday impeachment sure seemed to be building momentum, Pelosi's warning notwithstanding.

Of course her word carries a lot of weight, though! :2razz:

Edit: Whoa! 98 minutes?
 
Chomsky said:
Actually, I'm not aware at all; but I'll check it out.

I haven't had a chance to check-out cable or my usual websites today yet, but as of yesterday impeachment sure seemed to be building momentum, Pelosi's warning notwithstanding.

Of course her word carries a lot of weight, though! :2razz:

Edit: Whoa! 98 minutes?
Click to expand...

These guys are Obama's ex-speech writers and national security advisers. They're super smart and actually quite funny. They're nakedly Democratic activists, so make no bones about that, but they're very good at getting underneath the political and media noise and getting down to the kernels of most issues.

I paint for a living, so listening to podcasts...yes, even long ones...works well for me.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
The national debt went from $10 trillion to $20 trillion. All of doctoring the books didn't change that.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, the GW Bush mess was a disaster. At least we can agree on that.
 
Chomsky said:
No. But to not weight is far more likely to be erroneous.

The 2016 polls were only off a point & a half in the popular vote, which wasn't too bad, though it made a huge difference in the electoral college totals.

The key here is not to take a polls at their absolute value in arithmetic terms, but at their algebraic difference from the previous polling period. If multiple polls show a consistent movement while using their regular polling methods, then that's significant. And that appears to be what's occurred. I suspect it will be temporary
Click to expand...

You are of course talking about the same polls put out around the same time that groups were touting. Hillary was going to win and placing odds more damming than 9-1 against Trump at that point?

This happened because of peoples tendency to not only play an extended game of telephone with one another. But even for entire corporations to do the same.
I'm not going to say that I won't lend them credence when the time comes. But I'm not going to say that my trust in them hasn't been shaken over the last three years.
 
haymarket said:
I agree with that... the numbers do not lie. But if we can isolate the hardcore Trumpkin support - lets say that is about 33 to 35 points - Trump can be defeated as he loses the rest.
Click to expand...
Well the good news is, Trump seems to be working on doing that himself - quite well.
 
Oborosen said:
You are of course talking about the same polls put out around the same time that groups were touting. Hillary was going to win and placing odds more damming than 9-1 against Trump at that point?

This happened because of peoples tendency to not only play an extended game of telephone with one another. But even for entire corporations to do the same.
I'm not going to say that I won't lend them credence when the time comes. But I'm not going to say that my trust in them hasn't been shaken over the last three years.
Click to expand...
To the bolded: 'Yes'.


Those polls were within a point & a half of the actual results, which is pretty good. It made a large difference in the EC totals, because both candidates were on the cusp of equality. If the polls were off a point & a half in the other direction, HRC too would have won a large Electoral College majority.
 
Cardinal said:
These guys are Obama's ex-speech writers and national security advisers. They're super smart and actually quite funny. They're nakedly Democratic activists, so make no bones about that, but they're very good at getting underneath the political and media noise and getting down to the kernels of most issues.

I paint for a living, so listening to podcasts...yes, even long ones...works well for me.
Click to expand...
Sounds interesting, thanks.

As an aside, several of my buddies I grew-up with are house painters. I've never seen one paint without a radio going in the background! I almost wonder if the unions & contractors supply radios in the apprentices' tool kits!

:mrgreen:
 
Chomsky said:
Sounds interesting, thanks.

As an aside, several of my buddies I grew-up with are house painters. I've never seen one paint without a radio going in the background! I almost wonder if the unions & contractors supply radios in the apprentices' tool kits!

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Well, that's not exactly the kind of painter I am, but yeah, the principle holds.
 
Cardinal said:
Well, that's not exactly the kind of painter I am, but yeah, the principle holds.
Click to expand...
Ah, nice! When you said "painter", I didn't quite figure you as having the personality of my old-time, old-school, old-neighborhood union buddies.

Not to denigrate them at all, but they would generally not have the conversations we've had. In fact, they'd be more terse with replies like,

"Fake news!"

"Damn Commie Libruls!"

and of course,

"MAGA!"

Yeah, I love these guys; always will. And, I consider some of them my best friends until today. But we've drifted a bit apart on some things over the years ... :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Chomsky said:
Sounds interesting, thanks.

As an aside, several of my buddies I grew-up with are house painters. I've never seen one paint without a radio going in the background! I almost wonder if the unions & contractors supply radios in the apprentices' tool kits!

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

And by union by laws it must be tuned to the oldies station.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom