• 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!

CNN poll - 64% not proud to have Trump as Prez

The polling is really not a whole lot different from Obama's first year in office and if I'm not mistaken, the Republicans gained the House in the next election and then made gains and took over the Senate in subsequent elections. Trump is not a conservative and not really a Republican, so he really doesn't hurt the Republican brand that much, and he certainly brings into the voting booth people who like him personally, regardless of party. I can't stand Trump, but I also can't see anyone on the Democrat side who could run for the nomination and beat Trump in 2020 - can you? Most of the "names" in the Democrat Party might be dead by 2020, or at best ready to retire. Who's the fresh face on the left who's going to come in, ala Obama, and take the country by storm? And don't forget, with all Trump's supposed troubles, your economy is booming, the stock market is at record levels, unemployment is back in the Bush 2 ranges and the Republicans are looking at significant tax cuts - people may just hold their noses and reelect Trump because their lives are pretty good right now.

I suspect that the continuous barrage of negative opinion in the msm and a couple of foreign policy decisions that are potentially extremely dangerous have led to a relative decline similar to Obama’s albeit from a lower initial level of approval.
 
Sorry, but the Democrats are in far more disarray than the Republicans are at this point in time - the Republicans thrive on diversity of opinion and the difficulty in gaining consensus. Democrats thrive on group think and a single message, and they have none now, other than we hate Trump. And let's not forget that the Democrats are totally leaderless - hell, talk of Biden coming back is hilarious - and the DNC is despised by half the party.

I would agree with you that Hillary lost the election, but Democrats loved her, so Democrats lost the election because they're basically clueless when it comes to public opinion and their media mouthpieces are no different - ideologues try to drive the agenda, and Democrats are ideologues to the core.

I normally like a lot of your posts CJ but I think you've managed to actually write a post where I litertally disagree with every single solitary sentence you wrote.

I can't say that Democrats are in more dissary. Both parties right now are massively split and having severe internal struggles against themselves. The difference is that the Democrats have a single unifying figure they can utilize to galvanize each side of their schism right now: Donald Trump. Both the Bernie-wing and the Hillary-wing can get behind, and unify around, opposition to him. The Republicans, however, have no such unifying figure. Indeed, the individual that normally would be the unifying figure for a political party with the Presidency, the President, is actually the largest figurehead representing the schism in question.

Republicans do not thrive on a diversity of opinion. If this was the case they would not be routinely attempting, and succeeding, at primarying out members (See for example Cantor in VA) for not being "pure" enough. The Democrats, due to typically being a loose connection of individual issue based interests as opposed to a more broad ideological base, are more prone to seeking consensus and accepting compromise along their side of the ideological spectrum than Republicans who are routinely stymied and at odds when their internal sides clash. The passage of the ACA vs the repeal of the ACA is a wonderful example of the difference between the two and their "consensus" nature.

The party out of power being leaderless is not an issue. The Republicans were largely leaderless from 2009 to 2016; that didn't stop them from having instrumental sweeping victories in 2010 and 2014. The minority party has the benefit of having a "villain" as opposed to the leader due to the opposite party President. The Democrats have Trump like the Republicans had Obama. Unlike the Democrats of 09' - '15, however, the Republicans do not have a leader that looks poised to legitimately unify the party.

Democrats hardly "loved" Clinton. Her favorable rating would've been historically low if not for Trump actually being worse. You could see even on these forums, numerous liberal/democratic posters would speak negatively of their personal feelings towards Clinton. There is a large contingent of Democrats who very much were not fans of Hillary Clinton.
 
I have to say I am not surprised by the figure......but dumbfounded that 36% our proud. Proud of what.....it''''''s like Mr Magoo had offspring with Andrew Dice Clay. How could anyone be proud of this moron is beyond me. Again I get if someone votes for a person. but since the inauguration it has been a constant sh$%show form day one. Voting is on him .....still supporting this ignoramus is on the voter
 
The polling is really not a whole lot different from Obama's first year in office and if I'm not mistaken, the Republicans gained the House in the next election and then made gains and took over the Senate in subsequent elections. Trump is not a conservative and not really a Republican, so he really doesn't hurt the Republican brand that much, and he certainly brings into the voting booth people who like him personally, regardless of party. I can't stand Trump, but I also can't see anyone on the Democrat side who could run for the nomination and beat Trump in 2020 - can you? Most of the "names" in the Democrat Party might be dead by 2020, or at best ready to retire. Who's the fresh face on the left who's going to come in, ala Obama, and take the country by storm? And don't forget, with all Trump's supposed troubles, your economy is booming, the stock market is at record levels, unemployment is back in the Bush 2 ranges and the Republicans are looking at significant tax cuts - people may just hold their noses and reelect Trump because their lives are pretty good right now.

With so much "buyer's regret" here in America over Trump, still, the dem's got nothing. They better hurry up and step up to the plate. Biden was on TV this morning saying that if he was in front of the Good Lord Himself, he would say TODAY that he is not going to run. But he didn't rule out what might happen later. He's one of those that are as old as the hills, you mentioned.

You know, it wouldn't take that MUCH for the dem's to whup Trump, what with most everyone thinking he sucks and all. But, as far as I can see, they got nothing. So I have to agree with CJ.

Myself, I can't stand the thought of the DNC thinking they know what's best for the people and giving preferential treatment to the candidate of THEIR choosing rather than what the people choose. And there is always that "super delegate" thing that gives one singular person the same power as it gives thousands of other people combined. That don't sit right with me. That AND the EC giving victories to candidates that were not elected by the majority.

Our system, I am beginning to think, is just a "feel good" measure to dupe us all in to thinking we have some kind of say what goes on in Washington. Call me jaded.
 
Again, I'm going to point out that polls asking things similar to the above quote doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as being implied in the below post...



Almost everyone of these type of polls that have been posted on here by haymarket or those like him are ones where I would have responded in the negative in terms of the questions about Trump; and yet, had it been a two person election, Trump would've still been my vote. Similarly, many that I know who did vote for Trump would very likely ALSO be answering in the negative for most of these polls (I know, because they've said similar words to me when describing him) and yet STILL would be likely to vote for Trump.

The problem is that saying you're not proud to have Trump as your President is NOT the same as saying "I would not vote for Trump in an election" or "I would support the idea of Trump being impeached". Same as saying "I don't think Trump is doing a good job" is not the same as those things. Same as saying "I think Trump is not very Presidential" is not the same thing.

I still don't understand how people, after watching an entire primary and general election occur that made it abundantly clear that traditional political science theories and assumptions are routinely turned upside down with this man, still just assume that everything is business as usual when it comes to Trump.

I suspect that for many Americans - it is indeed the same thing. Not all... but many.
 
I normally like a lot of your posts CJ but I think you've managed to actually write a post where I litertally disagree with every single solitary sentence you wrote.

I can't say that Democrats are in more dissary. Both parties right now are massively split and having severe internal struggles against themselves. The difference is that the Democrats have a single unifying figure they can utilize to galvanize each side of their schism right now: Donald Trump. Both the Bernie-wing and the Hillary-wing can get behind, and unify around, opposition to him. The Republicans, however, have no such unifying figure. Indeed, the individual that normally would be the unifying figure for a political party with the Presidency, the President, is actually the largest figurehead representing the schism in question.

Republicans do not thrive on a diversity of opinion. If this was the case they would not be routinely attempting, and succeeding, at primarying out members (See for example Cantor in VA) for not being "pure" enough. The Democrats, due to typically being a loose connection of individual issue based interests as opposed to a more broad ideological base, are more prone to seeking consensus and accepting compromise along their side of the ideological spectrum than Republicans who are routinely stymied and at odds when their internal sides clash. The passage of the ACA vs the repeal of the ACA is a wonderful example of the difference between the two and their "consensus" nature.

The party out of power being leaderless is not an issue. The Republicans were largely leaderless from 2009 to 2016; that didn't stop them from having instrumental sweeping victories in 2010 and 2014. The minority party has the benefit of having a "villain" as opposed to the leader due to the opposite party President. The Democrats have Trump like the Republicans had Obama. Unlike the Democrats of 09' - '15, however, the Republicans do not have a leader that looks poised to legitimately unify the party.

Democrats hardly "loved" Clinton. Her favorable rating would've been historically low if not for Trump actually being worse. You could see even on these forums, numerous liberal/democratic posters would speak negatively of their personal feelings towards Clinton. There is a large contingent of Democrats who very much were not fans of Hillary Clinton.

I appreciate your comments and I don't necessarily disagree with them drastically and you may be surprised, but your comments are not diametrically opposed to my comments to the extent you think.

Firstly, I do believe that Republicans are far more diverse in opinion than the Democrats are - you prove the point by showing that the Republicans are having trouble finding consensus on issues like Obamacare, taxes, trade, etc. That's a perfect example of how a large group of individuals got elected under a party banner and yet have very different view of how to legislate and manage in government. Unlike the Democrats who were and are 100% behind Obamacare and opposed to any alterations that don't look like single payer government funded healthcare, the Republicans are full of members who range from repealing the ACA, amending the ACA, even some who want to expand government funding for those on the low end while freeing up those with higher incomes to do whatever they want. The very fact that Democrats vote en-bloc and Republicans couldn't organized consensus on a bake sale is proof, at least to me, that diversity of opinion reigns supreme in the Republican Party.

Secondly, the vast majority of Republicans and a good number of Independents still support Trump as President. There's no doubt, as well, that Trump and his campaign team know full well that solidifying and retaining their gains in the American "Rust Belt" and upper middle America is essential to the President's reelection. That's why he's been travelling and giving speeches and holding rallies in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. No doubt, everyone in California and New York hate the guy, but a lot of these States that went for Trump against Clinton are ones that his policies are favouring. Look at his stance on NAFTA with farmers in Wisconsin and the mid-west hot to get Canada to drop its dairy supply management. Others looking to either scrap NAFTA or secure more flexible terms more suitable to the manufacturing sector in America, such as the auto sector and going after Mexican assembly plants. The President is doing what those who voted for him wanted him to do - not always successful, but he's trying and voters appreciate that.
 
I normally like a lot of your posts CJ but I think you've managed to actually write a post where I litertally disagree with every single solitary sentence you wrote.

I can't say that Democrats are in more dissary. Both parties right now are massively split and having severe internal struggles against themselves. The difference is that the Democrats have a single unifying figure they can utilize to galvanize each side of their schism right now: Donald Trump. Both the Bernie-wing and the Hillary-wing can get behind, and unify around, opposition to him. The Republicans, however, have no such unifying figure. Indeed, the individual that normally would be the unifying figure for a political party with the Presidency, the President, is actually the largest figurehead representing the schism in question.

Republicans do not thrive on a diversity of opinion. If this was the case they would not be routinely attempting, and succeeding, at primarying out members (See for example Cantor in VA) for not being "pure" enough. The Democrats, due to typically being a loose connection of individual issue based interests as opposed to a more broad ideological base, are more prone to seeking consensus and accepting compromise along their side of the ideological spectrum than Republicans who are routinely stymied and at odds when their internal sides clash. The passage of the ACA vs the repeal of the ACA is a wonderful example of the difference between the two and their "consensus" nature.

The party out of power being leaderless is not an issue. The Republicans were largely leaderless from 2009 to 2016; that didn't stop them from having instrumental sweeping victories in 2010 and 2014. The minority party has the benefit of having a "villain" as opposed to the leader due to the opposite party President. The Democrats have Trump like the Republicans had Obama. Unlike the Democrats of 09' - '15, however, the Republicans do not have a leader that looks poised to legitimately unify the party.

Democrats hardly "loved" Clinton. Her favorable rating would've been historically low if not for Trump actually being worse. You could see even on these forums, numerous liberal/democratic posters would speak negatively of their personal feelings towards Clinton. There is a large contingent of Democrats who very much were not fans of Hillary Clinton.

Finally, I'd say that opposition to something is not a winning strategy when it comes to elections. Most voters want to vote for something, not against something. If and until the Democrats actually find something substantive to propose and a leading voice to propose it, Trump isn't as vulnerable as those on the left would hope he is. Hell, Democrats appear to be relying on the Special Prosecutor and Impeachment to get rid of Trump - won't happen.
 
With so much "buyer's regret" here in America over Trump, still, the dem's got nothing. They better hurry up and step up to the plate. Biden was on TV this morning saying that if he was in front of the Good Lord Himself, he would say TODAY that he is not going to run. But he didn't rule out what might happen later. He's one of those that are as old as the hills, you mentioned.

You know, it wouldn't take that MUCH for the dem's to whup Trump, what with most everyone thinking he sucks and all. But, as far as I can see, they got nothing. So I have to agree with CJ.

Myself, I can't stand the thought of the DNC thinking they know what's best for the people and giving preferential treatment to the candidate of THEIR choosing rather than what the people choose. And there is always that "super delegate" thing that gives one singular person the same power as it gives thousands of other people combined. That don't sit right with me. That AND the EC giving victories to candidates that were not elected by the majority.

Our system, I am beginning to think, is just a "feel good" measure to dupe us all in to thinking we have some kind of say what goes on in Washington. Call me jaded.

Here in Canada, we don't have a direct vote for our Prime Minister - the Prime Minister is chosen by the party elites. Canadians only vote for their member of Parliament who then votes with the leader the party elites chose. I think the average Canadian would love to have the voice Americans have in choosing a party's nominee for the top job.
 
Gallup historically oversamples democrats and tends to poll independents from cities.

Oh I see, if the polls conclusively demonstrate that you're wrong, it's because they're nonsense. Got it.
 
Quote...
" A new poll is out showing the American people do not like Trump, do not think he is doing a good job, and most are basically ashamed/not proud he is the President of their country. "

For starters I do not believe in these polls.
Those who are ashamed ? The ones who voted for queen wannabe Hillary. This why President Trump won with no interference from Russia.
Get use to eight years of the Trump administration.
 
Clearly, you didn't read my post or understand its content - I said, in so many words, that the Republicans were at about the same in approval levels back in Obama's first year as they are now in Trump's first year and yet the Republicans managed to take control of the House and gradually take control of the Senate. Presidential approval ratings aren't necessarily indicative of a party's approval ratings down the ticket in House, Senate, and State elections. The President's party has traditionally lost some ground in midterm elections in the House and Senate, but not exclusively so. If I'm not mistaken, President Bush 2 was able to see his party gain seats in his midterm election in his first term and I'm guessing a large part of that gain can be attributed to the tax cuts he pushed through following the tech crash in the stock market at the end of the Clinton Presidency and 9/11 which led to increased government revenue and basically full employment.

You get no argument from me that Trump is polling badly, but that's in comparison to nothing. Let's see how Trump polls against the alternative when the time comes and when the Democrats have to nominate a challenger. I remember it was basically a given that Bush 2 would lose in 2004, but then the Democrats put up John Kerry as the challenger and Bush 2 didn't look so bad in comparison and actually gained votes. Likewise, Obama looked very vulnerable in 2012 but the Republicans put up Romney and many in America couldn't put aside their fear of Mormons to vote for the more accomplished and competent man.

This reads mostly as your personal preference rather than a statement that appears rooted in facts. But fine, if you want to make the claim that they are the same, then provide me with statistics showing that Democratic congress were doing as poorly in 2009 as the Republican congress is doing in 2017.

For the most part, I don't actually care, but you seem to be happy repeating what sounds awfully similar to the delusional talking points of AM radio hosts from 2009-2012. And in any case, you're ignoring the ultimate point that I was even making, which is that unless Republicans deal with their approvals in the current age and group demographics (specifically, among women, minorities, and youth), they will cease to be a viable party over the next decade or two. They're critical strategy is appealing to (largely white, male) Boomers, and in 2020, Boomers will no longer be the largest voting block. By 2030, they'll be dwarfed by Gen X'ers, Millennials, and Gen Z (and you'll start seeing generation alpha voting). That's a long time to change their message, but the crucial, ingrained pieces of the modern Republican party --cutting taxes, de-regulation and anti-social safety nets, anti-immigration, dog-whistling racism/homophobia/transphobia/misogyny, etc-- will not be viable strategies. Republicans can only thank Democrats for shoe-horning HIllary in as Trump's opponent.
 
This reads mostly as your personal preference rather than a statement that appears rooted in facts. But fine, if you want to make the claim that they are the same, then provide me with statistics showing that Democratic congress were doing as poorly in 2009 as the Republican congress is doing in 2017.

For the most part, I don't actually care, but you seem to be happy repeating what sounds awfully similar to the delusional talking points of AM radio hosts from 2009-2012. And in any case, you're ignoring the ultimate point that I was even making, which is that unless Republicans deal with their approvals in the current age and group demographics (specifically, among women, minorities, and youth), they will cease to be a viable party over the next decade or two. They're critical strategy is appealing to (largely white, male) Boomers, and in 2020, Boomers will no longer be the largest voting block. By 2030, they'll be dwarfed by Gen X'ers, Millennials, and Gen Z (and you'll start seeing generation alpha voting). That's a long time to change their message, but the crucial, ingrained pieces of the modern Republican party --cutting taxes, de-regulation and anti-social safety nets, anti-immigration, dog-whistling racism/homophobia/transphobia/misogyny, etc-- will not be viable strategies. Republicans can only thank Democrats for shoe-horning HIllary in as Trump's opponent.

Republican's today are much similar to the Southern Democrats, pre-civil-rights, era. Today's democrats remind me of 1956 (Eisenhower era) republicans.

“The Eisenhower Administration will continue to fight for dynamic and progressive programs which, among other things, will:

Stimulate improved job safety of our workers, through assistance to the States, employees and employers;

Continue and further perfect its programs of assistance to the millions of workers with special employment problems, such as older workers, handicapped workers, members of minority groups, and migratory workers;

Strengthen and improve the Federal-State Employment Service and improve the effectiveness of the unemployment insurance system;

Protect by law, the assets of employee welfare and benefit plans so that workers who are the beneficiaries can be assured of their rightful benefits;

Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex;

Federally-assisted construction, and maintain and continue the vigorous administration of the Federal prevailing minimum wage law for public supply contracts;

Extend the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as is possible and practicable;

Continue to fight for the elimination of discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry or sex;

Provide assistance to improve the economic conditions of areas faced with persistent and substantial unemployment;

Revise and improve the Taft-Hartley Act so as to protect more effectively the rights of labor unions, management, the individual worker, and the public.

The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Eisenhower Administration.”

Point being. Political parties can and do change. The GOP will stay viable even if they have to alienate their current voting base.
 
Well, I'm certainly not proud but I'll take that over the thought of Hillary being President.
 
1) I am a freeman so I dont need your permission

2) I am extremely proud of PATRIOT TRUMP

3) I said on election day that no matter what comes next Trump is a hero, anything good that happens in the Swamp because of him is gravy

4) Once the Elite Class decided to go on strike, on or about Nov 9 2016, Trump became blameless for all the harm that comes so long as he does his best, this is not his fault, he and we are the victims in this story, it is the ELite CLass that decided to burn America down to burn Trump out..... me as a victim is going to follow the calls to blame their failure to work and not only that but worse their callous and total disregard for the best interests of America on a fellow victim, on a PATRIOT?

no

How can you call someone who wanted to torture prisoners and kill the families of terrorists a patriot? He is obviously un-American and hardly patriotic.
 
Again, I'm going to point out that polls asking things similar to the above quote doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as being implied in the below post...



Almost everyone of these type of polls that have been posted on here by haymarket or those like him are ones where I would have responded in the negative in terms of the questions about Trump; and yet, had it been a two person election, Trump would've still been my vote. Similarly, many that I know who did vote for Trump would very likely ALSO be answering in the negative for most of these polls (I know, because they've said similar words to me when describing him) and yet STILL would be likely to vote for Trump.

The problem is that saying you're not proud to have Trump as your President is NOT the same as saying "I would not vote for Trump in an election" or "I would support the idea of Trump being impeached". Same as saying "I don't think Trump is doing a good job" is not the same as those things. Same as saying "I think Trump is not very Presidential" is not the same thing.

I still don't understand how people, after watching an entire primary and general election occur that made it abundantly clear that traditional political science theories and assumptions are routinely turned upside down with this man, still just assume that everything is business as usual when it comes to Trump.

This ^ Yup, that's how I see it.
 
A new poll is out showing the American people do not like Trump, do not think he is doing a good job, and most are basically ashamed/not proud he is the President of their country.

CNN poll: Less confidence, less trust in Donald Trump - CNNPolitics




These numbers are consistent with Gallup and other polls that show his approval rating in the mid to low thirties.

Coming on the heels of the big Dem wins last night, I wonder if Trump will even be here to be the focus of the 2018 elections? But that is a wildly speculative issue at best. For now, the nation deals with him and is increasingly unhappy about him and the job he is doing.

64% at CNN? Considering how far off in left field they are, I'm shocked it's that low! Sounds like a lot of people just leave it on for a night light.
 
This reads mostly as your personal preference rather than a statement that appears rooted in facts. But fine, if you want to make the claim that they are the same, then provide me with statistics showing that Democratic congress were doing as poorly in 2009 as the Republican congress is doing in 2017.

For the most part, I don't actually care, but you seem to be happy repeating what sounds awfully similar to the delusional talking points of AM radio hosts from 2009-2012. And in any case, you're ignoring the ultimate point that I was even making, which is that unless Republicans deal with their approvals in the current age and group demographics (specifically, among women, minorities, and youth), they will cease to be a viable party over the next decade or two. They're critical strategy is appealing to (largely white, male) Boomers, and in 2020, Boomers will no longer be the largest voting block. By 2030, they'll be dwarfed by Gen X'ers, Millennials, and Gen Z (and you'll start seeing generation alpha voting). That's a long time to change their message, but the crucial, ingrained pieces of the modern Republican party --cutting taxes, de-regulation and anti-social safety nets, anti-immigration, dog-whistling racism/homophobia/transphobia/misogyny, etc-- will not be viable strategies. Republicans can only thank Democrats for shoe-horning HIllary in as Trump's opponent.

Much as you may want it to be, conservatives are not what liberals portray them to be. And it only invigorates those on the right and those in the middle who trend right to get out and vote when liberal elites and their mouthpieces try to portray them as sub-human troglodytes. How well did Hillary's "basket of deplorables" work out for her and Democrats?

As for younger generations, many young people I know are appalled by the amount of debt and dependency on government my generation has foisted on them, virtually condemning them to a lifetime of servitude to government rather than the hope of an independent and prosperous future. I grant you, young people still in university are misty eyed socialists as per their professorial leaders' brainwashing, but once they get out into the real world, working, and paying taxes, those with any skill and ambition are quickly turned into fiscal conservatives who want less government getting in their way.

Younger Americans, in my view, will become more like Canadian conservatives as per my footer - we are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Conservatives can find the will to adhere to the former and avoid the social issues - liberals can't help themselves - they believe, religiously, that only they know what's best for you and only they can manage your life in every detail. There will always be a place in America for conservative voices and politicians because large parts of America will continue to reject trending socialism.
 
A new poll is out showing the American people do not like Trump, do not think he is doing a good job, and most are basically ashamed/not proud he is the President of their country.

CNN poll: Less confidence, less trust in Donald Trump - CNNPolitics




These numbers are consistent with Gallup and other polls that show his approval rating in the mid to low thirties.

Coming on the heels of the big Dem wins last night, I wonder if Trump will even be here to be the focus of the 2018 elections? But that is a wildly speculative issue at best. For now, the nation deals with him and is increasingly unhappy about him and the job he is doing.

I have no doubt that the poll is probably right. Looking at many other polls that give Trump's favorable/unfavorable ratings along with his job approval/disapproval, they usually run around 38% favorable 58% unfavorable give or take a few points depending on the poll. But why should this surprise anyone? Look, when the guy was elected on 8 Nov his favorable rating or those who viewed him positive was at 36%. Roughly 60% of all Americans had a negative view of him. So that continues through to today, no surprise and I stated that it would way before the primaries were done.

It would have been the same for Hillary Clinton. Had she won, she would have been viewed the same as Trump in the negative. Remember she was only at 38% favorable back on 8 Nov. So whoever won would have been president with approximately 60% of all Americans having a negative view of them. Very hard to govern when 3/5th of America are against you. But those were the choices.

We went to the polls knowing whomever won, they would be the pits for this country. At least those of us who weren't avid Trump and/or Clinton supporters. Where we are at today all boils down to choices and decisions made by the two major parties last year. Therein lies the blame. Those decisions and choices had consequences and we are living with those consequences.
 
Oh I see, if the polls conclusively demonstrate that you're wrong, it's because they're nonsense. Got it.



What was the sampling rate of dems, repubs, independent?? They left that out. Who is SRRS? never heard of them.

CNN has already been caught doctoring facts, most recently koi fish and japanese cars. Why would any logical mind trust them?



Leaving out the sampling data renders this poll suspect at best and shows an unprofessional, non-scientific poll being passed off as "news".


if it said trump was the best, I'd have the same opinion regarding sampling data.
 
What was the sampling rate of dems, repubs, independent?? They left that out. Who is SRRS? never heard of them.

CNN has already been caught doctoring facts, most recently koi fish and japanese cars. Why would any logical mind trust them?



Leaving out the sampling data renders this poll suspect at best and shows an unprofessional, non-scientific poll being passed off as "news".


if it said trump was the best, I'd have the same opinion regarding sampling data.

Seriously, you're going to argue that Gallop has screwed up so badly that they are off by over 20 percentage points, not based on any reason whatsoever but just because you can't afford to go look this information up? Dude, come on.
 
Much as you may want it to be, conservatives are not what liberals portray them to be. And it only invigorates those on the right and those in the middle who trend right to get out and vote when liberal elites and their mouthpieces try to portray them as sub-human troglodytes. How well did Hillary's "basket of deplorables" work out for her and Democrats?

As for younger generations, many young people I know are appalled by the amount of debt and dependency on government my generation has foisted on them, virtually condemning them to a lifetime of servitude to government rather than the hope of an independent and prosperous future. I grant you, young people still in university are misty eyed socialists as per their professorial leaders' brainwashing, but once they get out into the real world, working, and paying taxes, those with any skill and ambition are quickly turned into fiscal conservatives who want less government getting in their way.

Younger Americans, in my view, will become more like Canadian conservatives as per my footer - we are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Conservatives can find the will to adhere to the former and avoid the social issues - liberals can't help themselves - they believe, religiously, that only they know what's best for you and only they can manage your life in every detail. There will always be a place in America for conservative voices and politicians because large parts of America will continue to reject trending socialism.

I see, so no you can't be bothered to look up and research what you claim are facts. Noted.

As for the rest, this is again nothing more than your personal speculation, and it again sounds more like wishful thinking than any serious attempt to grapple with the reality of changing demographics and opinion polling. You haven't really argued that I'm wrong, you're just doubling down on your bare assertion that you're correct. Perhaps you could try arguing.
 
Republican's today are much similar to the Southern Democrats, pre-civil-rights, era. Today's democrats remind me of 1956 (Eisenhower era) republicans.



Point being. Political parties can and do change. The GOP will stay viable even if they have to alienate their current voting base.

I absolutely agree with this, but in doing so their current leaders, donors, fund-raisers, media-contacts, and a majority of sitting politicians will not survive this transition. The best case scenario for them is that they become a completely different political party, but doing that will require rejecting a majority of their current precepts. The most likely scenario, post-Trump, is that the more economically-moderate libertarian wing of the party will begin it's ascent to power, but I think it will be slow.
 
Thank you.

I'm getting bored and disillusioned by all the over-the-top anything-negative-we-can-post threads that clog up the Forum on an daily basis.

As if, like the MSM, crying the sky is falling over and over and Lucifer is at the helm will panic the herd into going the way they want it.

I wish people would focus on REAL issues to debate, if they have any...I'd certainly enjoy it more. :coffeepap:

Start a thread, then, homie... :coffeepap

lol ;)

I think having a dumbass at the helm is a worthwhile issue, though, and one that won't go away until he does...if I had to guess. I mean, when one inspires so much negative reaction, is it the reactor's fault, or the one inspiring it? Bah...never mind, I'm not sure you'd answer that honestly anyway... The point is, even if Trump's "policy" was rock solid, his attitude and lack of class will never unite the nation, and so he's a failure out of the gates, and that is worth talking about, to continue the momentum of getting him landed on the curb ass first at first opportunity.

Trump is a dud, best to move on as quickly as possible.
 
Seriously, you're going to argue that Gallop has screwed up so badly that they are off by over 20 percentage points, not based on any reason whatsoever but just because you can't afford to go look this information up? Dude, come on.




This is not gallup, this is CNN/SRRS

Gallup shows it sampling groups.


Given CNN's proven track record of making up fake stories, doctoring videos, they are not to be believed.
 
This is not gallup, this is CNN/SRRS

Gallup shows it sampling groups.


Given CNN's proven track record of making up fake stories, doctoring videos, they are not to be believed.

The poll I introduced was not CNN, it was a Gallop poll. What are you talking about?

You know what, I don't really care, you don't seem to have any actual argument here. Have a nice day.
 
Back
Top Bottom