“What”s Going On Here?” The Polls

Now there’s a poll that you won’t find highlighted in many mainstream media reports. From the Washington Examiner, part of the conservative media:

Despite a wave of critical news coverage and Democratic catcalls, President Trump sits at his “highest” approval in the latest Gallup survey, and above where four of the last six presidents, including Barack Obama and George W. Bush, were at this point of the first term.

…After two weeks of bad news on the coronavirus and economic front, Trump maintained his 49% approval rating, and his disapproval crept up just 1 point, to 48% in the Gallup survey of adults, a broad test.

Gallup said that Trump’s approval is “tied for the best of his presidency.”

…At 49%, Trump is a hair away from the generally accepted 50%-51% approval political experts consider a lock to win reelection. Both Obama and Bush were at 50% approval on their reelection days.

The paper adds that some pollsters attribute Trump’s positive number to “backlash against the media’s coverage of Trump and the coronavirus and the economy.”

Wow! That’s some theory. So they theorize that a lot of Americans not appreciating a cabal of Democrats, members of Congress, the news media and popular culture figures relentlessly attacking, insulting, impugning and accusing the President of the United States and the head and symbol of their nation on any pretext might cause them to rally to the support of their elected leader, whom they recognize is trying to perform a near impossible job when attempted under the best of conditions, never mind when power forces in society are determined to sabotage you. Huh. I never would have thought of that.

Observations:

  • Stipulated: polls, particularly regarding President Trump, are unreliable and untrustworthy. Polls feed confirmation bias.

In this case, it feeds mine.

  • I have believed for a long time that the tactics of “the resistance” and the mainstream news media would eventually benefit the President, based on my understanding of how the American public has always felt about the man in the White House, particularly during national crises.

Democrats, the “resistance” and  journalists have bet that because they don’t respect the office or the current occupant of it as “legitimate” or deserving the basic deference and good which all previous Presidents have been granted as a matter of course and tradition, they could convince a decisive majority that their contempt is fair and correct.  [Hey! Now I can post the movie clip that I just added to the list!]

  • The reason anything close to 50% usually means re-election is that “disapproval” isn’t the same as “I’m planning on voting for someone else.” Again, I suspect this particularly is true of Trump, whose approval levels are significantly higher than his main adversaries, the news media and the Democratic House.Disapproval also dumps the true President-haters into the same category as the “Why does he keep sending those stupid tweets?” and the “Why hasn’t he finished the wall?” groups, which is misleading.

The news media should clarify this when they publish approval polls, but they want to push the narrative that the President is unpopular.

  • The impeachment wasn’t just a failure and  a constitutional abomination, it was a dud. It didn’t change anyone’s opinion of the President, but did lower many citizens’ opinion of the impeachers…as it should have.

The exercise literally had no negative impact on Trump at all.

  • I’m not going to make any predictions. However, if the President’s approval rating is as high as Gallup says it is before the lockdown is ended, after the pandemic has peaked here, after all the intense media blame-casting, after the cheap-shots from Obama, after so many dumb spontaneously utterances by Trump at the virus briefings and the media attempts to fan them into “firestorms,” and before Joe Biden has had to endure full exposure of his conspicuously melting brain, his hypocritical #MeToo support, and his past positions that he has eagerly jettisoned to be acceptable to Leftist nuts, I think it’s likely that the “Trump’s support is collapsing!” stories I keep seeing are fake news.

I am so tempted to post this poll on Facebook. I could rationalize doing so on the basis that it would be kind to try to gradually ease the Deranged into reality so that if and when the worst occurs in November (from their perspective), they don’t have a mass psychotic episode. However, deep inside I know that the real reason I would do so is to provoke mass outrage, denials and fury. That would be wrong.

Fun, but wrong.

32 thoughts on ““What”s Going On Here?” The Polls

  1. Polls, despite their statistically accurate methods, have no control on the veracity of the respondents. Many people feel their privacy is being so constantly invaded they will falsely respond to confound pollsters. Clearly the 2016 pre-election polls were incorrect for similar reasons. It is likely most polls will face this problem for the foreseeable future. This lack of reliability will overshadow the Reported results of polls for quite some time to come. Unfortunately this reality calls this poll into question as well.

        • Conservatives, generally, have been “benefiting” from what seems to be a modified Bradley effect for most of my adult life, but none more so than Trump. But I’m not sure if it’s actually a Bradley effect (the people polled are being dishonest), or if the pollsters are asking questions in search of a result (doing polls in certain geographic districts, or over methods designed to skew young.) I suppose at the end of the day it doesn’t matter, but I find it fascinating.

  2. I won’t trust any approval poll that does not ask what specific thing I am approving or disapproving.

    On a related note why do we lionize these career government officials who are actually charged with pandemic preparation and response but hold the president responsible for the lack of pandemic preparation and CDC response.

    If Trump must accept the word of the experts why don’t we ask the experts why they were abject failures in this pandemic.

  3. FWIW, I don’t approve of Trump, I didn’t vote for him in 2016 in either the primary or the general. But I just voted for him in the primary and will in the general. The democrats are forcing my hand. All they had to do was act reasonable and let Trump sink himself. Nope, they couldn’t do that, and they out Trumped Trump.

    • This is exactly my position, too. If they had left Trump and his family alone, let his behavior speak for itself and make some effort to work with him instead of relentlessly against him, they would have actually gone “high” as Mrs. Obama claimed. They didn’t. The American people have seen through them.

      • Radical honesty is the practice of always being completely honest and refraining from telling even white lies. It was trademarked in 2017 as a technique and self-improvement program by Brad Blanton, but different authors have proposed similar ideas, such as Sam Harris, in his book Lying, and Immanuel Kant, who claimed in his 1798 essay “On a Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives” that we have a categorical imperative not to lie under any circumstance, not even to a murderer looking for their victim. Proponents of the practice assert that lying is the primary source of modern human stress, and speaking bluntly and directly, even about painful or taboo subjects, will make people happier by creating an intimacy not possible while hiding things.

        Blanton’s Radical Honesty technique includes having practitioners state their feelings bluntly, directly and in ways typically considered impolite.

        — Wiki page on Radical Honesty.

        AM Golden writes:

        This is exactly my position, too. If they had left Trump and his family alone, let his behavior speak for itself and make some effort to work with him instead of relentlessly against him, they would have actually gone “high” as Mrs. Obama claimed. They didn’t. The American people have seen through them.

        I have said a number of times — I will continue to try to articulate what the truth is and against all opposition and tendency to lie and self-deceive — that the appearance of Donald Trump was and is, beyond any doubt, a manifestation of nationalism by a dispossessed and strategically disempowered majority population who are now in a process of being *replaced*. The way to understand this is by reading of titles like The Dispossessed Majority. If one does that, one will be in a position to understand a sort of ‘nativist sentiment’ and also a suppressed and illegalized ‘identitatianism’ that is present and simmering under the surface, but illegal to talk about and to think about. If one does not do the research and gain the background, one will not be able to gain an understanding of the origin of this ‘nativism’ which is so detested by certain elites. As Jonathan Bowden pointed out at the first manifestation of these sentiments (nativist, identitatian) in many people ‘they are undercut immediately’ by a self-editing process. These processes of ‘self-undercutting’ are manipulated, every day and very dramatically, by certain ideological forces who seek to determine how the larger world structures will be defined and managed.

        The demographic that put Donald Trump into power, that gave his his mandate, see and think very differently than the university-educated elites who have control over various institutions that define and disseminate perspectives. It is necessary, here on this blog, to understand the degree to which those who write here are unalike those who gave Trump his mandate.

        Jack, Bill, Jim, Steve, Glen and most others who write here are far more allied to this *elite view* that characterizes the progressive left than they are to the ideas and ideals of conservatism. I have said this — I have never gotten response of any sort nor refutation — and I have no other choice but to repeat it as a ‘truth’ that cannot, and should be be repressed. That is, the degree to which those here are similarly ‘coopeted’ into views, beliefs and perspectives that are essentially the same as those left-leaning elitists who have massive power in influencing and determining public view, is the same degree that these general ideological outlooks and also outcomes are served.

        If there is going to be a reversal in the general patterns then conservatism has to be radically redefined. I suggest that very powerful forces are thoroughly committed to seeing that this does not happen. Therefore, American conservatism shows itself as an essentially Left and Progressive position that has been forced into the center. American conservatism is, bizarrely, a new form of American Progressivism. It serves all those tenets. It defines nothing essentially differently. It defines itself in relation to a far more radical evolution of those tenets it holds to, essentially. The notion of *essence* is important to grasp.

        There is a vast fight going on to eliminate from the social and public discourse those *voices* that are — allow me to put it like this — truly nativist and also truly (genuinely) conservative. Though Jack’s problems in getting his posts onto FB are a manifestation of some sort of algorhythmic intervention, and problematic, there are far more serious consequences to the open war against contrary ideas and dissident ideas in America, in Europe and also in the world.

        If you take conservatism as something that arises naturally out of the social body, and in this sense from the ‘original demographic’ of America, this is being brutally suppressed, despite apperances. Those elite socialist leftist progressive even communist ideological interests have established their ‘enemy’ as this original demographic. And that is in essence the origin of ‘anti-white sentiment’: a vicious and unrelenting movement that is extremely destructive.

        In the face of this — this is another of my primary moral and ethical points and part of a truth I refuse to suppress or eliminate from my discourse — you as a plurality are completely powerless. Not partially powerless. Completely powerless. Try to find one person who expresses a genuine nativist sentiment here and you will seek in vain. I apologize for calling this out. But if I am to genuinely work within Kant’s imperative of truth-telling, and the belief that understanding the truth and expressing it has power to change and transform, I have to take this stand. It is the necessary base for all further thought. It is the foundation for an alternative position. If this is not ethical I beg to be corrected.

        Please excuse me for parrhesia (speaking the truth under all circumstance) but I am forced to say that AM Golden’s ‘analysis’ of Trump-as-phenomenon is largely superficial. It roundly misses the point. The ‘point’ of the election of Trump, by those who elected him, was to begin a process of undermining *the system* in America that has led to their dispossession and disempowerment! If you study the actual sentiment of those people, not the mediated version that is presented by a distorting media-system. And if you study those people (the original demographic) you will beyond any doubt find that they do not accept and they do not support the *structures* that have been put in place as elite powers, extra-governmental and also *globalist*, design a world in which everyone is reduced to being a cog. This is a very complex thing (this process) and it needs to be carefully analyzed.

        • You said:

          Jack, Bill, Jim, Steve, Glen and most others who write here are far more allied to this *elite view* that characterizes the progressive left than they are to the ideas and ideals of conservatism.

          This whole paragraph reads like “authentic frontier gibberish.” No doubt you were trying to make a point, but it eludes me.

          But then, most of your writing eludes me, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Just because someone doesn’t disagree with you doesn’t mean you’ve stumbled on to some universal truth. It could say more about your communications effectiveness, for instance, which at least for my money, is generally lacking.

          I don’t disagree that the coalition that elected Trump did so partially out of a sense of fear of losing political power, but that’s neither novel nor particularly important. What it really represented was a coalition of those types, of people who fell in love with Trump’s gloves-off style of politics (that has been a yearning on the far right for decades), conservative-minded people with nowhere else to go and middle-of-the roaders appalled by Hillary’s lawlessness. I reckon at least as much of it had to do with her unsuitability than the dynamic you suggest.

          Had the Democrats put forth a mainstream candidate with less baggage, I think Trump would’ve been defeated. Even Joe Biden espousing Hillary’s positions likely could’ve won in 2016. Maybe not so much now that he’s moved well to her left and lost his mind in the process.

          • I would say that Trump has tapped into two key things that got him to win in spite of not being well aligned to other causes dear to most conservatives.

            First is as you mention, the lack of the rights response to the dirty politics that have been used by the left for decades. I always trot out the treatment of Robert Bork as a turning point in this regards. John McCain and Mitt Romney were perfect examples of “taking the high road” that led them both to lose. Trump is the an absolute opposite, and hit back like he’s hit.

            I would argue the illegal immigration is another key component. The majority of the electorate is on one side and both parties are on the opposite. Trump is the first significant national figure to openly oppose. It gets him dishonestly tagged as racist, xenophobic, etc. but also gets him a win. That was a stupid thing for the democrats to hand him a win on this topic.

            Liberty is the next place the Democrats are handing an issue to Trump. Freedom of speech has become a conservative position. Now pushing back against power hungry petty dictator governors is a conservative position. The media / pollsters are touting huge numbers claiming that the majority is A OK with the authoritarian measures of governors, but I have my doubts. My gut says that many Americans will grow to distrust and detest what’s happening now.

            • You said:

              I would argue the illegal immigration is another key component.

              A very good point, although I could argue that particular item is tied up in Aliza’s point about the people who fear losing political power. The immigration issue is just the most in-your-face part of that group, who fear being replaced by a coalition of minority voters and illegal immigrants.

              The two things are pretty tough to extricate from each other — illegal immigration is just the most visible and obvious threat, and one against which the argument really isn’t from a perspective of “racism.” That’s why the Left has gone out of its way to demagogue it as racist.

            • Matthew B. writes:

              . . . the dirty politics that have been used by the left for decades

              It is true that the Left has used its power to use any means to place blocks against Republican-style ‘Conservatives’, and it is also true that Bork is an important figure and one necessary to read (he was one the first I read as I began to critique the ideologies operative in the present). But it is similarly true that the Republican Conservatives, as members of a controlling and directing clique, have also engaged in those *machinations* I refer to that are simply put just as ‘dirty’.

              So, I make the suggestion that a new stance for Conservatism be established: one that is independent of both the American Conservative and the American Leftist (to use general terms). But what I will not tolerate, because it is completely dishonest and deceptive, is to cast all blame for the conditions we now live in our present on ‘the Democrats’. This game of assigning blame and vilification needs to be challenged.

              Trump is the an absolute opposite, and hit back like he’s hit.

              True, but this does not really say anything nor mean much. So what? The question is what are the larger battles going on in the country, and also globally, and why is Trump such a threat? To focus on Trump as a belligerent does not go far enough. And it does not articulate sufficiently what those that elected him desire.

              I would argue the illegal immigration is another key component.

              This definitely is true. However, all immigration, and the changes in immigration policy since 1965 have not worked to the benefit of the American worker nor America’s ‘original demographic’. So the actual issue is far larger. It is demographic and sociological. It has to do with how ‘nation’ is defined. And to speak on these issues and questions — that is, to speak honestly — involves delving into crimethink.

              You are — I assert — fake conservatives and also traitors to the degree that you will not face and talk about these primary issues. And to the degree that you cannot, and will not, is the precise degree that you are co-opted into standard Leftist and Progressive views and rhetoric. I have to take this stance in order to defend a larger truth. And that truth has to do with dispossession and displacement. These are connected to larger processes — economic, ideological, political — and in the hands of elite forces and powers that mold the world we live in.

              Liberty is the next place the Democrats are handing an issue to Trump. Freedom of speech has become a conservative position.

              One is allowed to express one’s opinions freely just as long as the ideas one expresses are always within acceptable limits. Now, today, Conservatives are up in arms — it seems for the first time but I have not been around long enough to observe it myself — because suddenly certain things they say are condemned. And yet American Conservatism itself worked very hard to purge and jettison from itself those people and those ideas that did not seem *acceptable* to it. It made serious compromises within strict conservative principles. And it will turn against anyone who takes a view that to it seems too far to the right, too radical: too conservative!

              So, it is within this area that I take up my righteous stance! here that I plant down my flag!

              A Dissident Right critique of American Pseudo-Conservatism.

              My gut says that many Americans will grow to distrust and detest what’s happening now.

              The battle going on has to do with what views & ideas will, or will not, be allowed to operate in our present. People grab what they can as they try to cobble together *defensive postures* in a world of power & ideological machinations that are substantially beyond their capacity to see clearly, and musch less to affect.

              What is happening right now . . .

              That is precisely the question. What is happening right now? I have suggested, and will continue to suggest it, that you-plural cannot answer it, except very superficially. This critique appears intolerable to you. But it sure shouldn’t be.

          • A couple of things . . .

            I position myself within a general stance I define as ‘a Dissident Right critique of American Conservatism’. I see American Conservatism as largely useless. In many describable ways compromised. I know there is a genuine Conservatism because I have taken the time to read those authors. But the more that I examine the positions of typical Conservatives or Conservatives-so-called, the better I can distinguish the degree that they are compromised and ineffective.

            If having a contrary opinion, or a contrary view or a contrary position, is for you-plural to be a ‘troll’ then I think there is really nothing I can do to help you to see things differently. If you make the mistake of getting personally upset when your ideas or views or positions are critiqued that you resort to slander or ad hominem, I think this reveals a defect in your self. I will suggest to you that to make that sort of accusation is essentially unethical. But I would not deny that there are people who deliberately try to subvert or to derail productive conversation. Yet I am not one of them.

            However, if you genuinely discern that I am a troll, or if the ideas that I present are so challenging to you, or so disruptive (or however you might put it) then your effort must be focused to getting the troll banned. So, either follow through on what is necessary (‘a troll must be banned’) or please stop using the accusation within your argument. I know that the troll thing is pretty much Steve’s *baby* but you did second him.

            This whole paragraph reads like “authentic frontier gibberish.” No doubt you were trying to make a point, but it eludes me.

            This is a false-argument. I think you understand well enough what I mean. And the position is not at all unreasonable. Yet if there is a point that you have missed, or if you need clarification, then just ask. But you use your reference to frontier gibberish as a block. That is not argument. It is sophistical. If that is how you want to conduct yourself it is obviously not my affair. And it is a waste of time to have to linger over an obvious point.

            A great deal eludes you. And I do sincerely apologize for using a plural ‘you’. I think that you do grasp that these generalities are inevitable? We are forced to use them. Just for example if I make a reference to “left progressivism” or “American conservatism”. But with that said I do want to mention here, as respectfully as I possibly can, that I have no doubt that a great deal eludes you. My question is Why is that? It is a sincere, a direct, and a very good question to ask. So, it is both an assertion (I think things elude you) and a question (Why is it that so much eludes you?)

            Apparently, in your world, no one asks such questions of you? Well that’s unfortunate!

            I don’t disagree that the coalition that elected Trump did so partially out of a sense of fear of losing political power, but that’s neither novel nor particularly important. What it really represented was a coalition of those types, of people who fell in love with Trump’s gloves-off style of politics (that has been a yearning on the far right for decades), conservative-minded people with nowhere else to go and middle-of-the roaders appalled by Hillary’s lawlessness. I reckon at least as much of it had to do with her unsuitability than the dynamic you suggest.

            If by ‘the coalition’ you mean the demographic then I would say that you have come up right to the edge of the issue. But you need to go further. That is, other points elude you. You do not see. You do not have clarity. You lack information. There are areas into which you will not focus your attention. Perhaps you do not read? I can’t be certain except that I believe I am right when I say that things elude you.

            e·lude (ĭ-lo͞od′)
            tr.v. e·lud·ed, e·lud·ing, e·ludes
            1. To evade or escape from, as by daring, cleverness, or skill: The suspect eluded the police. See Synonyms at evade.
            2. To escape the memory or understanding of: a name that eludes me; a point that eluded the audience.
            3. To be unattained by: Another championship eluded her.

            I suggest that one major piece that is eluding you has to do with the question and the problem of ‘dispossession’. I have written about this quite a bit. It is a somewhat common idea on the Dissident Right but is also spoken of to a certain degree by traditional Conservatives (Pat Buchanan is a good example). Yet these views are shunned. So, your analysis is (in my view) incomplete. To say that Trump’s coalition “elected Trump did so partially out of a sense of fear of losing political power” needs to be modified. That demographic has been losing political and other forms of power through processes of displacement and dispossession, and this has been going on for 50 or 60 years. Now the question Why that is happening, or how it has come about: those are secondary questions.

            But as I clearly said — I suggest this eluded you but not because what I said was too clever or too daring, but rather because you have an incomplete perspective and you are not really serious in your will to understand — Trump’s election was due to a kind of uprising or upwelling of social sentiment by the ‘dispossessed’, and what they clamored for, often inarticulately, was for the ‘draining of the swamp’ and a significant effort to turn the tide against those traitors who now run the show, and to turn things back toward a system, and policies, that favor them. That is to say that de-dispossess them. Now, if you can understand that you will also be in a position to begin to have a grasp of something essential in a larger, world-level, rebellion against Hyper-Liberal impositions. That is to say those collusions and machinations that arise out of a controlling, elite will, that is forced onto people and populations.

            Did any of this, so far, elude you?

            The rest of your paragraph is typical and rather classical shallow and superficial analysis. I have also written about this, and quite extensively. Shallow, superficial ‘surface’ readings are non-helpful. Yet they are rather common. The reason you choose to situate your self in such shallow views is because the depth-reading, the depth-analysis, is beyond your grasp because you will not read nor study. That is one main factor. The other factor is because — and here it comes again, the need to commit and express parrheasia no matter what the consequences — is because you are a coward. What I mean of course is that a general cowardice is pervasive in so-called conservative circles. For example, to face ‘dispossession’ and ‘displacement’: to see it, to name it, to understand it as a fact. You-plural, quite literally, cannot do it. Because it has been established as crimethink.

            But this is where the radical Kantian imperative becomes a necessary admonition. Is this now making sense . . . or am I to assume that these ideas still elude you?

            Right. So, we start with one point, with one dangerous and demanding idea, and then we proceed once that is made clear onto other points. It is a process. And as always I am here to help! 🙂

  4. You said:

    I am so tempted to post this poll on Facebook. I could rationalize doing so on the basis that it would be kind to try to gradually ease the Deranged into reality so that if and when the worst occurs in November (from their perspective), they don’t have a mass psychotic episode. However, deep inside I know that the real reason I would do so is to provoke mass outrage, denials and fury. That would be wrong.

    Absolutely right, that is a rationalization. First, it assumes that at least some of the deranged are capable of groking the meaning of the poll, and positing some alternatives that do not feed their deranged hatred. Second, it assumes that at least some of them are willing to consider something which opposes their cherished derangement.

    Any intellect that is incapable of overcoming emotion after sufficient time to process the emotional shock is likely to be consistently incapable of truly rational thought, and rational thought is absolutely necessary for this poll to “ease” them back into reality. If they a) are unable let go of your derangement and b) don’t want to let go of your derangement, they won’t. Most likely, both are true. Thus, it would be unethical to inflict it upon them.

    While it’s true that intelligent people can be temporarily insane, the longer this goes on, the more likely it is to become permanent. The habit of believing insanity is like any other habit — difficult to overcome.

    As to the poll, I really don’t know what to make of it. The differences between Obama, Bush, and Trump all appear to be within the normal margin of error for such polls, so any conclusions like this are likely to be suspect.

    • What’s frighting is that virtually 100% of the answers so far have been partisan. There seems to be nobody interested in a dispassionate look at the question — they either deny it is actually the question that should be asked, change the subject, or come at it from a pro- or anti-Trump perspective.

      Is this who we are now, a nation of one side or the other? It reminds me of the old Star Trek ToS episode “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield.” If we aren’t careful, we’ll suffer the same fate as Cheron.

        • That one is really insane, and I see it a lot. Trump’s coverage has been measured as 95% negative from the start. Anyone who can claim it is “kind” is cognitively damaged.

          • I incorporated some of your words into my reply to the person that wrote that…

            Robert,
            You started your answer by writing this utter nonsense, “The “constant media barrage” is overwhelmingly kind to Trump.”

            For your information; Trump’s coverage has actually been measured as 95% negative from the start.

            Then you followed that nonsense with this obvious detachment from reality gem, “The media is terrified to describe what is on display in plain language.”

            The media is “terrified” to say in plain language what they think of Trump, what rock have you been hiding under? The media has been openly calling Trump a criminal, traitor, liar, misogynist, racist, lunatic, crazy, autocrat, fascist, murderer, authoritarian, King, etc, etc, etc since before the inauguration in 2017. I’m calling that claim of your a bonafide lie.

            Then you ended your answer by writing this blatantly false anti-Trump narrative, “But the reason that he still has approval ratings as high as they are is that the media still, after all we’ve learned, pretends that he is a real President.”

            FACT: President Trump is the duly elected President of the United States of America, period, end of story. Any statement that tries to contradict that FACT in any way is openly lying.

            Denial is not a river in Egypt Robert.

            The statements I highlighted above are some serious signature significant statements in that they represent a wide swath of utterly false beliefs that have been ingrained into the belief structure of anti-Trumpers by the Principles of Progressive Goebbelism used by progressives and the anti-Trump deranged media. These are put out there to directly feed into the biased hate for President Trump, parroting this kind of utter nonsense shows some level of cognitive damage due to all the propaganda. Testing for Acute Propaganda-Induced Anti-Trump Hysteria Syndrome.

      • As to one of the replies:
        First of all, not all media coverage of the president has been negative…
        ..and certain popular magazines, like the National Review, absolutely love him- and that’s just sticking to reputable news sources.

        That’s a good one. The national review is the home of the never Trump conservatives. Yes, there are some Trump favorable articles, but most are critical and stick to the Trump never conservatives.

        • It’s fairly obvious this person doesn’t read National Review. The best you can say about them is that they aren’t all “never Trumpers,” although most of the lead writers are and the rest may be fairly classified as Trump skeptics. Still, even David French is more fair than the average NYT or WaPo beat reporter, never mind their columnists.

          Too many on the Left, for whatever reason, don’t even bother to read the sources on the Right that they cite in defense of Trump coverage. It’s tragic laziness, and only too indicative of the electorate’s interest.

  5. Jack wrote, “I am so tempted to post this poll on Facebook. I could rationalize doing so on the basis that it would be kind to try to gradually ease the Deranged into reality so that if and when the worst occurs in November (from their perspective), they don’t have a mass psychotic episode. However, deep inside I know that the real reason I would do so is to provoke mass outrage, denials and fury. That would be wrong. Fun, but wrong.”

    How you chose to present it can make all the difference in the world. See Facebook for what I mean.

  6. I just want to point out that around day 1200 of Obama’s presidency, he was riding high after having just overseen the execution of Osama Bin Laden in early May of 2011. So we’re comparing Obama at one of his best moments to Trump in the middle of a pandemic.

    The problem is that Trump in the middle of a pandemic is Trump at what *should* be his best. People during this pandemic are acting as if their nations are at war; they are, generally, rallying around their leaders, regardless of party affiliation or competency level. Look at Andy “Ship Sick People Back To Nursing Homes” Cuomo; Cards on the table, there probably hasn’t been a governor with a worse COVID response than Cuomo, but between the softball questions Fredo asks him weekly and the COVID bump, his approval is in the 70’s. *70’s*

    This is both to say that people are stupid, and because people are stupid, and because people are stupid, Trump should have a higher approval rating. That his approval rating right now hovers around 50 could be either disastrous, or a nothingburger, given the deep polarization of the electorate.

    Which, I suppose is my exceptionally windy way of saying Polls be Damned.

  7. The thing about polls is that I have heard there is some reluctance of people being polled to admit that they support Trump — for whatever reason, some people don’t trust pollsters to respect their anonymity. So 49% support for Trump is quite possibly very good news for him.

    As well, my recollection is that when we look at something like the generic congressman polls — these typically seem to understate actual Republican performance at the actual election.

    Perhaps there is simply a segment of the voting populace that just doesn’t want to give its actual preferences, and this is a conservative leaning segment. Hard to say for sure.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.