Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

Donald Trump's Approval Rating Nearing Record-Low in His Favorite Poll


Recommended Posts

Donald Trump's Approval Rating Nearing Record-Low in His Favorite Poll

92ab3d90-bae2-11e6-9da6-3b7a932389dd_NEWT.marcin,Newsweek 2 hours 34 minutes ago
  •  
ea4e4944ff6a56c43a7d465837c4d385

The poll President Donald Trump has publicly touted isn't bringing him much good news lately. The latest survey released by Rasmussen Reports Thursday found Trump's approval rating his nearing his all-time low.

Just 44 percent of respondents approved of Trump's job performance in the survey, while 56 percent disapproved. That's just one percentage point better than the president's lowest approval ever in the Rasmussen Reports tracking poll: He hit 43 percent approval on multiple occassions. But Trump had risen to 46 percent at the end of June, and he also tweeted out the results of the poll earlier in the month—when he rose to 50 percent approval. 

"Great news!" he tweeted at the time. Now: Not so much. The Rasmussen Reports survey interviewed 1,500 likely voters and had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.

Trending: Rick Perry Hilariously Misunderstands Supply and Demand Theory in Attempted Defense of Coal Industry

To be sure, the 44 percent approval rating cited by Rasmussen—which has typically found better results for the president and is generally considered to be right-leaning—remains markedly better than the results of other polling firms. In the latest Gallup survey Thursday, for instance, Trump's approval rating was 37 percent, with 57 percent disapproving.

The weighted average from data-focused website FiveThirtyEight, meanwhile, pegged Trump's approval at 39 percent and his disapproval at 55 percent. The FiveThirtyEight average adjusts for a given poll's quality, recency, sample size and partisan lean.

Trump, who was visiting Poland Thursday, has seen his approval rating trend steadily downward since taking office in January, his popularity waning under the weight of the investigations into his campaign's possible ties with Russia and a widely unpopular Republican health care bill. For context's sake, at about this point in Barack Obama's first term, the former president had an approval rating of about 58 percent. 

 

While the Russia investigations and the health care debate have been the most serious strains on the president's popularity, he recently did himself no favors by getting into an internet spat with two TV hosts. Referencing Morning Joe's Mike Brzezinksi and Joe Scarborough, Trump said in a series of tweets last week: "I heard poorly rated @Morning_Joe speaks badly of me (don't watch anymore). Then how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year's Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!"

A poll this week found that 65 percent of voters felt such online behavior was unacceptable, and 55 percent said they would describe Trump as sexist.

 

 

 

Run Forest Run!

 

B/A

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sentinel7 said:

It's plain to see you still haven't learned anything.

More proof that you can't fix STUPID.

 

         No Surrender No Retreat and No Compromise

 

Thanks for proving my point. Now would you like wild cherry, or fruity punch flavored Kool-aid?

 

B/A

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ladyGrace'sDaddy said:

Stupid is as stupid does.

Oh , and hanging out with the 44th percentile is exactly why you lost.

 

We all lost......the 44 percentile is just too enamored with The Apprentice to admit it.  Wrestlemania 23......check.  :rolleyes:  I can just see Vlad P. and his buddies sitting around sucking back vodka shots while watching Donald's wrestling video on a continuous.....laughing at what they did to America.  

 

GO RV, then BV   

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are the official election results as per the government. Not the media, not some blogger, not slanted bs. Actual validated ballot numbers. And I don't think most here are going to like it...

 

https://transition.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2016/2016presgeresults.pdf

 

The majority of American did not vote for our president. Now explain why the system shouldn't be repaired.

 

B/A

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People much smarter than you (our Founding Fathers ) set up this system in order to keep one city or state from nullifying the votes of the rest of the country by allocating Electoral College votes based on the population of a state. Worked for 241 years and now because your HillDawg lost, NOW we need to change the process. Funny, I don't recall anyone on our side saying that when "The Great One" was in office and trust me, we despised him as much as you guys hate Trump.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, md11fr8dawg said:

People much smarter than you (our Founding Fathers ) set up this system in order to keep one city or state from nullifying the votes of the rest of the country by allocating Electoral College votes based on the population of a state. Worked for 241 years and now because your HillDawg lost, NOW we need to change the process. Funny, I don't recall anyone on our side saying that when "The Great One" was in office and trust me, we despised him as much as you guys hate Trump.

 

You guys crack me up! Welcome to The United States of Amnesia...

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a simple majority is the best way to govern, then it stands to reason that all laws should be enacted with a simple majority.  Toss the Constitution and allow mob rule and everything will be hunky dory unless your one of the 49 percenters.

 

Great system.  As long as you're one of the majority.

 

I'll pass.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, George Hayduke said:

If a simple majority is the best way to govern, then it stands to reason that all laws should be enacted with a simple majority.  Toss the Constitution and allow mob rule and everything will be hunky dory unless your one of the 49 percenters.

 

Great system.  As long as you're one of the majority.

 

I'll pass.

 

Sadly, laws are written and paid for by the minority "corporations" Great system... It's been working so well for the last 30 years. Do you think health insurance is so high because our elected officials wanted it that way? Do you believe health officials wanted aspartame legalized knowing it's direct link to Alzheimer's? Below is a little light reading on how allowing corporations into our election process has affected our government and lives as voters.

 

How Corporate Lobbyists Conquered American Democracy

Business didn't always have so much power in Washington.

lead_large.jpg?1430144276
Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
 

Something is out of balance in Washington. Corporations now spend about $2.6 billion a year on reported lobbying expenditures—more than the $2 billion we spend to fund the House ($1.18 billion) and Senate ($860 million). It’s a gap that has been widening since corporate lobbying began to regularly exceed the combined House-Senate budget in the early 2000s.

Today, the biggest companies have upwards of 100 lobbyists representing them, allowing them to be everywhere, all the time. For every dollar spent on lobbying by labor unions and public-interest groups together, large corporations and their associations now spend $34. Of the 100 organizations that spend the most on lobbying, 95 consistently represent business.

The self-reinforcing quality of corporate lobbying has increasingly come to overwhelm every other potentially countervailing force.

One has to go back to the Gilded Age to find business in such a dominant political position in American politics. While it is true that even in the more pluralist 1950s and 1960s, political representation tilted towards the well-off, lobbying was almost balanced by today's standards. Labor unions were much more important, and the public-interest groups of the 1960s were much more significant actors. And very few companies had their own Washington lobbyists prior to the 1970s. To the extent that businesses did lobby in the 1950s and 1960s (typically through associations), they were clumsy and ineffective. “When we look at the typical lobby,” concluded three leading political scientists in their 1963 study, American Business and Public Policy, “we find its opportunities to maneuver are sharply limited, its staff mediocre, and its typical problem not the influencing of Congressional votes but finding the clients and contributors to enable it to survive at all.”

Things are quite different today. The evolution of business lobbying from a sparse reactive force into a ubiquitous and increasingly proactive one is among the most important transformations in American politics over the last 40 years.  Probing the history of this transformation reveals that there is no “normal” level of business lobbying in American democracy. Rather, business lobbying has built itself up over time, and the self-reinforcing quality of corporate lobbying has increasingly come to overwhelm every other potentially countervailing force. It has also fundamentally changed how corporations interact with government—rather than trying to keep government out of its business (as they did for a long time), companies are now increasingly bringing government in as a partner, looking to see what the country can do for them.

 

If we set our time machine back to 1971, we’d find a leading corporate lawyer earnestly writing that, “As every business executive knows, few elements of American society today have as little influence in government as the American businessman, the corporation, or even the millions of corporate stockholders. If one doubts this, let him undertake the role of 'lobbyist' for the business point of view before Congressional committees.”

That lawyer was soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., whose now-famous “Powell Memorandum” is a telling insight into the frustration that many business leaders felt by the early 1970s. Congress had gone on a regulatory binge in the 1960s—spurred on by a new wave of public-interest groups. Large corporations had largely sat by idly, unsure of what to do.

In 1972, against the backdrop of growing compliance costs, slowing economic growth and rising wages, a community of leading CEOs formed the Business Roundtable, an organization devoted explicitly to cultivating political influence. Alcoa CEO John Harper, one of the Roundtable’s founders, said at the time, “I think we all recognize that the time has come when we must stop talking about it, and get busy and do something about it.”

This sense of an existential threat motivated the leading corporations to engage in serious political activity. Many began by hiring their first lobbyists. And they started winning. They killed a major labor law reform, rolled back regulation, lowered their taxes, and helped to move public opinion in favor of less government intervention in the economy.

 

By the early 1980s, corporate leaders were “purring” (as a 1982 Harris Poll described it). Corporations could have declared victory and gone home, thus saving on the costs of political engagement. Instead, they stuck around and kept at it. Many deepened their commitments to politics. After all, they now had lobbyists to help them see all that was at stake in Washington, and all the ways in which staying politically active could help their businesses.

Those lobbyists would go on to spend the 1980s teaching companies about the importance of political engagement. But it would take time for them to become fully convinced. As one company lobbyist I interviewed for my new book, The Business of America Is Lobbying, told me, “When I started [in 1983], people didn’t really understand government affairs. They questioned why you would need a Washington office, what does a Washington office do? I think they saw it as a necessary evil. All of our competitors had Washington offices, so it was more, well we need to have a presence there and it’s just something we had to do.”

To make the sell, lobbyists had to go against the long-entrenched notion in corporate boardrooms that politics was a necessary evil to be avoided if possible. To get corporations to invest fully in politics, lobbyists had to convince companies that Washington could be a profit center. They had to convince them that lobbying was not just about keeping the government far away—it could also be about drawing government close.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hope everyone actually read this, but I know many have the attention span of a nat. Truth be told, we the people, have been hoodwinked.

 

B/A

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Testing the Rocker Badge!

  • Live Exchange Rate

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.