Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Orbitus]

What those articles about Trump's approval rating don't mention is that Trump's net approval rating is lower than Obama's ever was and that Obama's approval rating rebounded within a year and a half... Trump's is unlikely to do that.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...ex_cid=rrpromo

Yep, Trump is still below his election numbers. He got 46% of the vote, I don't think his approval average has ever been that high since the election.

[Ghostpanther]

What those articles about Trump's approval rating don't mention is that Trump's net approval rating is lower than Obama's ever was and that Obama's approval rating rebounded within a year and a half... Trump's is unlikely to do that.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...ex_cid=rrpromo

This part was interesting...sample size and partisan lean. So they get to choose which polls meet those? And no, according to them, they are just about even with each other this far into the first term of each ( 42.5 versus 42.4 ). And Fivethirtyeight also predicted Hillary would win the election. It is true, Obama rebounded and that is yet to see if it will for Trump. Not a rebound, as with Obama, but more of a improvement. Time shall tell.

[Breccia]

What those articles about Trump's approval rating don't mention

Indeed, as I mentioned before, they're comparing a relative high for Trump to Obama's lowest and shrilling in delight. It's an Art of the Deal mindset: believing yourself the winner if someone else lost more. Trump started at 45%, dropped, and stayed there. His policies are flat-out failing left and right, with even his biggest apparent victory at the time (tax cut for the rich) now causing a record-breaking deficit, likely one of the causes of the current spending bill issue, it's not paying for itself, it's not creating jobs, and the single biggest tax increase in American history -- Trump's tariffs -- has eaten most, if not all, of the benefit for the average American.

Oh, and we're sending troops to the Middle East again. That'll be fun for them, I'm sure, acting as human shields against Iran's attacks. For the record, yes, I think it'll work. But again: why did Iran feel the need to attack? Was it because Trump unilaterally left the Iran Nuclear Deal? Because I think it was Trump unilaterally leaving the Iran Nuclear Deal that blocked their ability to sell oil, to which they responded by making their oil even more valuable. Trump gets no credit for helping solve a problem he created himself, same with firing Bolton.

Oh, and when the whistleblower's specific details make it to Congress, I don't see how that can help Trump's polls.

[kaelleria]

This part was interesting...sample size and partisan lean. So they get to choose which polls meet those? And no, according to them, they are just about even with each other this far into the first term of each ( 42.5 versus 42.4 ). And Fivethirtyeight also predicted Hillary would win the election. It is true, Obama rebounded and that is yet to see if it will for Trump. Not a rebound, as with Obama, but more of a improvement. Time shall tell.

Their approval tracker literally includes the most Trump leaning pollster out there (Rasmussen).

538 also gave Hillary a 70% chance to win on election day and hey... The way Trump won is one of the scenarios they predicted was possible.

Probability literally does not mean a guarantee.

Trump is unlikely to improve because he's going to be facing blowback from a weakening economy, a potential term ending scandal with Ukraine, deploying new troops to the Middle East and a whole host of other bullshit he's done over his term.

A poll recently came out where 69% of respondents said they personally dislike Trump. No president has ever had numbers that bad. The closest anyone has come was W after Katrina where 44%(?) said they personally disliked W.

[Orbitus]

This part was interesting...sample size and partisan lean. So they get to choose which polls meet those? And no, according to them, they are just about even with each other this far into the first term of each ( 42.5 versus 42.4 ). And Fivethirtyeight also predicted Hillary would win the election. It is true, Obama rebounded and that is yet to see if it will for Trump. Not a rebound, as with Obama, but more of a improvement. Time shall tell.

Trump is literally at the top of his approval rating that he has ever had. The only way he would rebound, is if he got 2% more, and even with Rasmussen, he can't achieve that with averages. Trump has literally never had an approval rating above the 46% of the votes that he got in the 2016 election. And Trump will certainly never see anything above 50, EVER.

[Ghostpanther]

Their approval tracker literally includes the most Trump leaning pollster out there (Rasmussen).

538 also gave Hillary a 70% chance to win on election day and hey... The way Trump won is one of the scenarios they predicted was possible.

Probability literally does not mean a guarantee.

Trump is unlikely to improve because he's going to be facing blowback from a weakening economy, a potential term ending scandal with Ukraine, deploying new troops to the Middle East and a whole host of other bullshit he's done over his term.

A poll recently came out where 69% of respondents said they personally dislike Trump. No president has ever had numbers that bad. The closest anyone has come was W after Katrina where 44%(?) said they personally disliked W.

Personally disliking a President, does not mean the person will not vote for them. Depends on a lot of factors, like who is the opponent. Also How well they feel their opponent would do instead. A lot of people voted for Trump because they felt he was a better choice than Hillary was, in spite of not personally liking him.

And Rasmussen was the second most accurate polling source during the 2016 election.

[Breccia]

Probability literally does not mean a guarantee.

Let's add to that: the argument "XXX was wrong once, therefore XXX is always wrong" is possibly the dumbest argument possible for someone to make, when they are the devout follower of a known serial liar.

On topic: Axios lays out another issue we haven't discussed much: Medicare and drug pricing.

Both Pelosi and Grassley have laid out legislation to address this topic. Now, we've talked about this before. One of Trump's campaign promises was to put the power of America's government to work as a bargaining crowbar to bring drug prices down with collective price controls. This Atlantic article spells out in detail Trump's promises, and also, Trump's lack of action in any way, including this one:

Trump’s calls to action have been interspersed with claims of victory. In March of last year, Trump promised, “You’ll be seeing drug prices falling very substantially in the not-too-distant future, and it’s going to be beautiful.” Just 10 months later, in his 2019 State of the Union address, this had ostensibly already happened: “As a result of my administration’s efforts, in 2018 drug prices experienced their single largest decline in 46 years.”

Drug prices are still increasing. While growth in spending on drugs has slowed in recent years, total national spending continues to grow. Americans spend more than anyone else in the world. The average person spends $1,025 per year on medication—an inflation-adjusted increase of elevenfold since 1960.

Politifact backs them up. Claiming drug prices have dropped is a lie. Also, look at Trump's record up to that SotU claim. Name one thing he'd done before then that would make it happen. I'm genuinely curious, because I don't think he signed a single bill or E.O. that directly attacks the situation. Did I miss something?

Anyhow, as you can see in the Contract with the American Voter, Trump promised to...shit, it's not in there, nevermind. Okay, but October of last year Trump suggested a new plan that would tie Medicare drug prices in the USA to prices in other countries, which
a) would have no effect to people off Medicare
b) was Part B only, 3% of Medicare spending, and
c) most of those drugs (biologics) are made by the same people, and monopolies don't negotiate, and
d) "Let someone else negotiate and we'll just use that" isn't negotiating
e) HHS said we'd hear a formal proposal in 2019, it's late September, and so far no we haven't.

Pelosi actually has a plan now.

Pelosi’s proposal would direct the federal government to negotiate the price of certain expensive drugs with little or no competition — and, crucially, that would also become the price in the private market, not just the Medicare drug coverage price, according to Democratic aides and lobbyists working on the issue.

McConnell said the bill was dead on arrival and, big surprise, hours later Trump said how nice and bigly it was. Awkwarrrrrrrrrrrd. But there is a rift in the Republican Party on this, and Trump's not the only issue this time.

A) Large pharma companies have a high profit margin and spend a fortune in lobbying and advertising. Republicans like defending big businesses, it's a pretty big part of the party's identity, and has been for a while.
versus
B) Republican voters are getting old and sick, and need medication to live. Despite Trump's SotU claims, they didn't get cheaper last year. Without price controls, Republican voters could just not afford to stay alive and vote Republican anymore.

It's increasingly likely Pelosi's plan will pick up some GOP votes, and based on Trump's actions so far, he might even sign it (he changes his mind a lot, so I won't consider it a massive surprise if he doesn't, but he seems okay with this one and has for months). Or, maybe Grassley's plan will, but I know little of it and quite frankly neither does anyone else.

Which means that Trump is about to have two choices:
A) Just give up on his own drug price promise and sign something that Pelosi came up with in full view of the Republican Party, or
B) Watch McConnell block it, and go into 2020 with yet another promise broken -- despite Democrats actually helping him.

"Couldn't he still come up with a plan?"

I admit it's possible Trump will try to save face with an Executive Order, but look at his record so far. Going on 3 years and he lame-ass limp-dick 3% Medicare Part B plan is IMPOTUS. He couldn't even get that working. Based purely on evidence so far, I see nothing that suggests Trump will actually come up with his own draft of legislation, or E.O., that will address drug prices in any meaningful way, and now that there's a pair of bills on the topic, there's no reason for him to start, which like the "let other countries negotiate and we'll Control-C that shit", seems to be governing by laziness.

I guess he's tired of winning.

[zenkai]

Personally disliking a President, does not mean the person will not vote for them. Depends on a lot of factors, like who is the opponent. Also How well they feel their opponent would do instead. A lot of people voted for Trump because they felt he was a better choice than Hillary was, in spite of not personally liking him.

Agreed, the approval rating won't equal votes. During the election both Hillary and Trump had low approval ratings. Now if some beloved Democrat pops out to win the hearts of swing voters then it will matter, but Democrats keep pushing for more hardcore lefts outside of Biden who is more moderate. Which is why I think Biden has the best chance to beat Trump as long as he doesn't have scandals.

[Blur4stuff]

Biden, Warren, and Sanders are nowhere near as unlikable as Clinton was.

Since 2016 Trump has done nothing to gain new voters. He's only attacked or pissed off voters he had. Yes, he has a hardcore brainwashed base that will vote republican no matter what. It's also certainly smaller than it was a few years ago.

Just consider his latest treasonous act with Ukraine. It won't cause most of his base to not vote for him. Those people would be fine ditching democracy and living under an authoritarian dictatorship. But, it will cause some people to peel off. Just like every other dumb or illegal thing he's done.

Trump needs more votes in 2020 than he got in 2016 because he can't count on getting so lucky with the distribution to win the EC. Where do those votes come from? Nowhere.

[Ghostpanther]

You didn't get enough of a lesson in bullshit promises from Foxconn did you? I guess Wisconsin is too far past the end of your nose for you to see.

Except this facility already exists and they also have other facilities in Ohio. https://afjmc.com/project/pratt-indu...wapakoneta-oh/ Them having plans on expansion is perfectly believable.

[Breccia]

Trump needs more votes in 2020 than he got in 2016 because he can't count on getting so lucky with the distribution to win the EC.

Trump is arguably the most vulnerable right now in PA.

1) As I've posted multiple times, in PA, his poll numbers are underwater.

2) He won PA in 2016 by a handful of votes. Any drop in his rating is at risk of tanking the state.

3) He promised PA a bunch of things about coal and steel that didn't happen.

4) Pat Toomey, a Republican, is increasingly critical of Trump's failures but otherwise similar to the Party of Trump: holds a shrinking lead in polls of whites without a college degree and a net unfavorable just about everywhere else. Toomey's ratings can be fairly safely viewed as a Pennsylvania opinion of Trump, and it's not great.

[Edge-]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...40f_story.html

So how many top staffers have gone through the administration? A lot, like 78% a lot. That's quite a few people.

[Breccia]

So how many top staffers have gone through the administration? A lot, like 78% a lot.

The original source does not have a paywall.

To be fair, since Reagan, 60-78% turnover in four years is actually about the span. Yes, Trump is higher than all of them, but it's not like "Oh jeez, he fired 3x the people". Well, not yet. Trump hasn't touched year 4 yet.

There are some unfavorable findings for Trump, because facts:

1) Trump has a historical level of year 1 turnover. At 34%, Trump's year 1 turnover is almost the same as Reagan's, Bush's, Clinton's, the other Bush's, and Obama's combined.

2) Trump almost has the record for year 2 turnover as well. He had 32%, Reagan had 40% though.

3) This does not include the Cabinet. It's Executive jobs only, which Trump does not need Congress for. If you want to know about his Cabinet turnover, we turn to TIME Magazine:

Donald Trump has now had more turnover in his Cabinet in the first two and a half years of his presidency than any of his five immediate predecessors did in their entire first terms.

According to data collected by the Brookings Institution, the resignation of Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta marks the ninth Cabinet member to leave the Trump Administration, one more than the previous high under President George H.W. Bush.

The others who have left: Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Secretary of Veterans Affairs David Shulkin, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke and Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen as well as her predecessor, John Kelly, who left Homeland Security to become White House chief of staff and then left that job as well.

He's not doing a good job there, either. Only the best people, eh?

4) As listed before, that 78% does not count multiple turnovers. But they did track that, too. Of the 51 positions, 16 = 31% have turned over at least twice. The current winners are Communications Director and Deputy NSA, each on their fifth. And that doesn't even count acting members like Spicer.

Between Executive job turnovers, Cabinet turnovers, and multiple turnovers in the same spots, every single examination yields the same result: Trump objectively has the hardest time keeping people.

[Edge-]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-...ere-being-mean

Steve Doocy suggested that President Trump “doesn’t really need anybody to do the talking for him” because he’s such a “great communicator.”

When Brian Kilmeade asked Grisham if Trump “took it personal” when reporters demanded answers in briefings with Spicer or Sanders—in other words, doing their jobs by holding the administration accountable—she replied, “Absolutely.”

The greatest snowflake communicator. We don't do press briefings because people are "mean" to the Press Secretary by...doing their jobs and asking for answers to hard (and often times easy) questions, and because Trump is such a thin skinned snowflake that this triggers him.

[Breccia]

The greatest snowflake communicator. We don't do press briefings because people are "mean" to the Press Secretary

More from her:

Ultimately, if the president decides that it's something we should do, we can do that. But right now, he's doing just fine. And to be honest, the briefings had become a lot of theater, and I think that a lot of reporters were doing it to get famous. They're writing books now. They're all getting famous off of this presidency, so I think it's great what we're doing now.

Sigh...let's count 'em down.

1) Anyone working for Trump has lost the moral standing to say someone else is profiting from their job.

2) Anyone working for TV game show host Trump has lost the moral standing to call what reporters do "theater".

3) Maybe they wouldn't write books if you let them act as reporters?

4) None of the books are flattering.

5) If my boss told me the way to do my job was to not do my job, I'd think that was pretty great, too. But I'd still have to admit I wasn't doing my job.

[Zan15]

Lol! Yep and his ratings will plummet if there is another recession before Nov. 2020 and his odds of being reelected will drop significantly. But it is still positive news for him. It also explains why some of his haters, are wanting another recession before the election.

And on this same topic, in my state of Ohio....https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/...att-industries

President Trump welcomed Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison in Wapakoneta, Ohio at Pratt Industries, along with factory owner Australian billionaire Anthony Pratt, as he touted an "economic revival" of the manufacturing industry with the promise of more foreign investment and a surge in new jobs.

"We proudly declare Pratt Industries and the great, great state of Ohio open for business...Pratt has pledged, as I said, to invest many billions in the United States

Pratt is creating 5,000 new jobs, helped in part by Trump's tax cuts which included lowering the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent.

Just because people are predicting a recession does not mean they want one before the election. Stop being stupid.

As for jobs:
How's those 5-10-20-30,000 jobs in Wisconsin Foxconn projects going?
Those 500,000 jobs from softbank/sprint?
Where is the 25 million jobs?
etc etc

- - - Updated - - -

This part was interesting...sample size and partisan lean. So they get to choose which polls meet those? And no, according to them, they are just about even with each other this far into the first term of each ( 42.5 versus 42.4 ). And Fivethirtyeight also predicted Hillary would win the election. It is true, Obama rebounded and that is yet to see if it will for Trump. Not a rebound, as with Obama, but more of a improvement. Time shall tell.

No they predicted Hillary had the best chance to win the election.

There was never a 100% chance predicted she'd win.

- - - Updated - - -

Personally disliking a President, does not mean the person will not vote for them. Depends on a lot of factors, like who is the opponent. Also How well they feel their opponent would do instead. A lot of people voted for Trump because they felt he was a better choice than Hillary was, in spite of not personally liking him.

And Rasmussen was the second most accurate polling source during the 2016 election.

Rasmussen's final call was Hillary with 320 EC votes.

Real accurate.

[Breccia]

Just because people are predicting a recession does not mean they want one before the election.

Well, let's be fair: if there is going to be a recession, it would be best if it happens sooner rather than later, so
a) we can start recovering faster, and
b) it's easier to replace the people who caused the recession. Which is basically Trump, because the trade war is 100% unilateral.

The dozens of qualified, professional experts who have been predicting bad economic news, up to but not only a recession, have included a large number of CEOs and industry/labor heads who have been asking Trump and/or Congress to stop the current path. A lot of them aren't Democrats. They just don't want to lose their jobs because of Trump. Lumping them in with "the haters" is an attempt to handwave how badly Trump is handling things, and gloss over how this is his fault.

It's pathetic. And it's not working.

[Paranoid Android]

President Trump and VP Pence attend then leave climate summit at United Nations. #UNGA

Video embedded.

I you want to watch a bored toddler throwing a fit that he has to be somewhere he doesn't want to be, you can watch the link. Like the ignorant person he is, then gets up and walks out.

President Trump: "I'm a big believer in clean air and clean water and all countries should get together and do that and they should do it for themselves. Very, very important." #UNGA

Just more idiocy. It's not about dumping shit into our water and air. Such a simple explanation/reason for what is happening with climate change. This idiot doesn't get it. Running around saying we have clean water and air is not helping climate change.

[Edge-]

https://www.axios.com/trump-trade-wa...f3f9e6115.html

We've now spent TWICE as much on farm bailouts as we did on the auto industry during the recession. Something something fiscal responsibility something something.

[Wyrt]

https://www.axios.com/trump-trade-wa...f3f9e6115.html

We've now spent TWICE as much on farm bailouts as we did on the auto industry during the recession. Something something fiscal responsibility something something.

Got to keep buying those farmer votes. Though not sure it's worth it considering farmers almost always vote Republican anyway.