The First 100 days

[LongestHorn]

Rasmussen daily tracking puts him at 53% approval

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports®

DrudgeReport today sees it a little different. Fake News. I'm sure of it.

"A total of 39% of Americans say they approve of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president and 57% say they disapprove of the way Trump is handling his job according to the latest survey from the American Research Group. In March, 41% approved and 55% disapproved.

When it comes to Trump's handling of the economy, 41% of Americans approve and 53% disapprove. In March, 43% approved and 52% disapproved."

Trump Job Approvals and The National Economy

 

[Horn6721]

As I looked into the details of the Drudge report I saw this
"Of the 57% saying they disapprove of the way Trump is handling his job, less than 1% say the national economy is getting better"
and wondered how they found so many clueless people. WTF is their idea of a better economy?
Then I read this stat," Among Republicans (25% of adults registered to vote in the survey and 23% of all adults in the survey), 88% approve of the way Trump is handling his job and 11% disapprove. Among Democrats (35% of adults registered to vote in the survey and 32% of all adults in the survey), 9% approve and 87% disapprove of the way Trump is handling his job. " and understood.
Not exactly even numbers.

 

[LongestHorn]

Not exactly even numbers.

Then let's stick to the same Rasmussen polling, for giggles.

Trump Approval Index History - Rasmussen Reports®

 

[iatrogenic]

It doesn't matter because the polls say that there is a 90% chance Hillary will be President.

 

[huisache]

I like Trump's modesty and his even handed temperament as reported by those who have worked around him.

The fact that Roy Cohn (RIH) is his idea of a great lawyer is another plus

Hillary still sux not the least for being her sleazy husband's enabler.


The greatest irony of my political life has been the way feminists stood by her in spite of being First Enabler to a guy who was even sleazier than his hero JFK

 

[LongestHorn]

His 50 tweets in the past 24 hours are fun to read.

 

[LongestHorn]

I didn't expect success but was hopeful of movement at the summit. We mutually need success and I hope POTUS eventually achieves it.

Were I Otto Warmbier's parent I'd be upset after the Press Conference.

 

[Mr. Deez]

If they had returned him in good health, I could see paying it if that was part of the deal, but they returned him damn near dead. The fact that we're paying them anyway is a joke. But we have a master negotiator in charge.

 

[Hideo Gump Jr.]

I wonder if the treasury would consider sending 200m pennies.

 

[nashhorn]

Hasn’t been paid is what I heard. I’m fine with saying go fly a kite.

 

[I35]

DrudgeReport today sees it a little different. Fake News. I'm sure of it.

"A total of 39% of Americans say they approve of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president and 57% say they disapprove of the way Trump is handling his job according to the latest survey from the American Research Group. In March, 41% approved and 55% disapproved.

When it comes to Trump's handling of the economy, 41% of Americans approve and 53% disapprove. In March, 43% approved and 52% disapproved."

Trump Job Approvals and The National Economy

There’s a pattern with polls and I’m sure it’s just a coincidences that the polls always prove to be inflated for positive numbers for the Dems. It’s just weird how the polls are never inflated for the Republicans. If the polls show Trump down big then I really like his chances.

 

[LongestHorn]

There is a pattern with polls and I am sure it is just a coincidence that the polls always prove to be inflated for positive numbers for the Dems. It is weird how the polls are never inflated for the Republicans.

Roy Moore says hi.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2017 - Alabama Senate Special Election - Moore vs. Jones

 

[iatrogenic]

Roy Moore says hi.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2017 - Alabama Senate Special Election - Moore vs. Jones

So which is it; You support biased polling data or you don't?

 

[LongestHorn]

Mitt Romney says hi.
Romney 49%, Obama 48% in Gallup's Final Election Survey

 

[I35]

Roy Moore says hi.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2017 - Alabama Senate Special Election - Moore vs. Jones

Mitt Romney says hi.
Romney 49%, Obama 48% in Gallup's Final Election Survey

Come on longest, you can do better than that. Roy Moore had a Clayton Williams happen right before the election. And the Romney poll you linked was based on facts from early voting. Asking random people in blue states who they would vote for even if they won’t vote can give them the results they want. But great job on finding something out of 30 polls that gives you a false win though.

 

[LongestHorn]

You're welcome.

 

[Joe Fan]

GDP 3.2% - the fastest Q1 growth in 4 years
Unemployment hit the lowest level in 50 years
Stock market at historic highs
Wage growth is the best in 10 years
More than 5 Million jobs created

 

[I35]

You're welcome.

Not sure if betting is allowed or not, but I’d like to wager one. We can treat the over and under according to the polls (even a composite) and I’ll take the Republican side and you can take your Democrat side. So if they project a Dem at 10 all you have to do is win the election over 10 pts to win. Same with a Republican if he or she was projected over the Democrat by 10 points. Usually asking a liberal to put “his money” where his mouth is would either shut them up or they want to pay their bill (or bet) with someone else’s money. Typically speaking.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

GDP 3.2% - the fastest Q1 growth in 4 years
Unemployment hit the lowest level in 50 years
Stock market at historic highs
Wage growth is the best in 10 years
More than 5 Million jobs created

And Gropin' Joe Biden's entire pitch is to "return to the Obama years".

 

[Joe Fan]

And Gropin' Joe Biden's entire pitch is to "return to the Obama years".

He is reaching out to all of America, with both hands

 

[Joe Fan]

Illegal aliens also count in determining the spread of electoral votes. This is part of the reason they are fighting that Census question on citizenship so hard. If we disregarded the illegal count in Calif, their over-sized influence in the electoral system would take a hit. So would Texas' but not by as much.

Polling shows 73% of voters "believe it is appropriate for the U.S. Census Bureau to ask residents if they are citizens of the United States" (68% of independents and 64% of Dems)

"Seventy-three percent (73%) of voters believe it is appropriate for the U.S. Census Bureau to ask residents if they are citizens of the United States. That question is currently before the Supreme Court and public attitudes are little changed since last November. A ScottRasmussen.com national survey found that just 18% disagree and believe the citizenship question is inappropriate.

Eighty-nine percent (89%) of Republicans believe that asking about citizenship as part of the Census is appropriate. So to 68% of Independent voters and 64% of Democrats...."​

73% Believe Citizenship Question Is Appropriate for Census; 18% Disagree

 

[Joe Fan]

In addition, new polling from ABC shows a clear majority of Americans are not in favor of Democrat efforts to impeach the President

 

[Joe Fan]

The left is not even trying to hide it's dangerous and radical agenda to pack the Court

 

[Monahorns]

You know we have crossed over the line of honest debate and disagreement when the President is described as rigging the census when the question has been on the census in the past and it is within his Constitutional authority to add what questions he wants.

Also another data point that Progressives view the Constitution as illegitimate. You would think at some point Americans could call that treason.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Also another data point that Progressives view the Constitution as illegitimate. You would think at some point Americans could call that treason.

To be fair, expanding the Supreme Court wouldn't be unconstitutional. The problem with it is what it signals, which is that the Court is no longer a judicial body and is now a wholly political body. (Of course, for the Left, that has been true for 60 years or longer.)

Once that happens, the Court will keep expanding whenever one party takes control, and decisions will get overturned routinely along partisan lines. Essentially there will be no consistency in the law anymore. There really won't be any reason to have a Court anymore other than as a political weapon.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Whenever Dems don't get their way, they wanna change the rules.

 

[Chop]

To be fair, expanding the Supreme Court wouldn't be unconstitutional. The problem with it is what it signals, which is that the Court is no longer a judicial body and is now a wholly political body. (Of course, for the Left, that has been true for 60 years or longer.)

Once that happens, the Court will keep expanding whenever one party takes control, and decisions will get overturned routinely along partisan lines. Essentially there will be no consistency in the law anymore. There really won't be any reason to have a Court anymore other than as a political weapon.

Agree.

Now FDR backed down from actually engaging in Court packing--something that was very unpopular even among FDR's numerous supporters. But FDR and his administration used the threat of Court packing (and the Pandora's box that would open) to successfully lean on some Justices (especially Justice Owen Roberts) to change their judicial outlooks/philosophies and ok various New Deal programs.

FDR also had super-majorities in the House and Senate--the likes of which had not been seen before and haven't been seen since. He also won 87.1% of the Texas vote in the 1936 presidential election.

 

[Mr. Deez]

FDR also had super-majorities in the House and Senate--the likes of which had not been seen before and haven't been seen since.

This is true, but the Democratic Party was far less ideologically pure than it is today. Even with those colossal majorities, FDR couldn't pack the Court, because there was a large number of Democrats who weren't blind partisans and were at least somewhat leery of a Court completely whored out to him.

The current Democratic Party couldn't expand the Court with a slim majority in Congress. However, if they got say 260 votes in the House and 65 in the Senate, they could do it.

 

[Chop]

This is true, but the Democratic Party was far less ideologically pure than it is today. Even with those colossal majorities, FDR couldn't pack the Court, because there was a large number of Democrats who weren't blind partisans and were at least somewhat leery of a Court completely whored out to him.

The current Democratic Party couldn't expand the Court with a slim majority in Congress. However, if they got say 260 votes in the House and 65 in the Senate, they could do it.

Mostly agree.

Point of disagreement: I don't think the Dems could pack the Court w 65 senators. There would be some intra-party opposition, enough Dem Senators would say no, and the smart lawyers within the Democratic Party would strongly advise against it. Also consider this growing rift between the old line Democrats and the "progressives". The out of power side may block the in power president.

It's devolving to a Shia vs Sunni Muslim type of battle within the Dem party. They're starting to hate each other worse than they hate the "infidels."

This sometimes happens with a 'coalition party'--something the Dems have always been. We're already seeing the likes of AOC taking on (and really pissing off) the senior party leadership; I'd guess its the start of a trend rather than a flash in the pan, but I could be wrong ...

 

[Mr. Deez]

Mostly agree.

Point of disagreement: I don't think the Dems could pack the Court w 65 senators. There would be some intra-party opposition, enough Dem Senators would say no, and the smart lawyers within the Democratic Party would strongly advise against it. Also consider this growing rift between the old line Democrats and the "progressives". The out of power side may block the in power president.

It's devolving to a Shia vs Sunni Muslim type of battle within the Dem party. They're starting to hate each other worse than they hate the "infidels."

This sometimes happens with a 'coalition party'--something the Dems have always been. We're already seeing the likes of AOC taking on (and really pissing off) the senior party leadership; I'd guess its the start of a trend rather than a flash in the pan, but I could be wrong ...

My concern is that the heat would get turned up very high, and I fear that the base is falling in line. Keep in mind that Democrats think Cocaine Mitch stole a seat on the Court.

There's a good chance that Democrat who opposed it would get primaried hard. I'm sure there would some who would take a stand an oppose it, but I have a hard time believing that as many as 15 Democrats would oppose it. I also pretty much assume that the filibuster would be set aside for this.