if true then the deluded right wingers have no complaint about the Dems or President Obama as they are the ones in control and are the ones who screw everything up
There is also a Republican President rated at a 47% approval http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...p_administration/trump_approval_index_history Though I'm no longer surprised by it, you coincidentally chose the lowest single poll for Trump's approval, yet you seem always to ignore any other ones. And so anyone with as much attachment to an honest look at polling as you could just as easily say Trump's approval is 47%. btw, for anyone interested, the average of recent polls (including the one Natty cites) is 40.3%.
Really? Republicans are screwing everything up? Unemployment: as of this month, lowest its been since 2001 http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/02/news/economy/may-jobs-report-us-economy/index.html Stock market: as of this month, 4 trillion dollars in gains since Trump elected. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/19/wilb...-the-stock-market-to-4-trillion-in-gains.html DOWJI: up more than 16 percent since Trump elected S&P 500: up more than 13 percent since Trump elected NASDAQ: up 18 percent since Trump elected
So how you think they did in the special elections tonight and why do you think THEY need your advice more than the Democrats do? Isn't the more pertinent question what do the Democrats plan to do to win the support of the American people? They are the ones no doing so well.
All these numbers are as a result of the Obama successes in fixing u the mess created by traitor Bush.
You can drink the cool aid but the voters systematically rejected that line over several years in several elections, nationwide.
I chortle that you need to cherry pick Rasmussen, and falsely claim that Gallup is the worst for Trump. Even though the latest CBS News poll has Trump at 36% APPROVAL/57% DISAPPROVAL, I follow Gallup's Daily numbers for consistency and continuity, although one might well prefer the weighted compilation: DISAPPROVE:55.3%/APPROVE: 38.6%.
As I had mentioned, I don't attach much significance to special elections, especially ones that are more heavily-funded and promoted show business. If Republicans are excited about a veteran pol defeating a neophyte to hold onto a seat that they've had for four decades, why not? With the dismal public regard for Trump and the GOP-run Congress, they need to find something to celebrate.
How self serving of you. They are what 5-0 after losing the WH to of all people Trump. They are at tbeir lowest point when jt comes to state governments too and you assert ht is the Rephblicans who need to get in touch with the people. Care to reconcile that and explain why it it not the Democrats who suffer this problem. You mean the Rep canadidate who got what 20% in the primary and defeated the person who got over 50%
Indeed. The "Russians" cannot directly interfere in vote tallies. The best they could hope to do is to cause internal strife in our government to make it ineffective. The group most responsible for causing internal strife in government: Democrats. So ironically, the group most responsible for helping the Russians, is the Democrat party.
The GOP death wish! Meanwhile, GOP wins Congress, the Presidency, and every special election after. Translation? Total domination over the left wing.
Politics is like a pendulum; it swings both ways. Eventually it'll swing the other way and the republicans will be getting a shellacking, just how fast it swings remains to be determined.
That's not my issue. Yes, you are completely right. My issue was the complete smug and arrogance from the left wing in 2016 in regards to Hillary winning. If that was never the case, I wouldn't have been so excited to hear Trump won, as I didn't vote for him. Now, these pathetic witch hunts, the "resist", the riots, are even more fuel for America's anti-liberal views. Losing every single special election after Trump won should be a dead giveaway that the alt left needs to be removed. Old school liberals, this is your time to shine.
Mmhh? The President get a higher approval rate - and by a long shot - than his party's Congress? Isn't that odd? In my opinion, not whoring for votes while you are elected is kind of a noble stance - most of the time.
I think that what actually have torn apart the Dems is more the actual opposite, meaning that Wall Street and the 1% forced it to renounce its traditional leftist stance. HRC clinton might have actually been at Trump's right. Bernie Sanders, IMO, would have done better than HRC (much like everybody).
The generic nature of Congressional polls skews it toward the negative - Congressional Democrats get only 9% more of a positive estimation than Republicans. Since we only have one POTUS at a time, the comparative metric is with predecessors at the comparable junctures of their terms. Obama's approval was 24 points higher in mid-June, 2009 than Trump's mid-June 2017 number.
If Republicans are giddy about eking out victories in deep red districts in 2017, I commend them on their positivism. Again, I think the contrived bellwether status of such media-hyped events is overblown. The seasoned politician in Georgia ran a very competent campaign, refusing to appear publicly with Trump or Pence when they made personal appearances in her district, and avoided mentioning Trump by name in her victory speech. That was smart. I think both Parties need to resist over-nationalizing local contests. Just as it's in a Republican candidate's interest to distance herself from Trump, Democrats err if they fixate on him. The Democratic Party must, as I maintained throughout last year's election, conscientiously end their estrangement from blue-collar Whites. Trump lured them away, but as he panders to the moneyed elite and fills the Washington swamp with his toxic billionaire Wall Street landfill, they still must be given reasons to come back home.
Hyper-partisans inevitably get in a tizzy whenever they see poll results they don't like. Composite survey figures such as this usually upsets them. Their deep state of denial makes them imprvious to objective metrics.
Especially when the polls are actual election results. Some of them even burn cars, loot businesses and shoot people at ball practice.
Somewhat but the Hillary D's had no economic message - only a continuance of the Obama 1% (adjusted for inflation and population growth) economy. By doing so the D's lost the blue collar labor vote in the rust belt states. Saunders socialism is less popular than that and his candidates have not fared well against "Hillary" D's. There seems to be a broad middle of centrist R's and D's crying for a party to represent them.