Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


Gallup’s dire picture for Trump — and some contrary perspective

REUTERS/Carlos Barria
President Donald Trump reacting after signing H.J. Res. 37, in the Roosevelt room of the White House on Monday.

As measured by Gallup, President Trump’s approval rating hit a new low, reported Monday and based on interviews conducted over the three days previous to that. Gallup found that 36 approved Trump’s performance as president, while 57 percent disapproved, with the remaining 7 percent expressing no opinion.

That gap of 21 percentage points between Trump approvers and disapprovers is an absolutely horrible rating by any reasonable comparison and especially considering that he’s been in office just two months. His Gallup approval number has fallen 9 percentage points since he took office, and his disapproval has risen by 12. The graph of those numbers has not exactly been steady, but the downward trend has been fairly relentless, fueled by his constant stream of disapproveable words and deeds. Personally, I would say there’s no reason to expect the trend to improve suddenly, especially if Trump continues to lie so much, behave so boorishly and achieve so little legislatively and policy-wise in general.

Given the current incumbent’s egoism and egotism, it’s hard to imagine or predict how numbers like these will affect his mood or his behavior. It may be possible that he will hit a rock bottom low of his most devoted admirers who don’t care about the lies or the behavior or the achievements and the numbers will stabilize or even improve.

There are several contrary facts and thoughts to the dire picture described above that should be noted by those who are more inclined than our president to keep things in perspective.

One: Most of the other polls that regularly measure presidential approval look better for Trump than do the Gallup numbers. I make no apology for basing this piece on Gallup, given its long history and prestige. But this chart compiled by Real Clear Politics will give you the latest numbers by seven well-known polling operations. In none of them is Trump “above water” in the sense that he has more approvers than disapprovers. It’s a fairly complete train wreck, approval-wise.

Two: Even the Gallup number of 36 percent approval is not the worst in the history of presidential approval ratings, as measured by Gallup and summarized here. Barack Obama’s lowest rating was 38, but of course that’s over eight years, versus two months. Another recent two-termer, Bill Clinton, bottomed out at 37 percent over eight years in office, which included impeachment. Most other recent presidents, even including Ronald Reagan, had a lower low than Trump’s current number, but no one has ever gotten anywhere near this low this early in their term. We’ve seen presidents lose the confidence of the electorate before, and badly. But we’ve never seen an entire term filled with a case of buyers’ remorse.

Three: We all pay too much attention to polls in general, especially considering that, as they say, the only one that matters is the one taken on Election Day. Of course, on Election Day, Trump also dwarfed the record for the largest popular vote loss while winning the electoral vote. It will be interesting to see approval ratings from the three close states (Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin) that decided the electoral vote outcome. But even if we go there, we have to keep in mind that the question on the ballot that day was not whether voters approved of Trump but whether they preferred him to Hillary Clinton. Still, it’s hard to imagine what goes through Clinton’s mind when she sees numbers like these.


Four: Last thought, and it’s intended to be at least halfheartedly kind to the president, if I can pull it off.

It used to be normal for a new president to start with an approval rating in the 60s, 70s and even 80s. After a campaign, there was a tradition of much of the public dropping their partisan lenses and trying to unite behind the commander-in-chief, at least at the beginning of a new incumbency. It appears that those days are pretty much over.  Partisan perceptions have grown much more rancid. If Hillary Clinton had won the election, the likelihood of very many Republicans setting aside their partisan perception of her long enough to tell a pollster that they approved of her job performance even in the early months strikes me as quite low. And if Trump’s last standing challenger during the primaries, Sen. Ted Cruz, were the new president instead of Trump, I doubt many Democrats would be setting aside their partisan perceptions long enough to give him a chance.

This is among the factors making our country less and less governable, but I don’t have any serious expectation that the old norms are coming back any time soon.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (64)

  1. Submitted by Neal Rovick on 03/28/2017 - 09:56 am.

    I suspect we ARE in the “honeymoon” period and it will only get worse from here.

    The vast gulf between his populist message in the campaign and the definite plutocrat tilt of the the “let them eat cake” approach to the AHCA will be a model of the process of deconstructing the administrative state.

    At some point, the chasm between the reality of the new system and it’s new approach to the least of it’s citizens as opposed to the hot air of the campaign will be fully inescapable.

    A short quote of one of the leading lights (Bob Mercer) of the deep money behind Trump’s politics:


    “Bob believes that human beings have no inherent value other than how much money they make. A cat has value, he’s said, because it provides pleasure to humans. But if someone is on welfare they have negative value. If he earns a thousand times more than a schoolteacher, then he’s a thousand times more valuable.” Magerman added, “He thinks society is upside down—that government helps the weak people get strong, and makes the strong people weak by taking their money away, through taxes.” He said that this mind-set was typical of “instant billionaires” in finance, who “have no stake in society,” unlike the industrialists of the past, who “built real things.”

    Another former high-level Renaissance employee said, “Bob thinks the less government the better. He’s happy if people don’t trust the government. And if the President’s a bozo? He’s fine with that. He wants it to all fall down.”

    (end quote)

    The amount of disruption that is being pushed is monumental in terms of societal and economic impact. For better or worse, a large segment of the economy is based on feeding the demands of government and health-care spending. Between those two sectors, it would seem that over half of the economy and employment are affected. And it’s not just the jobs of the workers involved in those sectors–it’s all of the corporations that depend on those sectors for their profits and stock market appreciation.

    If less money is spent on food stamps, the food-stamp recipient goes hungrier AND the giant corporations that provide the food make less money. People may go without health-care AND the health care industry receipts fall. In all sectors, less government spending ultimately means that there will be a whole lot of companies that WILL see their receipts fall. The long-term philosophic restructuring means that the WILL be a sustained period of economic chaos–on a personal basis and a corporate basis.

    Investors in the US economy, beware.

  2. Submitted by Roy Everson on 03/28/2017 - 09:59 am.

    Both sides do it — doesn’t compute

    Point 4 is confusing. After countless examples Mr. Black has shown how this president is unique in his pettiness, divisiveness and chronic lying, we now are expected to believe public opinion is going to be the same no matter what. In every transition beginning with Nixon — all those I can recall — new presidents reach out to the opposition. The news media take heed and there is a honeymoon period of relative unity. This ended with the Tea Party movement declaring war on a newly elected president Obama from almost the beginning.

    As a non-ideological TV host Trump was well- positioned to attempt this but instead doubled down on his most odious ways. Any other professional politician would have attempted some unity and could have earned at least a short honeymoon (as long as he’s a white man).

  3. Submitted by Ray Schoch on 03/28/2017 - 10:38 am.

    As if we needed

    …another reason to think of hedge-fund managers as the scum of the earth, Mr. Mercer has now provided it. A number of European monarchs and aristocrats of the late 18th and into the 19th century were equally convinced that they alone had value and significance. History and the guillotine showed that their perception was incorrect. It still is. Wealth is temporary, value is socially-defined, and I’m personally OK with hedge-fund managers becoming persona non grata in civilized (or other) society.

  4. Submitted by RB Holbrook on 03/28/2017 - 11:13 am.

    Crucial Difference

    Other Presidents have experienced low points in their popularity. That is nothing new. Most of those Presidents were, however, able to recover some standing (Nixon is, as always in these discussions, the exception).

    The crucial difference between them and Trump is that they started with a higher degree of popularity and support. Not only did they have a honeymoon period, but all of them came into office having received majorities in both the Electoral College and the popular vote. Trump won the Electoral College, but his poor showing in the popular vote shows that his support is not all that deep. This cannot bode well for him.

  5. Submitted by Connie Sullivan on 03/28/2017 - 02:01 pm.

    Don’t sell this guy short!

    Donald Trump is probably the most attentive poll reader among presidents we’ve had, and he hates low ratings. He will do whatever it is he needs to do to get his poll numbers up (you can only get so far trying to “spin” low polling results as good, at some point you have to bite that bullet and deal with it).

    That’s what I’m afraid of: What Trump may feel obliged to do to get his numbers back up.

    Of course, I’m looking at this as one of the appalled-at-his-election types. For all we know, Trump may begin making noises like the Democrat he is at heart and always was, before he decided which party would be easier to crash and chose the Republicans. He may make overtures to Democrats in Congress and try to get some bi-partisan bills through.

    Then we’ll all have to decide whether that’s good or bad.

    • Submitted by Neal Rovick on 03/28/2017 - 03:56 pm.

      My guess that his two core constituencies are himself first, and the wealthy/powerful second. Being President satisfies a lot of his ego, his lies instantly become truth, and nothing better than the smell of executive action in the morning. As for the wealthy and powerful, over and over in his life, he has shown that he is very sensitive to, and reacts badly to an intimation that he is not as wealthy or important or powerful as other plutocrats.

      Beyond those two constituencies, he doesn’t really care about many others. The people who voted for him were necessary functionaries in the democratic process, but I really don’t think there is much in the way of core beliefs about what is important for an ordinary American to have. That’s the only way to bridge the great gulf between his campaign rhetoric on healthcare and what he was settling for in the AHCA.

      The things that will get done are those things that benefit him and the existing plutocrats. The others will be a poorly-done window dressing.

      • Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 03/29/2017 - 07:40 am.


        I guess there are 60 million “wealthy/powerful” people in America…

        • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 03/31/2017 - 10:15 am.

          That’s the irony

          Most of the people who voted for him will be screwed by his policies in areas like health care (fewer people covered) and taxes (cuts for the rich, increases for the middle class).

          • Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 03/31/2017 - 03:18 pm.

            Maybe those people think of the country ahead of their own interests… Or, they will not need Obamacare if they find jobs…

    • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 03/28/2017 - 04:09 pm.


      And what better way to make Paul Ryan look bad than to peel away 30 votes on the moderate right and do a deal with Pelosi and then move on to just finding 3 Senators and the deal is done.

      Health care 2?

      As he has told us: “I could walk out on Fifth Avenue and kill someone and my base will still be there”.

      Take the 30% knuckle dragging base and add in those who could be wooed by the above and he may feel better about himself and that is all that matters in his world.

    • Submitted by Dennis Litfin on 03/28/2017 - 09:12 pm.


      foot-in-mouth persona will not permit him to garner popularity regardless if his so-called ‘base’ remains with him. The man is what 70 years old and has practiced this abrasiveness throughout his life. The only time people ‘like’ him is when they can get something from him…like the rock star’s hangers-on.

  6. Submitted by Jeff Michaels on 03/28/2017 - 05:09 pm.

    The Donald exceeds expectations . . . again

    Nothing is more irrelevant that Donald Trump’s poll numbers. Pollsters are the same people who told us he would not win the election. During the campaign, the establishment news media abandoned any effort at journalistic integrity and did everything it could to defeat him but the TV huckster prevailed leaving those same folks battered and bloodied in the gutter, figuratively speaking of course.

    As expected, news folks are responding to their humiliation by doing everything they can to portray the Trump administration in the worst way possible. Almost all articles and TV news stories are negative in tone. No president in my lifetime has ever been treated in that way. Consequently, 36 percent is a surprising good approval number. Once again, The Donald is exceeding expectations.

    • Submitted by Jackson Cage on 03/29/2017 - 08:06 am.

      Now back to the Real World

      Jeff, the “Media” made Trump and his campaign. Never in the history of politics did one candidate get half as much free air time. Trump and the 24 hour news cycle was a match made in heaven. In a medium desperate for things to discuss ad nauseam, Trump gave them new fodder on a daily basis with his outrageous behavior and rantings. Then, he actually got The Job and performance and results started to count for something. And now you see what happens when you put a reality TV star in charge. The coverage has actually been too kind.

      • Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 03/30/2017 - 07:43 am.

        I highly doubt that the “free” time Trump was getting helped him considering what kind of coverage it was…. But you are correct – media was making money on Trump (maybe they should pay him royalty…)

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 03/29/2017 - 09:15 am.

      That’s What I Call Spin!

      “Nothing is more irrelevant that Donald Trump’s poll numbers. Pollsters are the same people who told us he would not win the election.” I’m getting tired of hearing this one, but most of the voters in this country voted against having Trump as President. I know all about the anachronism that is the Electoral College, and I am perfectly aware that this is how our President is chosen. Nevertheless, you can’t overlook the fact that most American voters did not want him to be President at all.

      “As expected, news folks are responding to their humiliation by doing everything they can to portray the Trump administration in the worst way possible. Almost all articles and TV news stories are negative in tone.” Tone? Are they somehow inaccurate? Please explain why “tone” matters.

      “No president in my lifetime has ever been treated in that way.” You must be too young to remember the Clinton presidency. Either that, or you think that coverage was perfectly fair and justified.

    • Submitted by Tom Genrich on 03/29/2017 - 12:15 pm.

      Eye pokes, head conks, and nose honks

      The pollster I paid attention to was Nate Silver. As I recall, immediately prior to the election he put Trump’s chances of winning at somewhere around 30%.

      Joe Mauer’s a career .300 hitter. In a couple of days he’ll step into the batters box for the first time this season. His career batting average puts his chances of getting a hit at somewhere around 30%.

      Suppose Mauer gets a hit. Should we conclude that nothing is more irrelevant than Joe Mauer’s batting average because he got a hit when that metric indicated he should get a hit just 30% of the time? How is that different than concluding that “nothing is more irrelevant than Donald Trump’s poll numbers” because Trump won an election when the polling metric indicated he should win the election just 30% of the time?

      If you categorically reject batting average as a performance projection metric because a single at bat falls nearer the tail of the probability curve, you don’t understand probability theory. If you categorically reject polling as a performance projection metric because a single election falls nearer the tail of a probability curve, you don’t understand probability theory.

      By dismissing polling for the wrong reason, I want to conclude you don’t understand probability theory. But then, are you actually dismissing polling? At the end of your post, you cite a 36% approval number as evidence that Trump is exceeding expectations. Is not that claim hoisted by your own petard?

      In any case, the eye poke of your penultimate line and the head conk of your final line makes it difficult to take your post seriously. It is the sort of thing that might come out of the mouth of Sean Spicer. Amidst the relentless chutzpah of his daily press briefings, Spicer has practiced the eye poke and the head conk and the nose honk into an art form.

      This brand of verbal slapstick has become the lingua franca of the Trump supporter. How to engage with it? How to find any intellectual purchase when expertise is discounted, when facts don’t matter, when fallacious reasoning is regarded as the equivalent of sound argument?

      • Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 03/31/2017 - 07:36 am.

        The media

        What about the media and its behavior? Why do Trump opponents (I am using a soft word here) ignore media behavior? By the way, I am not a Trump supporter but a supporter of the truth and fairness…

        • Submitted by Matt Haas on 04/02/2017 - 07:54 am.

          For not being a supporter

          You sure do expend a lot of effort in his defense.

          • Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 04/02/2017 - 04:57 pm.

            Here is why

            “I detest what you say but I will defend your right to say it,” – this was attributed to Voltaire and Evelyn Beatrice Hall…. Many people forget about that lately…. Anyway, I would also expand it to “I disagree with what you say but I will defend you if you are unfairly accused and attacked.” If we don’t, we contribute to injustice. By the way, I was defending Clinton during his impeachment times…

    • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 03/29/2017 - 02:31 pm.


      Seems Fox and a very large army of Right Wing’ demagogues disguised as news organizations pounded on the Clinton’s and Obama, with less than real facts/news and spun everything against them since the early 90’s, and are still doing it today. So, some of us find it beyond amazing that, when real facts and news start overwhelming the right wing propaganda machinery, the propaganda machine calls foul!

  7. Submitted by Hiram Foster on 03/29/2017 - 06:23 am.


    I don’t think there is any doubt that Trump will win re-election easily in 2020. The demographics are just too much in his favor.

    I am pretty much a poll skeptic for lots of reasons. But one thing that strikes me about both Trump’s poll numbers and his election his despite the unfavorable publicity and a somewhat bumpy start, he is doing so remarkably well. In olden times prior to 2016 we thought of the electorate in terms similar to when there were only three tv networks. Back then, top shows would get ratings that were incredible by modern standards. Half of America or thereabouts would watch shows like the finale of MASH, or the shooting of JR. Cable TV shattered those audiences., and today TV shows can be successful in ratings terms with just a handful of viewers.

    Trump is like that. The fragmentation of TV has fragmented the electorate. Numbers that were once horrible are now great. Today, 36 percent of Americans approve of Trump. In this fragmented world, there is nothing else Americans agree on in such high numbers. In a world of “Grey’s Anatomy”, Donald Trump is the NFL.

  8. Submitted by Bob Petersen on 03/29/2017 - 07:28 am.

    When have polls ever been accurate?

    The first thing a statistics instructor will tell you is to always question the data. Mr. Black gives some good items to think in that this past election and the time just after is much different than any other that belies what polls are saying.
    Remember, most everyone and especially the media all thought Hilary was going to win. These outlets, which still are in denial, have been trying to dispel the myth that they were wrong. The media is supposed to be the watchdog, not the lapdog as it has proven itself to be.
    Trump operates much different than any president we have known. Does he care about poll numbers? Sure. But he said he was going to Washington to do things. He is tackling tough issues head on. He hasn’t played it safe as almost every politician ever has. Does he make some pretty bombastic statements and prods people? Absolutely. Has he lied about things? Sure, but we have seen that from every person sent to Washington anyway. Just for recent example, how many times has Obama lied to the country? Pretty often and much more often than many people want to admit.
    And polls will not change the fact that Trump is the president for at least the next 4 years. So who really gives a rats tushie right now anyway because it doesn’t mean squat. Focus on what he is going to put forth for the country, not just his likability…or lack of it.

  9. Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 03/29/2017 - 07:41 am.

    This piece is much more in Mr. Black’s spirit… But I should also add that it is not really fair to compare Trump to other presidents because I do not think any of them was so much vilified by the media…

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 03/29/2017 - 10:14 am.

      Begin at the Beginning

      “I do not think any of them was so much vilified by the media…”

      After the news of the Jay Treaty with Great Britain leaked out, newspaper cartoons showed President Washington being marched to a guillotine. Some papers took old forged documents as the basis for claims that he had been secretly bribed during the war by British agents (the “fake news” of the day, except it really was fake). John Adams supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, largely because he was so offended by what the press said about him. Jefferson was accused by some members of the press of being an atheist, a terrorist, and a member of the Illuminati. Etc.

      Vilification by the media comes with the territory.

      • Submitted by Hiram Foster on 03/29/2017 - 01:01 pm.


        We have never elected a villain as president before. The situation is unprecedented. For the first time, we have chosen as our leader someone who no one looks up to as a role model. No parent in America tells their child to grow up like Donald Trump. His picture is not hung in elementary school classrooms.

        This is really a remarkable thing. In Bond movies, Mr. Trump would be the bad guy, and in fact, I think several of them he was. In television shows, he is the bad presidential candidate who loses before the last commercial blank. In the nicest political TV show I know, “Madam Secretary”, he is the evil Asian president who assaults Tea Leoni. In the next episode, they go on about global warming. There is no deader political issue today in America than global warming.

        We are in a period of adjustment. We have elected a president who is utterly incompetent and so it’s up to us to find a way to struggle through the next four and quite probably eight years. And we simply have no idea of what America will look like once we have emerged from this self inflicted national nightmare.

        • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 03/29/2017 - 01:54 pm.

          Eight Years?

          Eight years might be unduly pessimistic. Sooner or later, even his most rabid followers are going to get tired of his shtick and are going to expect him to deliver results.

          No, I don’t think he’s going to produce many results, at least not results that will make people happy.

          • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 03/30/2017 - 08:23 pm.

            He’ll be lucky

            to get through two more years.
            The DSM (Diagnostic Service Manual of the American Psychatric Association) describes behavior patterns like his as pathological.

        • Submitted by Misty Martin on 03/29/2017 - 02:43 pm.

          I couldn’t agree MORE.

          This truly is a self-inflicted national nightmare. God help us.

        • Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 03/30/2017 - 07:49 am.

          It’s relative

          Being a villain is relative, as almost everything in life. I can guarantee that some people do want their kids to grow like Trump (rich, powerful), just like many people wanted their kids to grow like Hillary Clinton (rich, powerful). And read Mr. Holbrook’s examples – practically all presidents were thought of as villains at some time and now (did they want to change the building name in Yale?) And the same thing about incompetency: Most Democrats think that Trump is incompetent but most Republicans thought the same about Obama… after whom we emerged with the nightmare of the world on fire and increased racism here, to name just a few problems.

          • Submitted by Hiram Foster on 03/31/2017 - 06:00 am.


            Well, being a villain may be relative but Trump is pretty fair on the villainy scale. Certainly in relative terms we have never had a president who even approached his level of villainy. I mean really, even the villains in Bond movies are pro environment. Mr. Trump isn’t just inclusive about global warming, he is a president who actively supports it.

            Not all parents would like their kids to grow up like Hillary Clinton but many would. She is a role model. While he isn’t exactly my guy, even I would admit that George W. Bush has many qualities to admire, and his father is an outright American hero. No one admires Donald Trump. No one says to their children, if you behave well you will grow up to be like our president one day. No one would want to invite Mr. Trump to dinner, certainly not if children were present. We did a very strange thing in electing this man president, and it’s hard to see how we as a nation recover from it.

            • Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 03/31/2017 - 03:20 pm.

              There is another point of view

              As I said, in your mind Trump is a villain but for many people he is a hero who stood up to Washington and the elite and they may want their children to grow up like Trump… And many people would definitely call Obama a villain who destroyed America’s standing and pride… You know, America is big and people have different approach to life. By the way, in what is Clinton a role model? In being a woman?

      • Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 03/30/2017 - 07:47 am.

        You are correct – vilification by some part of the media comes with the territory (in fact, it applies to any politician). However, I was talking about practically united front of almost all media – this is what makes it different. I have lived through three presidents in America (Trump is the fourth) and I do not remember it being that bad even though Bush was vilified a lot (Bush lied..).

        I also remember Clinton and his coverage was not even close to how Trump is “covered” now… He was liked by people and the media mostly played along. Otherwise, he would not have been able to build his Clinton Foundation…

        • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 03/31/2017 - 08:14 pm.

          My first

          And proudest vote was for McGovern in 1972. Like many, I followed the subsequent unraveling of Watergate with rapt attention. If Mr. Gutman was a witness to those times I am sure he would allude to the vilification of Richard Nixon as the only parallel to Trump. And that is where it is necessary to understand that one person’s vilification is another’s active, factual reporting. And Trump, like Nixon, seems to be the source of endless things, mostly bad, to report on. I am not sure how you put a happy face on reporting and investigating one lie after another. And when these lies start to pile up in quantity and significance to cause serious concern that they may lead to an impeachment or resignation the reporting will reach a frenzied level: It is the biggest Presidential story in 40 years and every reporter who takes their job seriously sees the opportunity to be the next Woodward or Bernstein. It only goes up form here: almost everyday a new breaking story that deserves page 1 coverage.

          • Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 04/01/2017 - 08:43 pm.

            I disagree

            I do not see your comparison to Nixon as valid. Nixon had been in politics for 25 years by 1972 while Trump has been for just about a year and that includes 10 months of campaigning… And yet Nixon destroyed McGovern in 1972 so I doubt that the media 9 to 1 in favor of the latter. I am sure in 1973 and 1974 Nixon was vilified, but I would guess that he was vilified by practically everyone (by the way, for what it’s worth, based on my knowledge, he was one of the worst presidents). The situation now is different because, based on time frames I mentioned above, Trump can’t “be the source of endless things, mostly bad, to report on.” Plus, the media negativity does not correspond to people’s negativity, which was, I think, the case for Nixon. So the media creates things to report, blows things out of proportion, attributes things to Trump, and so on. There are no facts supporting assumptions that Trump is racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc. There is nothing proving that he colluded with Putin to win the presidency, regardless of whether publishing fake news helped him or not. And, as I said before, most of his lies are irrelevant and not personalized even though I wish he stopped doing that. In other words, there is a real witch hunt in the media to get him while Clinton’s e-mail and Benghazi scandals were referred to in the media as witch hunt even though those issues were related to American security, unlike the number of people attending the inauguration. Again, I am not defending Trump but justice and fairness.

            • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 04/02/2017 - 03:41 pm.


              was in fact a good President. If nothing else, the ‘opening to China’ would secure his place in history.
              His flaw was his willingness to commit illegal acts to win election.
              And Trump has been dealing with politicians for at least a quarter century, even if he was not an elected official himself.
              And the difference between Clinton and Trump is that Clinton was accused of illegal acts committed by her staff, not by herself. On the other hand, Trump U is just the start of the revelations of illegal acts committed personally by Trump. In that case, he had a judgement against him based on his own public statements.

              • Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 04/04/2017 - 07:23 am.

                So what

                I don’t think “opening to China” was a good idea even though it will secure his place in history but it is irrelevant here. As for Nixon’s flaws, he had many, including anti-Semitism and he is consistently labeled a bad president. Sure, Trump was dealing with politicians, including the Clintons… but so what?

              • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 04/04/2017 - 09:15 am.


                I suppose his treasonous undermining of the Paris peace talks was done before he was elected, so it technically shouldn’t count against his record as President.

                The illegal carpet-bombing of Cambodia, however, is another matter. Likewise, the Southern Strategy which, while not illegal, has had long-term effects on the racial climate in America.

              • Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 04/04/2017 - 12:33 pm.

                I thought…

                Didn’t Comey make a decision not to indict Clinton personally?

            • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 04/03/2017 - 08:31 am.


              Remember, Nixon just was re-elected by a real majority, far beyond Trump’s election: that means he had plenty of support in 73 and into 1974. Trump, like Nixon, only much worse, simply can’t put any slight behind him. The Nunes “whistleblower scoop” is Nixon all the way. Staffers from the NSC, a supposed non-political entity, use their access to comb thru records looking for something that will put Trump into a better light on his “Obama wiretapped me” dilemma. They find the best they can and then search for a vehicle to deliver it. None better than transition helper and investigation leader Nunes. Who goes back to the WH to brief Trump on what Trump’s staff leaked to him. Watergate cover up behavior all the way.

              And: Somehow Benghazi is a matter of national security and the head of the NSC being on the payroll of foreign governments is not!

              Justice and fairness will have this guy out of office before the mid terms….

  10. Submitted by Connie Sullivan on 03/29/2017 - 10:40 am.

    The reason Trump’s poll numbers are trending down (it’s the trend that matters, not a specific poll number) is that most Americans do not think he’s doing well at all. Even his base support is slowly eroding, on the issues and how he’s dealing–or not–with them.


  11. Submitted by Hiram Foster on 03/31/2017 - 09:30 am.

    However, I was talking about practically united front of almost all media – this is what makes it different.

    One would think there would be a united front of media in opposition to Trump. He is after all Trump. But what amazes me is that there isn’t; that there are people willing to go on CNN and defend the indefensible, and that there is an entire network, Fox News committed to Trump’s defense. It’s quite fascinating really, a 21st century of how evil can be banal.

    • Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 03/31/2017 - 04:01 pm.

      Who is evil

      If you don’t like Trump, it doesn’t mean that everyone doesn’t like Trump. Evil? Can we please reserve that word for Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, and Nasrallah…

      • Submitted by Matt Haas on 04/02/2017 - 08:02 am.

        Practicing relativism

        Yourself, I see. What of all the supporters of those you mention, they existed too, right? Would they fall under YOUR definition of “evil”? Just accept that a good number of us put the Trump regime into the same column. Some, like me, put conservatism as a whole there.

        • Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 04/02/2017 - 04:59 pm.

          I always accept facts

          I do accept that a lot of people think of Trump as an equal to Hitler and Stalin – it is an unfortunate fact. It is even worse that some people think that all conservatives fit that category… But it is also a fact that some people think that the UFO’s are real, Armstrong never landed on the Moon, and that Sandy Hook school massacre is a hoax… And some people think of liberals as evil… Of course, it doesn’t mean that those people are right in their thinking. The problem is that, unlike believing in the UFO’s, believing in evilness of conservatives and Republicans (or Democrats and liberals) prevents any reasonable conversation from taking place which, in turn, rules out finding any real solutions. Our country is paying the price for that now and I am afraid will pay even more in the future.

  12. Submitted by Hiram Foster on 04/01/2017 - 05:45 am.

    If you don’t like Trump, it doesn’t mean that everyone doesn’t like Trump. Evil?

    I certainly think it does. I don’t see myself as the center of the universe and that way. Hundreds of millions of Americans seem unaware and uninterested in my opinion, strangely enough.

    None of us get to reserve words. They exist in the public domain free to all to use. It’s only political correctness that stops us from applying many of them to Trump.

    • Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 04/01/2017 - 10:12 am.


      We all have the right to our opinions and the right to express those opinions. It doesn’t mean, however, that all those opinions make sense…

  13. Submitted by Hiram Foster on 04/02/2017 - 07:04 am.

    Making sense

    Our president just paid 25 million dollars to people he cheated as part of an education scam. Like lots of things, matters are subject for debate, but certainly the basis for saying that he is what he is can be found on the court documents he sign. There isn’t anything nonsensical about them. And there is a lot more, of course.

    There is certainly no sign that he is taking on Washington. What is at least a little surprising is what a passive figure he is. He took his health care program from Congress. Was that the anti Washington thing to do? Did that meet the expectations of anyone who voted for him? Clearly his “promises” were just stuff he said on the campaign trail, stuff other people said because other people have at least a nodding acquaintance with the value and need for truthfulness.

    • Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 04/02/2017 - 10:34 am.

      Big difference

      First, cheating people out of their money is way different than killing tens of millions of them so it is hard to see how both things may be combined under the “evil” category. And Trump actually does practically everything he promised to do: sanctuary cities, a wall, repealing Obamacare (didn’t work but he tried), demanding Europeans pay for NATO, limiting arrivals from dangerous countries, nominating a conservative leaning Supreme Court Judge, trying to being more jobs…

  14. Submitted by Hiram Foster on 04/04/2017 - 06:34 am.

    people out of their money is

    people out of their money is way different than killing tens of millions of them so it is hard to see how both things may be combined under the “evil” category.

    Well it’s hard to see how cheating people out of their money isn’t evil, You are of course free to combine that with any sort of evil you may wish to, but I am not responsible for any combination the merits, logic or appropriateness of any combination you choose to introduce.

    Keeping promise is a morally neutral activity. A promise Trump didn’t keep was taking away health insurance from 24 million Americans in order to fund a tax cut for himself and his wealthy friends. I am comfortable with the moral outcome of that failed promise.

    Trump is the president of the United States but he isn’t the president of NATO or any other country in the alliance. How much help is offering to Germany to deal with the refugee crisis created by our disastrous policies in the middle east?

    Is Judge Gorsuch a conservative judge? Has he stepped forward and said he would keep the promises Trump made on his behalf on the campaign trail? I recall no such statements at the confirmation hearing from the judge. Was the judge being deceptive?

    • Submitted by Ilya Gutman on 04/05/2017 - 07:24 am.

      Please explain

      If, in your opinion, cheating people out of their money is evil equal to killing millions of people, then where is your line between evil and not? What you are doing is trivializing the horrors of Holocaust and the Great Leap… Is cheating a customer out of a dollar evil, too? What should be done with people who are evil, especially, if, by your definition, almost everyone is?

      And keeping promises is not neutral – it is very positive because not keeping promises is very bad, maybe even evil… True, Germany’s problems were created by our disastrous activities in the Middle East, by Obama’s actions, I must add.

      Why should Gorsuch say anything about what others promised for him? I don’t get it…

Leave a Reply