Skip to Content

Support MinnPost

After December dip, Trump's Gallup approval rating rises to 40%

REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump, with their son Barron, arriving for a New Year's Eve party at his Mar-a-Lago club on Sunday.

New Year’s wishes to all. Here’s hoping you had a good break. And welcome to 2018.

Ten months from now, American voters (not just those in New Jersey, Virginia and Alabama) will have a real chance to let the White House and the rest of Washington know how think the Era of Trumpiness has been going. Until November, those of us who are too obsessed to wait, will have to settle, mostly, for poll results to tell us which way the political winds are blowing. Therefore, herefore, one of my occasional check-ins with President Trump’s approval ratings.

To the surprise of many (including me), the approval rating of the current incumbent is back to almost exactly where it was when I last wrote about it in late November. A lot has happened since then, and President Trump’s approval numbers suffered from some of it. But then, for reasons I find hard to grasp, just when it seemed that maybe the spell he had cast over his admirers had broken, his numbers snapped right back to the not-very-good place they had been in November.

As I write this on Monday night, the latest Gallup three-day average shows Trump with a  rating of 40 percent approvers and 55 percent disapprovers. When I last checked in, on Nov. 28, it was 37-57. It you are sufficiently motivated to believe so, you could even say that his numbers have improved by two or three points, but that would be an overreaction to numbers that remain within-the-the-margin-for-error of staying the same.

Likewise, the average of many polls that are mooshed together by the Huffington Post, which I use as a check against a too-heavy reliance on Gallup, show basically the same thing. On Sunday night, HuffPost’s average likewise showed Trump at 55.6 percent disapprovers and 38.9 percent approvers.

In the meantime, if you look at the graphic representations of those results (here for HuffPost and especially here for Gallup) the president’s ratings actually did take a noticeable dip in the past month. In Gallup’s case, he sunk to 33 percent approval and rose to 62 percent disapproval on Dec. 1, numbers that would be truly putrid if they had lasted. But they didn’t last. And they turned around so quickly they may have measured nothing terribly real.

Of course, if you’re going to be rigorously straight about these things, his admirers would have to acknowledge that, without further evidence to the contrary, his recent rise is just as ephemeral as his previous fall.

The bottom line remains, as it has almost since Inauguration Day, that Trump has suffered with the worst first-year approval numbers of any president since approval rate polling was invented, but as he approaches his second year, they basically haven’t gotten better or worse in any sustained way. He has been “under water,” as they say, the whole time, but somewhere between 30 and 40 percent of Americans have never quit him.

Will they ever? What would it take? I don’t claim to know. But, barring some dramatic breakout to the up- or down-side, I will try not to bother you with them until February-ish. 

Get MinnPost's top stories in your inbox

Related Tags:

About the Author:

Comments (74)

Error margin

Is the standard error of measurement of polls still about 4%? I'm not sure there's anything more than random variation going on.
..........
And Baron and Melania don't look too happy to be there, while The Donald's mouth is open as usual.

According to Pew

The standard error of measurement of polls is plus or minus 3%, so a 4% increase is on the edge; not too convincing.
See
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/08/understanding-the-margin...

narrowing the margin of error versus accuracy

if you want a tighter margin of error, you increase your sample size substantially.

But .... every poll suffers bias from who actually responses to contact, and knowing if those are systematic errors (ie., under-sampling Trump voters in rural areas in national polls, if that happened) ..... or using phone lines for sampling back in the 1940's when "Dewey" won the presidency .... many Democrats supporting Truman didn't have phone lines back then .... those factors ... along with Russians trolling every stage .... make polls uncertain tools to be sure.

Yet, some 70% of the American people opposed the Republican tax plan, but they made it the law anyway. If what the majority wants doesn't count .... WFT!? Enough to harden a grinch's heart even more.

I can't help but feel sorry for Barron Trump's missing childhood

I have yet to see a happy Barron Trump. I feel sorry as the young man appears to be missing out on what is supposed to be a great time in his life - childhood. A learning, fun, carefree time of a person life. It is hard to imagine having fun in the gilded atmosphere he has to live in. There is no evidence he has any friends or that he gets to participate in anything but Trump events. I hope my assessment is wrong.

When the rats begin to jump....

While it may be wishful thinking on my part, it certainly seems that the evidence and progress of Mueller's investigation will produce a devastating picture of incompetence and illegal behavior. This will only serve to further get the back up of his hard core 25-30% popularity; but, it will likely make almost every congressional supporter run away with their hair on fire. This will leave little room for them to offer lame excuses like Paul Ryan's "The President is new to this" excuse and crater his approval percentage to only his true believers.

Over the holidays I read "Red Notice" by Bill Browder that describes the events leading up to the death of Sergei Magnitsky and the passing of the Magnitsky act. Two facts are readily apparent:

1. Putin is a lying, murdering thief.
2. Putin, a lifelong employee of the state and man of humble beginnings is likely the richest man in the world and allows no dissent or fake news or political opponents.

Trump is so enamored with the latter that he would like himself and us to forget about the former.

It won't happen and that will be his downfall....

Romney and Russia

Just curious - how did you react when Mitt Romney said in 2012 that Russia was the greatest strategic adversary of the U.S.? President Obama retorted that Romney wanted to bring back the Cold War, and Obama's media lackeys (95+% of the news media) echoed Obama's ridicule. Romney was, of course, correct. But now Trump critics have conveniently forgotten their previous leniency toward Russia and their invective against anti-Putin Republicans.

What Are We Supposed to Say?

"But now Trump critics have conveniently forgotten their previous leniency toward Russia and their invective against anti-Putin Republicans." Does that mean that Trump critics are barred from voicing their opinions about Russian meddling? "Welp, we were wrong in 2012 about the Russian threat. Now, six years later, I guess we better not say anything about it. Even though subsequent experience has, arguably, shown us to be mistaken, we may not amend our views in light of that experience."

Of course, Mitt Romney was talking about a more traditional military-type threat (the kind he avoided facing by handing out religious tracts in Paris). The infiltration of the American election was not really on anyone's radar in those days.

“Does that mean that Trump

“Does that mean that Trump critics are barred from voicing their opinions about Russian meddling?” Actually, they should be because if they didn’t criticize Obama then but do criticize Trump now, they obviously do it for political reasons, not due to genuine understanding of Putin and Russia.

Read the 1st Amendment

Who is supposed to do the 'barring'?
And of course there is the issue that Trump might be at least an order or magnitude worse than Obama was.

“And of course there is the

“And of course there is the issue that Trump might be at least an order or magnitude worse than Obama was.” He might… or might not. But what does it have to do with this? We are talking about Russia and Putin, not about Trump and Obama.

“Who is supposed to do the

“Who is supposed to do the 'barring'?” The critics themselves so Constitution has nothing to do with that…

Self-Barring!? In Public!?

As Emerson once said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

You are ignoring the possibility that contexts could differ, or even that minds could change.

I am just being realistic.

I am just being realistic.

so

So of course, you did NOT vote for Trump, knowing that Romney, someone you trust, said Putin was a real danger .... and you specifically criticized Obama's soft touch (my words) ..... so you could not vote for Trump, who never has a harsh word for Vladimir Putin, former spymaster, current oligarch running Russia?

Just wondering.

Obama and Clinton had very

Obama and Clinton had very nice words for Putin… until they had harsh words. Words don’t matter – deeds do… like allowing Putin to have his way in Ukraine and Syria. And so far, I have not seen Trump being easy on Putin…

Open your eyes

and use them -- look at a map.
It's geopolitics.
Think back to the Cuban missile 'crisis'. The USSR was not going to push a fight 50 miles off our shores when they had a 5000 mile supply line -- they backed down quickly.
In the present, Ukraine has been Russian territory for most of its history. With a common border we're not going to war there.
Syria is a lot closer to Russia than it is to us. It's also not an immediate threat to Israel -- they're much more worried about Iran. Obama's problem was finding a Syrian rebel group to back. Most of them were radical Islamic with ties to the Taliban or Isis. Trump (like his buddy Putin) has no compunctions about supporting a brutal dictator like Assad.
There's also the issue of Turkey. Our best potential allies in Syria are the Syrian Kurds. However, Kurds have been fighting a civil war in Turkey for years, and Turkey is one of our few allies in the Middle East. Trump doesn't worry about details like maintaining our international assets.

I don’t need to look at the

I don’t need to look at the map – I lived in Russia and visited Crimea and Kiev… But anyway, are you trying to say that it was a right move to let Putin annex Crimea and prop up Assad?

You're missing the point

I'm saying that neither Putin's generals or Trump's are dumb enough to start a war in the other side's back yard.

Well,

it's that time of year.....people overlook shortcomings and let compassion and forgiveness take hold for a bit....that is until they again realize that 'this guy is hopeless and in way over his head''

Good for Trump.

He's now polling slightly higher than dysentery.

Well...

It's not 2012 anymore.

Putin was a bad guy then and now, what he had not yet done in 2012 was direct the outcome of a Presidential election in 2012.

The Atlantic had a great article on how Putin's actions evolved in 2016:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/01/putins-game/546548/

Prior to 2016 it was just throw a non-partisan monkey wrench in here and there in our electoral process. In 2016 it was a go for broke gamble to favor one side over the other, because if Clinton would have won she would have retaliated with a vengeance. Putin is greatly ticked over things like the Magnisky Act and other Russian sanctions. The accumulative effect of these things changed his behavior and the degree of threat he presents from 2012 to 2016.

In truth, I guess it could be said we both suffer from John Kerry-itis to some degree with regard to Putin:

I was for him before I was against him

And you:

Were against him before you were for him.

Always Consistent

I've always been a strong critic of the Soviet Union and its successor state of Russia. President Truman had it exactly right about the USSR, even when a fair amount of liberal opinion in his day struggled to find much fault with Stalin.

BTW, can someone explain exactly how Russia influenced the 2016 election results? How did they manage to make Hillary so unlikable and distrusted that she couldn't even beat Trump? How did she manage to only achieve a plurality of the popular vote, which if we had ranked choice voting, would have resulted in a statistical dead heat?

Trump's good words for Putin raised eyebrows for sure, including mine. But now he's selling weapons to Ukraine, and his support for fracking means that oil prices will remain relatively low for many years to come, which hurts Russian finances far more than anything Obama ever did. By any measure other than left-wing hysteria, Trump's actions have taken a much harder line against Russia.

"BTW, can someone explain

"BTW, can someone explain exactly how Russia influenced the 2016 election results?"

I'd like to know the answer to that, too. For all the pearl clutching, hair tearing and sky wailing being done, I've yet to hear anyone detail exactly what ol Vlad got for his rubles.

From what I can determine, he simply managed to move up 10 slots on the top trolling list.

A patsy

Someone he could sink his teeth into.

wait for it.....

Mueller et als report is not done yet!

Remember this criminal investigation, being done at the highest levels, is being done by an extensive and crack group...who know far, far more details than the average American.

But let us all also remember that Trump's base of approx 30% remains as delusional as he is, and being delusional is coded in the USA's DSM - V:

Delusional Disorder DSM-5 297.1 (F22)

de·lu·sion·al
[dəˈlo͞oZH(ə)nəl]

ADJECTIVE
characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder:
"hospitalization for schizophrenia and delusional paranoia" · [more]
based on or having faulty judgment; mistaken:
"their delusional belief in the project's merits never wavers" · [more]

It's up; it's down...oh, wait

It's up; it's down...oh, wait it's back up.

Whatever they do, those of us who are hopeful of the future of America, also hope leftists keep their attention focused on tweets, and facial expressions and polls while we set the judiciary to rights, rev up the economy, rewrite the tax code, secure our borders, fight terrorists to their demise and safeguard the sanctity of our voting franchise.

Meanwhile, taxpayers will be opening up fatter pay envelopes next pay period...2018 is already better than the last 9.

Not Holding My Breath

Let me know when you get that $4K/year pay increase. Promises, promises.

They will need bigger paychecks

to make up for cuts in social services and the effects of increased inflation.
One way or the other, the national debt will have to be paid, either by increasing the money supply (printing more money) or cutting entitlements. I wouldn't bet on any cuts in the military (the other big chunk of the budget) in the next few years.

When those 35% - 40% sad trump lovers

See the extra amount they will receive in tax relief versus what the rich and corporations will receive “in tax relief”, the tide will turn far below those numbers. Even the republicans will be able to see that they got screwed. Of course a nuclear war from the president may cost trillions and trillions and no one will receive a dime. What a joke!

Hi Nick,With all due

Hi Nick,

With all due respect, not everyone's first thought upon getting a raise is "I bet Joe got more".

In fact, I'd go so far to say that most folks will be too busy figuring where they will put the extra cash to use to even give a passing moment up to engage in avarice.

And of those that do, most understand wealthy taxpayers get a bigger break because they pay most of the taxes...It's all good, man!

except for

the federal deficit blowing up

Medicaid cut
Medicare cut
Affordable Care Act Insurance Exchanges undermined
FDA enforcement dropped
Net Neutrality thrown out
EPA enforcement nonexistent
SEC enforcement nonexistent
Emoluments Clause violations unchallenged
Russian conspiracies, foreign attacks on our last election that Republicans just won't investigate in Congress
loss of standing around the globe.

ya, super.

What Deficit?

No need to make all those cuts. The soaring economy will wipe out that deficit in no time! Problem solved!

They'll be pie

In the sky
when we meet in that great bye and bye.
Work all day, live on hay,
They'll be pie in the sky when we die bye and bye.

What a nice fairy tale Curtis!

All folks want to know what others received immediately. Plus your “folks” are not figuring anything; they are simply spending because 900-1000 bucks (maybe less depending on another stock market crash or the maniac’s love of war threats now that he doesn’t need a deferment) is not a life changing amount of money. Your last paragraph is so completely ridiculous that it does not deserve a response.

$1,000 bucks “is not a life

$1,000 bucks “is not a life changing amount of money” If it’s 5% of your take home pay, maybe it is…

“Your last paragraph is so completely ridiculous that it does not deserve a response.” You want to say that the wealthy do not pay most of the taxes? Or you want to say that it is not fair if you get back more if you pay more?

A Whole Stack!

"$1,000 bucks “is not a life changing amount of money” If it’s 5% of your take home pay, maybe it is…" Is a person who takes home $20K a year going to see a $1000 tax cut?

In RB's support

The $1000 is not real, Median income in USA ~ $59K, tax cut ~ $708. so at $20K (after FICA) more like, benefit = zip, zero, nada, , someone has to support "T"'s $11-15M tax cut.

Can you please refer me to

Can you please refer me to the source for $15M of Trump’s tax cut?

Consider yourself refered

This article says could be $1B to B's,
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/28/us/politics/trump-tax-ben...
This one $11M
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/28/us/politics/trump-tax-ben...
This one millions
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-stands-to-save-millions-un...
Here is one on all the tricky "T" stuff
https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/how-trumps-tax-plan-would-be...
And of course none can know for sure because Mr. (no ethical values) never gave up his Taxes!
you do know how this Google search stuff works don't you?

You are exactly right: These

You are exactly right: These are just speculations so no one really knows. Plus it looks like he is giving up much more in his monthly presidential salary.

Sorry, I meant 5% of

Sorry, I meant 5% of disposable income… In fact, I now guess that it may be much more than 5% of that…

5% of Disposable Income

That number still comes out to a little less than $20 per week, or ,for those paid bimonthly, a hair over $41 per paycheck.

That's ordering pizza from Carbone's instead of Domino's. It's a nice perk, but wouldn't call it "life changing."

If you have several thousands

If you have several thousands in disposable income and then get an extra thousand, it may mean a nice vacation which you otherwise would not take. You are breaking the amount into small portions but it is not the way people look at that. Otherwise, you can say that it is less than $3 a day – not enough for a cup of coffee. In this case $10,000 is just over $20 a day – not enough for a dinner in a restaurant.

Numbers

Your example referred to a $1000 bump. The people who would get a tax reduction of 10 large are probably too wealthy to notice the benefit.

"You are breaking the amount into small portions but it is not the way people look at that." In theory, no. As a practical matter, they will. The $1000 would show up incrementally in paychecks, so that is how most people will manage it.

If people have any disposable

If people have any disposable income, they usually save it for specific things so monthly extra money will go there to add up.

Bad assumption

Most folks never get to disposable income ~ 50% live paycheck to pay check. We need not even look at the average. As before, median income ~ $59K, expected tax break $708/26 = $27.23 per pay period. As noted above, ~ 1 cheap pizza a week, or 12 back of ok beer, in your estimation, it appears that makes people feel rich!

All that extra cash

Wow, you do get excited about a grocery store trip. Then, for folks like me, losing all my deductions while not getting as much in the standard will be an extra fun kick in the... But hey, the best part of all will be watching the morally self righteous right try to explain the cratering of charitable contributions, now that their deduction has no effect for anyone but the obscenely wealthy. I suppose charities should just devote themselves to continual groveling at the feet of billionaires, they'll soon be our masters anyway, best get used to it.

“you do get excited about a

“you do get excited about a grocery store trip” That would be food for a month… So what would be an amount to get excited about?

Nick, Don't Kid Yourself

A solid share of Trump supporters are already telling themselves that if he fails it's will due to the fault of someone else.

Polls don’t mean much.

Obama constantly polled high and his party was decimated by losing over 1,000 seats, both Houses and multiple Governorships after his 2008 election. If the tax cuts Puts more money in folks pockets, better jobs become available, folks get raises and manufacturing makes a comeback Trump will be fine. If not Trump will take a beating like Obama did.

High?

The stock market friendly Obama's job approval was under 50% nearly the full eight years. Conservatives constantly reminded us of this. Now anything in the 40's is considered high?

Talk about revisionist history.

Numbers

Due to gerrymandering, the Democratic party can consistently receive more votes than the Republicans and still lose seats. Unless a poll is weighted to reflect this, its predictions will be off.

Gerrymandering?

U.S. state boundaries are gerrymandered?

You do know

That regardless of a states population they get at least 2 senators and 1 congressman? And since everyone believes in "equal representation" lets do the easy math:

California: 39.25 M: 53 Representatives= 1:740,566, 1 senator: 19,62M
Wyoming 585,501 1 Representative: 585,501, 1 Senator: 292,750.5
Yes, we do understand that is the way things are set up in the constitution. But evidently you fail to realize that small population states have a significant influence advantage over the high population states, depending on who is looking, unintended gerrymandering, some folks may also look at this as tyranny and repression! Remember, the majority has been denied in 2 presidential elections since 2000. Facts is facts, but you can enjoy your vision of how the majority is being denied "fairness" by the minority.

Thanks for explaining what

Thanks for explaining what the Electoral College is. It has nothing to do with gerrymandering. The borders of states haven't been redrawn to give one party an advantage.

What

You evidently failed to gather is: California gets 1 Senator vote for every 19.62 Million people, Wyoming gets 1 Senate vote for every 292,750.5 people. Which means mathematically California is handicapped in representation by 67/1 (i.e. they have to have 67 people for every 1 of Wyoming for the same 1 senate vote. The equation is similar for the congress, although not as severe. California gets 1 congressional vote for every 740,566 people relative to Wyoming's 585,501, meaning California needs1.26 people to = 1 Wyoming person. Although not gerrymandering per say. The minority has a very unfair voting advantage over the majority!

Per se, it still has nothing to do with gerrymandering.

I understand how the Electoral College works. Yes, the population of small states is over-represented.

You fail to understand what gerrymandering is. It's about manipulating congressional district lines. Look at the districts surrounding Chicago for great examples. All the funny line drawing in the Chicago area doesn't change how many electors Illinois has.

The point is

that gerrymandering districts changes the distribution of electors between the parties.

I thought that all but a few

I thought that all but a few states give all electors to the winner of a popular vote in that state…

48

But it's not that simple.
You can win lot of states by narrow margins, and lose of few by large margins. That's why the Electoral College vote does not always agree with the popular vote (and why Trump won in the EC while losing the popular vote by a record margin).

Correct but this has nothing

Correct but this has nothing to do with gerrymandering which was a topic of this thread.

Did you know that National

Did you know that National Opposite Day is on January 25th ?

https://nationaldaycalendar.com/national-opposite-day-january-25/

Well, Trump-decriers realize that everyday in Trump-land is opposite day, those in the Trump-bubble have no trouble believing that up is down.

He has the best plans, the tax plan is for the middle-class, he knows more about health-care and taxes than anyone else, everyone gets great healthcare for $12, he is the reason for no air-crash fatalities in 2017, on and on (in just the past few days).

Wearing a cow-patty for a hat is very stylish these days for a certain percentage of the population.

Just don't expect for everyone to buy into it.

picture

Go back and take a really long look at the picture that accompanies this article. Worth a thousand words?

Well up to...

40 % with a margin of error. Now there is a mandate. And yes Obama did reach out to the Russians but did not sublime any policy positions in fact he strengthened the hardline. And that is the reason they pulled for his Trumpet. Sorry for the insult to the instrument. I also have concerns about local and state election results in prior elections. As some have said Obama may have been high in ratings but local and state results did not go reflect that for Democrats. So my concern is what are the masses missing that side them with elected officials who essentially negatively affected their standard of well being. Lots has been written about that. There is an interesting pice in the Washington Post evolving out of the Progressive meeting there. People are switching kid of dramatically there. And a lot of people are going “What” over the GOP agenda and how it affected them. And then there is the imploded Kansas miracle. People are reassessing without a doubt. The Post link ...https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/iowa-went-big-for-trump-but-there-are-signs-its-voters-are-souring-on-the-president/2018/01/01/e84cc764-e73c-11e7-833f-155031558ff4_story.html?utm_term=.ce6cf926e9c8

First, when will liberals

First, when will liberals understand that not everyone approving Trump’s PERFORMANCE is his admirer (and may actually be quite the opposite)?

“To the surprise of many (including me), the approval rating of the current incumbent is back to almost exactly where it was when I last wrote about it in late November. A lot has happened since then, and President Trump’s approval numbers suffered from some of it. But then, for reasons I find hard to grasp, just when it seemed that maybe the spell he had cast over his admirers had broken, his numbers snapped right back to the not-very-good place they had been in November” Maybe it may help to read something that is not bashing Trump, something like this: https://www.yahoo.com/news/10-promises-trump-kept-2017-2-121123027.html, http://www.newsweek.com/here-are-six-successes-donald-trumps-first-year-..., http://www.businessinsider.com/holiday-retail-sales-soar-ecommerce-2017-12, https://www.npr.org/2018/01/01/574346190/economists-are-saying-we-will-h..., Comcast, ATT, Boeing Announce Bonuses After Tax Bill Passes | Time.

Let's look at your Newsweek

Let's look at your Newsweek article....

Accomplishments ?
1.He got a new justice on the Supreme Court
2.He got tax reform through Congress
3.He helped public causes by donating his salary
4.He did away with a slew of federal regulations
5.His anti-immigrant rhetoric led to changes in reality
6.He revolutionized how a president interacts with the public

1.How could he not achieve this ? Acting like this required ANY effort on his part is ridiculous--it's the equivalent of a participation medal.

2.Achieved through the twisting of a secret law-making process worthy of a Venezuelan dictator. A plan to give more money to the wealthy to "trickle down", despite the undisputed evidence of a couple of decades where the increasing concentration of wealth has not lead to "trickle down", except perhaps in Moscow hotel rooms..

3.Wow--this is an accomplishment ?? Maybe it is impressive for a guy who never gave anything to a genuine charity, but wow, one of his top six achievements ??

4.Yes, making the lives of exploiters, polluters and scammers much better--the people, not so much.

5.An accomplishment for the fearful of his base, but a display of unrelenting ugliness for everyone else.

6. Yup, and who is better for it ?

Don Trump's Accomplishments

Don Trump's has done little that would not have been done by any boilerplate GOP president with Congressional majorities.

To elaborate:

1. He got to appoint a Justice because McConnell denied Obama his Constitutional right.

2. He had little to do with it.

3. When we see his tax returns we'll know how much (if any) or his own income he donated, and to whom.

4. 'Nuff said.

5. And he's the grandchild of immigrants.

6. By emulating Putin (who was originally elected, but now wins by receiving 105% of the votes).

“He got to appoint a Justice

“He got to appoint a Justice because McConnell denied Obama his Constitutional right.” There is no constitutional right to have a Justice confirmed.

“He had little to do with it.” Actually, he helped negotiate it.

“When we see his tax returns we'll know how much (if any) or his own income he donated, and to whom.” I assume he is paid bi-weekly so we don’t need to wait for anything.

“'Nuff said.” An idea that the more regulations the better is a socialist one.

“And he's the grandchild of immigrants.” The legal ones.

“By emulating Putin” What?

The point was why people

The point was why people approve his policies; you may not like what he has done but he was elected to do the opposite of what Obama did. Obviously, if his accomplishments were in line with Obama, he would have been a Democrat.

On the other hand, are you aware of any other president who gave his salary to charity? And are you sure that all regulations he canceled were absolutely necessary? I find it hard to believe knowing how government operates. As for immigration, are you supporting open borders? And finally, I remember Obama was praised for being the first president to use Internet a lot…

I spent the years 1981-1988

I spent the years 1981-1988 being told repeatedly in every variety of media that Ronald Reagan was "the most popular president of the postwar era." I sure knew people who adored him, but I knew just as many people who loathed him.

It wasn't until 1990 or so that an article came out comparing the popularity of various presidents. It turned out that while Reagan had enjoyed some high points, he had also suffered some lows, and at one point was below Jimmy Carter's lowest point. In other words, his level of popularity was quite ordinary for a U.S. president, rising and falling from month to month, depending on what had happened most recently, and his overall popularity averaged out to . . . average.

In looking at the results of any poll, I want to know a few things:

1) What was the size of the sample?

2) How was the sample selected? By landline phone? By cell phone? By mail? By internet? By stopping the shoppers in a mall? How many states were sampled? Each method will yield a different sample of people.

3) How many of the people selected refused to answer?

4) How were the questions phrased? There is such a thing as a push poll, a poll with opinions built in as an attempt to push the person to give the desired response.

5) If it was an internet poll, were their safeguards against one person voting twice, and did any media or online personalities tell their audiences to be sure to vote in it?

Surprised

Karen,
When I am speaking with my very Conservative Pro-Trump parents they ask the same things regarding these popularity numbers. They assume it is a Liberal conspiracy of selecting more Liberal voters. (ie artificially low)

Now I have disliked Trump for ever but voted for him because I disliked Hillary's platform even more. The reality is that I dislike Trump's behaviors, tweets, lies, etc even more. However as I look what has actually happened during the past year I can easily understand how 40% of the USA approves.

For a Conservative what is not to like? Conservative Justice, lower Taxes, fewer government bureaucrats, fewer regulations, far fewer illegal border crossings, more illegal workers deported, Koreas talking again, ISIS lost their land, etc. Now if they figure out how to actually reduce the federal governments budget most Conservatives will be ecstatic.

Now I understand that these things frustrate the more idealistic Liberals, however I think many people who are concerned with their job, family, communities, etc have no problem with these accomplishments. The following is what I am most curious about.

"A continuous theme running through my head is that Trump and the GOP have given the DEMs a great opportunity in 2018. The challenge though is that the DEMs need to offer more than just criticism. They need to offer a path to more better jobs for low academic low skill Americans, and part of that is to limit the influx of more low academic low skill immigrants with whom they have to compete. It will be interesting to see the DEMs plan... Or if they are going to continue to artificially drive up wages through government laws while flooding the market with more low end labor... "

You know

Conservative justice: To many of us, suggests; you get justice if you are born, white, male, hetero-sexual and reasonably well off. Good old Sheriff Joe Arpaio was the poster child for "conservative justice".
How do our personal values align with the goal of America? refresher, its the "Preamble". We don't get to chose our own preamble, just like we don't get to chose what parts of the constitution are applicable. As we get wiser about our world shouldn't we adjust accordingly? We don't burn witches at the stake anymore, at least some of us.
"Liberalism": is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.
First derivative: Liberals are proud to believe in "All men are created equal" no matter, race, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation. Seems to very clearly support "We the people" "in order to form a more perfect union"
Seems liberalism is a "We" perspective, where conservatism is a "me" perspective. We'll leave the rest for now.

Difference of Perspective

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I am pretty sure both Liberals and Conservatives fully support "The Preamble". How to "Promote the General Welfare" seems to be where the perspectives vary greatly.

As for people who entered the country illegally or over stayed their Visa, and are now working jobs that legal American workers could be doing... Thus putting downward pressure on wages and contributing to the high unemployment rate within certain segments of Americans. That is a good example.

Is allowing illegal workers to come and stay in the USA good for the general welfare of American citizens? Does it support tranquility or justice?

Please remember there are supposedly ~95,000 illegal workers in MN. What do you think would happen to wages, minority unemployment rates, etc if they were not here?