At this point, it’s worth wondering: Would anything change Trump’s approval ratings?

REUTERS/Carlos Barria
President Donald Trump’s approval numbers remain “under water,” meaning there are more disapprovers than approvers, and that this has been the case since the first month of his Oval tenure.

Like “The Dude” in “The Big Lebowski,” President Donald Trump’s approval rating abides.

As regular readers know, once a month or so I review the most recent ups and downs of Trump’s approval ratings. When, I started the exercise, I certainly thought it would be more interesting: that is, that it would fly around a lot more. But, once again, I was wrong. And, as usual, the most recent numbers haven’t made any significant movement in the past month.

When I last wrote about it on June 18, his Gallup approval number was 45 percent; disapproval was 50. Monday, his Gallup numbers were 42/54. Yes, it’s true, that’s worse than a month ago — but not significantly. If you look at the whole chart, that 45 percent was highest it had been in a while, so the drop to 42 is merely a return to the previous norm.

The lack of movement in the current incumbent’s approval numbers are even more clear if you look at the Huffington Post’s average of many approval polls. By that reckoning, he is currently at 43.7 percent approval/52.7 disapproval. That compares with 43.2/51.8 percent on June 18.

In other words, taking margins of error into consideration, there is no change — just as there has been no change in more than a year.

Of course, it’s worth mentioning (although he never mentions it) that Trump’s approval numbers remain “under water,” meaning there are more disapprovers than approvers, and that this has been the case since the first month of his Oval tenure, and that no previous president has ever been underwater during an entire term. And while that fact is amazingly bad, it doesn’t amaze me as much as the fact that his numbers are so (also unprecedentedly) stable.

I was especially interested to see whether the president’s so-awful-some-called-it-treasonous performance opposite Vladimir Putin in Helsinki might have caused some of his approvers to have a rethink. But while I was waiting for the new Gallup weekly number to come out so I could write this update, I came across a months-old piece based on a poll in which people were asked what should happen if evidence proved that Trump had indeed colluded with Russian interference in the 2016 election.

In that December, 2017 Public Policy Polling poll as reported by “The Independent”:

Just 14 per cent of Trump voters said he should resign in the event that special counsel Robert Mueller or the congressional intelligence committees find that his campaign colluded with Russia. On the other hand, 77 percent of Trump voters believe he should remain in office if the collusion claims are proven true. When Democrats and independent voters were factored into the results, 37 per cent of respondents said they believed Trump should stay in office if his campaign team colluded with Russia.

The survey also found that 52 per cent of respondents believe members of Trump’s campaign team worked with Russia to help him clinch the presidency. The results were split along partisan lines: while 86 per cent of those who voted for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton believe the Trump-Russia allegations, just 13 percent of Trump voters do.

I could, of course, remind you that Trump once bragged that his supporters were so loyal that they would not abandon him if he stood in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shot somebody. At the time, I thought he was wrong. In fact, I even thought that his admirers might be offended by the brag which (to my eyes) portrayed them as mindless love slaves to a megalomaniac. I was wrong.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (77)

  1. Submitted by Gerald Abrahamson on 07/24/2018 - 09:14 am.

    Just ONE thing: His resignation.

    He is the definition of the biggest loser (IMO).

    • Submitted by Melissa Roberts on 07/24/2018 - 12:45 pm.

      Facts say otherwise

      NBC/WSJ Poll
      Trump’s approval ratings:
      45% of all registered voters
      88% of Republican voters

      • Submitted by LK WOODRUFF on 07/24/2018 - 05:42 pm.

        But at what costs???????

        Hitler and the Nazis had their supporters and followers, too.
        That never meant they were right in their thoughts or actions.

        It took a collaborative world war to end things, finally.
        But only after horrific suffering, many, many deaths and great loss…..

        They didn’t have the internet back then, with instant access to data and information.
        Communications, and therefore also actions, took more time.

        BUT propaganda proved very effective because it was based on lies and fears.
        Just as it is now, by Trump, his family, admin/regime, Putin, and FOX & other R wing ‘media’.

        Thinking, rational Americans needs to step up and speak up. NOW!
        If we hope to prevent an ugly repeat of power abuse on a global scale.

        We do NOT have to wait until Trump runs out his term, or coordinates a 2nd ‘win’ with Russian ‘influence’. We have options available to us now. The will of the people can and must drive necessary actions. Mueller et al’s evidence will override Trump and others’ many, many lies.

        Stop making excuses. Stop giving Trump and his corrupt criminal circle still more chances.
        Stop rolling over for them like gutless wonders. Take off the rose-colored glasses.

        Remove every last one from office and clean house.
        Because he and they are the biggest national security threat this country has ever faced.
        And our kids and grandkids deserve far, far better!

      • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 07/24/2018 - 07:21 pm.

        More currently

        Looking at FiveThirtyEight’s aggregate of current polls, his popularity is still around 41%.

  2. Submitted by Paul Brandon on 07/24/2018 - 09:37 am.


    Numerous surveys have shown that Trump’s hardcore supporters will support him no matter how much he contravenes their basic values, and how much his actions cost them. They’re supporting a symbol, not a person.
    His action support in the electorate as a whole has stayed steady (within the error of measurement) at around 40%. So he lost the election badly, and squeaked through in the Electoral College.
    So the question is whether his actions will cost him enough swing voters to cost him the election in 2020, and whether he will be an albatross around the neck of the Republican paarty beyond his base in 2018.

    • Submitted by Misty Martin on 07/24/2018 - 12:36 pm.

      Paul, you are so right . . .

      As a Christian myself, I have many Christian friends, and yes, I have YET to meet ONE who disapproves of Trump. Often they will tell me – it’s the policies that we approve of, not the person, knowing that nothing that President Trump seems to do conveys in any way any of the truths that we learn in the Bible. These people truly believe that President Obama was “evil” (I had one such godly lady tell me that!) and that Hillary Clinton was evil, and that things are SO much better now under President Trump. These same people did NOT like President Jimmy Carter either. President Carter, a born-again Christian, is considered to have had a weak presidency, according to their standards. In fact, the whole Democratic party is considered socialist, and maybe just a fraction away from being communistic – again, according to these evangelical points of view – NOT mine.

      I must confess that I just “don’t get it”, and even though I do pray for President Trump and his administration, as it says in the Bible to pray for the leaders of one’s nation, and to pray for our enemies (and I figure he’s in there somewhere, lol) I just cannot make myself say that I approve of him, because I truly do not. And as for these evangelicals so afraid that that the Democratic party will somehow turn us into Socialists, I am more afraid of a President who obviously likes to associate with dictators such as Russian President Vladimir Putin.

      Still, I am putting my faith in the Lord, who is Sovereign over us all, and who knows and controls the future. But I will not support a President who stands against all the values that I place a high premium on. I just WON’T.

      • Submitted by Karen Sandness on 07/27/2018 - 11:11 am.

        Support among Christians?

        That’s true only if you are in the habit of including only Evangelicals as Christians. There are plenty of Christians in the mainline denominations who are appalled at the current Republican president. Even the more educated Evangelicals of my acquaintance voted for Hillary or didn’t vote at all in the 2016 election.

        As the daughter of a Lutheran pastor in what later became the ELCA, I am mighty suspicious of the way megachurches have been springing up like toadstools after a rainstorm in every suburb in every state I’ve ever visited. (Denominational churches start small and meet in rented space for years until they acquire the wherewithal to buy or build their own building.)

        Most of the megachurches are “non-denominational,” which is meant to sound like something desirable, but what it actually means is that no one is making sure that they teach actual Christian doctrine (instead of the prosperity gospel or American jingoism) and that their finances are in order and not used to enrich the minister’s personal wealth. Often the ministers have no theological or even college training and have “ordained” themselves. (A perfect front for a con man–start a “church” and reel in well-meaning people who have been conditioned to believe that “Christian” equals “good.”)

        I have met members of these megachurches who live in a perfect bubble. All their friends are from the church, their children attend the school that is associated with the church, and they watch and read only media approved by their church, including a “news” magazine that is formatted like “Time” and contains mostly right-wing politics with a few religious articles and advertisements for Bible colleges in the back.

        It is known that certain right-wing foundations, such as the Scaife, Olin, and Bradley Foundations, are funding think tanks that are trying to lead the mainline denominations in politically conservative directions. The way the megachurch Evangelicals have been conned into supporting a president whose life and legislative efforts are 180° from what Christ taught suggests that the “non-denominational” megachurches are receiving similar support.

        The support for the current Republican president is not surprising if my assumptions are correct.

  3. Submitted by Paul Brandon on 07/24/2018 - 09:38 am.

    And remember….

    Approval ratings are not Electoral College votes.
    Gerry Mander lives.

    • Submitted by Robert Owen on 07/24/2018 - 10:28 am.

      Remember what?

      Gerrymandering has nothing to do with the Electoral College. State lines were not manipulated or drawn in funny shapes to make one political party stronger than any other party.

      • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 07/24/2018 - 10:59 am.

        We’ve been through this before

        Gerrymandering determines who controls state legislatures and thus who gets the states’ electoral votes.

        • Submitted by John Webster on 07/24/2018 - 01:33 pm.

          Wrong Again

          At least 45 states award all electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes STATEWIDE. You can’t gerrymander a state. Good grief.

          • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 07/24/2018 - 03:49 pm.

            Maine and Nebraska

            All the other states ward electors on a winner-take-all basis.
            However, the -number- of electors in each state is not based simply on the population of that state.
            Otherwise, the Electoral College would have the same outcome as the popular vote and Clinton would be President. That’s why it is possible for a candidate to lose the popular vote (as Trump and Bush did) and still become President. This is not technically gerrymandering but it is the same principle; allowing a minority vote to win an election.
            And remember, it wouldn’t take more than three states to change the election outcome in the EC.
            And cynically, whoever controls the legislature controls the voting procedures in that state.
            Note that a court already tossed out Pennsylvania’s gerrymandering (one of the states which gave Trump his ‘win’).
            Also note that electors are -not- (in most states) legally bound to vote for a given candidate, although they usually do. The states choose their electors, who in turn choose the President.
            Also, of course, the electors are originally selected by the political parties.
            It’s a messy and complex process.
            for details.

        • Submitted by Ray J Wallin on 07/24/2018 - 06:35 pm.

          Clarification please …

          Are you implying that gerrymandering got Trump elected, or helped him get elected? Are you just saying that out of the blue, or can you show us where gerrymander gave him extra electoral votes?

          • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 07/25/2018 - 09:16 am.

            See the above

            It’s hard to point to a specific state, since we don’t know exactly what court commission-defined districts would look like, but it’s hard to find another reason for the gap between the popular and EC outcomes.
            Some people’s votes clearly counted for more than others.

            • Submitted by Ray J Wallin on 07/25/2018 - 05:55 pm.


              It’s hard to find another reason, so you pick gerrymandering out of thin air?

              Gerrymandering is the “intentional” drawing of districts to benefit one party. Are you saying the original framers intentionally organized the 50 states to benefit Republicans in 2016?

              • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 07/26/2018 - 09:34 am.


                I’m saying that the parties that control state legislatures have redrawn districts to concentrate opposing voters in as few districts as possible, so that a majority of the voters end up controlling a minority of districts. The framers left the organization of the states to the states. The Constitution is concerned mainly with the states’ relationships among themselves.

                • Submitted by Ray J Wallin on 07/26/2018 - 12:58 pm.

                  You have not answered my question.

                  You’ve explained ‘packing,’ a form of gerrymandering. Gerrymandering affects legislative districts, not the electoral college.

                  And you’ve explained the constitution. That’s all nice, but you have not answered my initial inquiry.

                  You made a statement that gerrymandering influences the electoral college. I am asking specifically where your proof is?

                  • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 07/26/2018 - 02:59 pm.

                    I cannot provide proof.

                    Political ‘science’ is not really science so proof (which is really a mathematical concept, not a scientific one) can seldom be provided. What can (and has) been provided is a set of circumstances which seems to be the most likely account of what we have seen happening. Alternative accounts are welcome. How do -you- account for the circumstances which enabled a clear minority of voters to produce a majority of electors?

                    • Submitted by Ray J Wallin on 07/26/2018 - 05:48 pm.


                      I don’t think you understand. You cannot gerrymander the electoral college. Period.

                    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 07/29/2018 - 02:05 pm.

                      For a good discussion


                    • Submitted by Ray J Wallin on 07/30/2018 - 09:54 pm.

                      Organic? Really?

                      Wow, congratulations. You’ve come across some fake news! Brought to you by the Washington Post! You should be disappointed in them for feeding you propaganda.

                      The author of the WP article knows this and makes a nice play on words later in the article, calling the electoral college an ‘organic’ gerrymander. In that vein, I guess most cities are ‘organically’ gerrymandered to elect Democrats and rural areas are ‘organically’ gerrymandered to elect pro-life candidates… I could keep going…

                      Again, Gerrymandering is the intentional manipulation of district boundaries to give one party an advantage over another. The title of the article is designed to draw readers in, but the paper’s editors should have flagged it before it was published.

                    • Submitted by Elsa Mack on 07/27/2018 - 09:31 am.


                      The one way I imagine gerrymandering might relate to Trump’s electoral college victory is that most people now live in districts where the results of local elections are basically pre-decided, so they may feel less interest or urgency about voting in general.

                      However, it was clearly the electoral college system, which gives rural voters more power than urban voters, which has led us to minority rule.

                    • Submitted by Ray J Wallin on 07/27/2018 - 05:06 pm.


                      Yes, your second point is exactly on target.

                      Your first point applies to legislative elections where, for instance, in cities, the Democratic candidate always wins. I have not seen data that indicates that such an effect applies to presidential elections.

  4. Submitted by Ray Schoch on 07/24/2018 - 10:22 am.

    True believers

    …are not swayed by reason or facts. Trump supporters are the secular (mostly) equivalent of religious zealots. I think Paul Brandon is on-target in suggesting that those supporters are propping up a symbol, not a person. I also have to agree with Eric about the consequences of Trump’s now-numerous demonstrations of autocratic tendencies, with the now-usual litany of incidents of outright lies, vindictiveness against critics, an inferiority complex requiring constant boosting of overly-sensitive ego, fear of women, etc., etc., ad nauseum. I thought those kinds of things would keep him from the Oval Office in the first place, or would quickly render him so much beyond the pale that he’s be effectively powerless as President.

    I was wrong.

    Trump in office is disturbing enough, but I’m equally disturbed by the very numbers that Eric has referred to for lo, these many months. That 40-something percent of the electorate give him a favorable rating is mind-boggling, and not in a good way. In order to function, not just effectively, but to function at all, democracy requires a certain minimal level of goodwill. Treating your political opponents as the “loyal opposition” is pretty much the minimum expectation, so when Trump and his supporters – as repeatedly demonstrated by groups of citizens and Congressional Republicans – assume that critics are enemies that need to be silenced (everything from declaring factual news reports as “fake news” to floating the idea of rescinding security clearances for former national security personnel), that Hillary Clinton’s emails still constitute a genuine issue 18 months and more after the election that made them irrelevant, that an actual wall has to be built to keep out people of color from south of the border, and numerous other examples, we’re looking at a sizable segment of the electorate who are not only susceptible to the siren song of the demagogue, but are actively seeking it out.

    Trump is the racist, greedy, misogynistic bigot who best reflects their own view of the world. THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is a sobering thought for a nation that likes to think of itself as representing the “City on a hill” so beloved by John Calvin’s Puritan followers, and, of course, the character traits Trump has so blatantly demonstrated since taking office fit no definition of Christianity that theologians would recognize. That people who like to think of themselves as “conservative Christians” continue to support him merely illustrates the shallowness of both their “conservatism” and their Christianity.

  5. Submitted by Robert Moffitt on 07/24/2018 - 10:25 am.

    His numbers say less about him than they do about us

    We are not the America I thought we were before the election. No matter what happens now, I will never think of my country in the same way again.

    • Submitted by Patrick Tice on 07/24/2018 - 05:19 pm.

      I feel the same way

      Profoundly disappointed in our country and sad to see it decline and lose its way in the world.

    • Submitted by Pat Berg on 07/25/2018 - 07:47 am.

      Yes. This.

      As much as I am deeply upset by the fact that we have to live with Trump as our President, I am equally dismayed by the fact that his election and continued support has brought into the light the existence of a segment of this country’s population that I never before knew existed in such numbers.

      It’s not the country I thought it was.

    • Submitted by Marc Post on 07/25/2018 - 09:42 am.

      I agree

      I too am shocked and dismayed to realize our country has such a large population of bigots, racists, liars, homophobes, xenophobes and fake Christians. I thought it was a small segment, but now I see the truth. About 40%.

      A shining city on the hill? Maybe, but surrounded by a gigantic sewer that stinks up the whole city.

      I am ashamed of my country.

  6. Submitted by James Hamilton on 07/24/2018 - 10:25 am.

    There will come a time when it will be very difficult to find anyone who will publicly admit having been an ardent supporter of Donald Trump. Like the members of Nixon’s “Silent Majority” they will slip into the shadows, to emerge as proud members of the former opposition.

    Those who don’t believe this need only look at the changing poll numbers on the Vietnam and Iraq wars.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 07/24/2018 - 11:00 am.

      By then

      it may be too late.
      Germans said the same things about the Nazis.

    • Submitted by Neal Rovick on 07/24/2018 - 11:22 am.

      I would think the model is more of St. Ronald. The headline scandal was the Iran-Contra deal and his administration was notable for the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any U.S. president. Bright-line illegal acts were committed throughout his administration but he is still the saint because….?

      You know, Republicans have had an awful lot of criminality and subversion of governmental institutions and norms to overlook in the lineage of Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Trump. So at what point should we believe that Republicans will change their spots?

      • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 07/24/2018 - 11:36 am.

        Crime in the Suites

        It’s interesting that you would note the Republican heritage of criminality and subversion of governmental institutions. The four most lawless or corrupt administrations in our history–Grant, Harding, Nixon, Reagan–have all been Republican. Now, the name “Trump” can be added to that illustrious roster.

        I’m also not interested in hearing how “both sides do it.” That may be true, but Republicans hold the records.

        • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 07/24/2018 - 07:15 pm.


          It’s like comparing a jaywalker to a murderer.
          Both are breaking the law, but the crimes themselves are hardly equivalent.

  7. Submitted by Neal Rovick on 07/24/2018 - 10:28 am.

    What is the long-term consequence on the creation of a significant segment of the population who are for Trump no matter what wrongs he is shown to have committed ?

    Should it be a matter of no consequence that there was active collusion with a foreign power to achieve the leadership of this country ? We have a segment of media and one party that supports that idea wholeheartedly. No matter what is revealed, no matter the blow-back of the failed policies and plan, they gladly turn over their futures to him and blame the “other” for their difficulties..

    The cult of personality is where totalitarianism begins. It should be of note that the politicians that Trump most admires are those who are leaders for life.

    The ultimate stop to this nonsense is his age. His personal insecurities will prevent him from building an effective dynasty, but there will be segment of the population that will mourn his passing for the rest of their lives. In a way, this would probably save the republic more than a trial and conviction based on the laws of the land–can you imagine the tenor of discussion (action ?) with Trump on trial ?

    The cleaving of America.

  8. Submitted by Edward Blaise on 07/24/2018 - 10:32 am.

    And more…

    It is interesting that GWB bottomed out at 25/70 in the Fall of 2008. Would an economic downfall similarly effect Trump? I do not think so. Why did a mainstream R, who at one point topped at 90/6 after 9 11 lose almost all his core of support? I would say that the difference is Trump has such an extreme personality that those that strongly bought in ain’t leaving because to leave would be an admission of extreme bad judgement to support him in the first place. They will be sending cakes with hacksaws in them to Trump in Leavenworth.

    Not sure about collusion implications: Dershowitz is a smart guy and he finds an argument for no collusion consequences.

    The consequences will come from Mueller collateral damage relating to Trump and Russia money. As reported and soon to be confirmed:

    “In 2008, Donald Jr. told investors in Moscow that “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” while Eric reportedly told a golf reporter in 2014 that the Trump Organization was able to expand during the financial crisis because “We don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.”

    Trading our standing within NATO and other allies for some help on a few (or a lot) of real estate loans from Russia and lying about it will be Trump’s undoing.

  9. Submitted by Henk Tobias on 07/24/2018 - 06:09 pm.

    Its a Cult

    And there is very little that can sway the cult members, he hates the same people they hate, he punished those that they want punishes and as long as he keeps doing that, it all good.

  10. Submitted by John Webster on 07/24/2018 - 01:14 pm.

    Ditto for Obama

    Trump no doubt has many millions of people who are cult-like believers and who will support him no matter what. But so did Obama. Democrats can quite easily beat Trump in 2020 if they nominate a moderate liberal/centrist who genuinely opposes open borders immigration and other identity politics lunacy. That’s not likely given the ever increasing power of the crazed Left in Democratic primaries. Barring an obvious calamity (economic or foreign policy) Trump is likely to be re-elected. America is not just one big college campus where everyone thinks alike and dissenting opinions are suppressed.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 07/24/2018 - 02:10 pm.

      Sounds like

      another Republican telling Democrats to nominate a Republican-lite.
      That would be good for the Republicans.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 07/24/2018 - 03:26 pm.

      Ditto, Ditto

      It’s funny, but I’ve been hearing about this cult-like devotion to Obama for the past decade. The funny part is that it seems to be only conservatives who bring it up. Every liberal I’ve known has had things about Obama they didn’t like, or policies of which they didn’t approve. Conservatives just seemed to hate the idea of him, so they project this “liberals think Obama is the Messiah” attitude on him.

      Putting that aside, Obama developed his following on a message of hope. Trump has built his on bitterness. What a guy, right?

      “America is not just one big college campus where everyone thinks alike and dissenting opinions are suppressed.” The free press is the enemy of the people, criticizing Trump will get your security clearance revoked, but hey, we aren’t suppressing anything.

  11. Submitted by Jim Bernstein on 07/24/2018 - 01:42 pm.

    The Hilary Factor

    Depending on which analysis one reads, one segment of the Trump 2016 vote (between 20-30%) was driven more by a fierce hatred of Hilary Clinton than their love of Donald Trump. While I still don’t understand where that hatred comes from, I am curious if that sector of the Trump base turns out in high numbers in November given that she is not on the ballot.

    Mr. Trump himself continues to use Hilary Clinton as the whipping girl for his faithful but will that translate into votes for Republican candidates in 2018 like it did two years ago?

  12. Submitted by Tom Christensen on 07/24/2018 - 10:03 pm.

    I don’t believe the polls matter.

    Mr. Mueller holds the cards at this point, base or no base.

    I just can’t figure out what Trump’s base holds onto. Trump has accomplished very little and that which he has accomplished we don’t know if it has any positive staying power or not. Trump uses the repeat and repeat method of spreading his fiction. Pretty soon some start to believe that his fiction is true because they have heard it before when in fact it is a fallacy.

    Whether Trump has accomplished anything positive or not he has done more to harm our society than he could ever do good. Trump is nothing more than a conman who has expanded the swamp.

  13. Submitted by joe smith on 07/25/2018 - 07:09 am.

    Folks who support Trump look beyond

    the MSM losing their mind over every word that comes out of President Trump’s mouth. When Trump told Germany and Merkel to pay up 2% to NATO for their own defense, the Left went crazy. If you take a minute to look at that situation, you realize Trump is correct. Germany pays Russia billions of dollars for their energy (feeding the Russian military) but won’t pay their 2% to NATO. They ask the USA to put in 100’s of billions to protect them from Russia while feeding the Russian army themselves. That hysteria falls on deaf ears for Trump supporters. Another issue that had the Left up in arms, North Korea. When Trump threatened to blow up N. Korea the media went crazy saying Trump was a neocon and leading the USA into a war. When he met with Kim Jong Un he was appeasing China and too soft on North Korea. That was all within a month, hard to take that too seriously. Remember when Stormy Daniels was a huge issue with the MSM (her lawyer was on cable TV hourly for 2 weeks). President Trump was a scoundrel and couldn’t be trusted, the Left claimed, two words for the Left, Bill Clinton. Again, hard to take seriously. Tariffs were and are a huge issue for all Americans. It is reported that the USA is fighting Canada on Steel/aluminum tariffs. What is actually happening is Canada buying Chinese steel/aluminum (Canada has one operating steel plant) and pushing it across the border under NAFTA rules. This hurts the mining, shipping and steel making here in the USA. Canada is only a proxy for China and the dumping of steel products on the USA. Again, a fight worth having for many Americans.
    This goes on for 24/7 with the MSM and Trump supporters tune out the noise. Trump supporters see a President fighting for them and doesn’t care what issue the MSM decides is ruining America this week.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 07/25/2018 - 09:21 am.

      Are you going to believe me

      or are you going to believe your own lying eyes?
      I’d suggest that you learn how NATO is funded (Trump didn’t).

      • Submitted by joe smith on 07/25/2018 - 01:10 pm.

        We pay over 600B to NATO

        annually protecting the European countries from Russia. So when Germany pays Russia 10’s of Billions for energy, it doesn’t make sense to most Americans. Not that hard to see if you take off the political bias glasses.

        • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 07/25/2018 - 01:33 pm.

          NATO is not about “protecting the European countries from Russia.” NATO is a collective defense pact. Article 5 of the NATO Charter says that an attack on one member nation is an attack on all.

          Article 5 has been invoked only once since the formation of the alliance. Do you know why? Hint: It’s tied in with soldiers from Montenegro fighting in Afghanistan.

          • Submitted by joe smith on 07/25/2018 - 05:23 pm.

            What other global threat to Europe exists

            besides Russia?? Until 1955, with the Warsaw Pact, NATO was nothing more than a coalition of nations and talk. After the Warsaw Pact they combined forces to combat Russia. So yes, NATO is a force of nations assembled to combat Russia.
            Problem with NATO is the troops are poorly trained, not well equipped and worse of all can’t mobilize their forces quickly. We pay over 600B annually and as far as I can see don’t get much in return!!
            Bringing it back to the original subject, Trump has every right to demand all NATO countries pay their share and Germany buying natural gas from Russia to the tune of Billions, needs to be called out.

            • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 07/26/2018 - 09:18 am.

              “Global Threat to Europe”

              What threat to Europe led to the deployment of NATO troops in Afghanistan?

              “Bringing it back to the original subject, Trump has every right to demand all NATO countries pay their share . . .” And as an American citizen, every bit as “real” as any Trump supporter, I have the right to demand that the President show he has some grip on reality. There is no binding commitment on NATO members to spend at a certain level on their military. The 2% of GDP figure is a target, not a commitment. To say that other members are not paying their share also leaves out the US strategic interests in collective defense. He’s lying again, and it’s another lie Trump supporters are overlooking, because “MAGA, MAGA, lock her up!”

              “[A]nd Germany buying natural gas from Russia to the tune of Billions, needs to be called out.” Let’s call out the fact that it would take considerable time and money for Germany to buy its natural gas from any other source. If it isn’t transmitted through a pipeline, gas has to be liquified and shipped on a special tanker to a specialized terminal. It’s more economical to buy the gas via pipeline.

              It would be like, say, a megalomaniac in the United States having his personal branded items of apparel, his trademark cult-member hats, and his campaign signs manufactured in China, rather than in the US. It’s cheaper, and anyway, “lock her up!”

        • Submitted by Neal Rovick on 07/25/2018 - 05:01 pm.

          $ 600 billion to NATO ??This

          $ 600 billion to NATO ??

          This is the sad form of pernicious ignorance that Trump fosters.

          $600 billion dollars is the total enormous amount that the US chooses to spend on all categories of defense–the spending on NATO is a tiny fraction of that.

          NATO’s military budget for 2018 is $ 1.55 billion, civil budget is $ 0.29 billion and $ 0.82 billion for strategic investment–less than $ 3 billion total.

          The US pays around 22% of that $3 billion, or well under $ 1 billion.

          $ 1 billion versus $ 600 billion.

          You really need to do some studying.

    • Submitted by Frank Phelan on 07/25/2018 - 12:48 pm.

      You Forgot

      The sea of red ink that is swamping the nation. Another great GOP accomplishment.

      Oh wait, that’s right, conservatives hate deficit spending. Let’s just sweep that under the rug until adults are in charge again, OK? Even the dreaded MSM never brings it up any more.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 07/25/2018 - 01:14 pm.

      Folks Who Support Trump

      Trump gains his support from people who hate. They hate feminists, they hate gays, they hate urban elitists, they hate immigrants . . . The list goes on. They are so committed to their hatreds that they will willingly be lied to and deceived by an utter incompetent than give any ground.

      “President Trump was a scoundrel and couldn’t be trusted, the Left claimed, two words for the Left, Bill Clinton.” Trump supporters should now be shutting their collective piehole about Clinton. Not only is moral bankruptcy to hang your defense of the man on “Look at what someone else did!” you are defending someone whose amorality reaches proportions never before seen in a President (Nixon, I believe, had enough moral sense to try to hide what he was doing).

      “Trump supporters see a President fighting for them . . .” Really? Who would that be? It certainly isn’t Donald Trump.

      • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 07/25/2018 - 02:00 pm.

        The difference

        is that Clinton was amoral in matters affecting his private life, not in his governance of the country.
        He certainly did not enrich himself while in office by exploiting the power of the presidency.
        The worst that can be said is that after he left office he used his prestige to raise money for a foundation which did in fact benefit the people it was established to help. The Trump Foundation, on the other hand, has been shown to be a money laundering scheme (the infamous portrait).

      • Submitted by Bob Petersen on 07/25/2018 - 04:16 pm.

        Holy Hannah

        Your comment on those that support Trump fully fit the narrative of hate…by those that hate Trump. And it is all because of so many people that aren’t listening and only want to continue with the politics of identity. Okay, Trump’s use of language is far from great. But there are many in the electorate who were sick and tired of people that want to put America second as Obama did, of people that give more to those who rape and kill Americans than our own citizens, that continue to allow groups of people to run roughshod and do what they want like ISIS and Putin taking over Crimea, and of leaders who only care about their own legacies over the needs of the country. Let’s not forget the constant demonization of whole swaths of the electorate because they cling to their guns and religion as well as the recent electoral calls that women who don’t vote for Hillary are being brainwashed by men. So which side has the hate?

        • Submitted by ian wade on 07/27/2018 - 12:43 pm.

          Obama put America second?

          I must have missed that meeting. In fact, I don’t recall Obama “giving more to those who rape and kill Americans than our own citizens ” either. As for “guns and religion” quote, let’s look at in full context…

          “You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them,” Obama said. “And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

          Sorry, Bob. President Obama was spot on and the proof is occupying the Oval Office right now.

        • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 07/27/2018 - 12:54 pm.

          “Okay, Trump’s use of language is far from great.”

          Do you know what else is :far from great?” The cheers his supporters emit when he lets fly his “far from great” rantings. The admiration they have for his refusal to give in to “political correctness.” The ease with which they can be mobilized by appeals to their bigotry (or do you think it was a wise and prudent thing for the right wing to lose its collective mind over where a transgendered person relieves themselves?).

          That’s what’s “far from great.”

    • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 07/25/2018 - 02:10 pm.

      Well, not exactly…

      We have a trade surplus with Canada. Yes that’s right: We have a trade surplus with Canada. In a Trumpian world Canada should be imposing tariffs on us. Instead we are imposing tariffs on them without a stated goal of what we want the tariffs to achieve:

      “U.S. exports were $320.1 billion, while imports were $307.6 billion. The United States had a $12.5 billion trade surplus with Canada in 2016. Canada has historically held a trade deficit with the United States in every year since 1985 in net trade of goods, excluding services.”

      Why is he doing this? Simply because he thought he got dissed by Trudeau. That is our President: Settle little petty, personal grievances with the full power and authority of the US government. While all the Trumpians find this egotistical bluster entertaining, it will lose some of its’ shine when missiles start flying and boots hit the ground because Trump wants to show how tough he is. Let’s hope he keeps it to TWEETING IN CAPITAL LETTERS.

  14. Submitted by Curtis Senker on 07/25/2018 - 09:38 am.

    Leftist talking heads were all assuring the faithful that OMG! Trump’s tariffs are gonna tank the stock market!!!

    Not a twitch.

    Know why? Investors are looking at the long game. They know if Europe blinks, especially Germany, and lowers the outrageous tariffs on US made cars, everyone is going to reap billions. They’re confident enough it’s going to happen that they’re standing pat.

    China is a harder nut to crack, but Trump has just announced he’s going to subsidize our farmers, like the Chinese do. Market analysts are happy, happy, happy, and so are the farmers.

    I hate to break it to y’all but if you’re hoping for a big change in the polls, there’s one coming, but not in the direction you think.

    Gonna be swell.

    • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 07/25/2018 - 11:36 am.

      Or not…

      Sorry to say that Americans historically like their politicians honest, fair, likable and with some degree of humility. Both candidates were historically challenged on these features last time. Only one will be next time if Mr. Trump can survive Putin and Mueller….

    • Submitted by Neal Rovick on 07/25/2018 - 12:36 pm.

      You seem to believe that there are giant untapped markets for the pickup/SUV vehicles that the US market loves and US-based makers make.

      It ain’t so. They don’t want what the US makers specialize in making.

      • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 07/25/2018 - 02:03 pm.


        Anyone who’s been in China or Europe knows that their pickups and SUVs (which are used more for business and less as family vehicles) are smaller and more fuel efficient that ours, as are the sedans.

    • Submitted by Frank Phelan on 07/25/2018 - 12:44 pm.

      FDR Lives!

      Don Trump is reviving a New Deal era welfare program for farmers.

      Another program that is anathema to the GOP, but the gutless wonders that run Congress will roll over again. Because, tax giveaways to the uber wealthy and judges are reason enough to sell one’s soul.

      So much for the conservative adage that it’s better to have a paycheck than a welfare check and the harm that does to one’s psyche.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 07/25/2018 - 01:07 pm.

      Jusst Like the Chinesse!

      “China is a harder nut to crack, but Trump has just announced he’s going to subsidize our farmers, like the Chinese do.” Where is this money going to come from? Of course–we’ll just borrow it from the Chinese! Put it on our tab, won’t you, fellows?

      “Market analysts are happy, happy, happy, and so are the farmers.” That’s not what I hear. I hear farmers would rather be selling their crops than taking subsidies (silly me–I almost said “welfare”).

      I hate to break it to y’all, but $12 billion is just a temporary fix, and it assumes that America will have been made great again within a few months. Do you know any economist with credentials beyond “I used to be on TV” who thinks that? What’s going to happen when the trade war goes on past the midterms? Are farmers going to get another bailout, making them even more dependent on government largess (I know–that only happens in the cities, to people who are . . . um, that just happens in the cities)? Will we extend this to other industries that start to feel the pain of the easily won war? Harley Davidson took measures to protect itself from the market fallout from retaliatory tariffs, and got a good chewing out by the Chewer in Chief. Are we only protecting farmers? Why not factory workers?

      Gonna be swell, if by “swell” you mean “a situation that could be improved by anyone who passed a basic economics course.”

      • Submitted by Curtis Senker on 07/27/2018 - 09:10 am.

        Oh, what’s this?”Trump

        Oh, what’s this?

        “Trump secures concessions from EU to avoid trade war: Wall Street Journal”

        As y’all might know, this agreement includes a commitment from the EU to buy more US soybeans.

        Let’s recap: Trump has deployed subsidies and secured alternative markets for soybeans; stock market soars….hmmm, I wonder what the Chinese might be thinking?

        I’m guessing they’re thinking it’s not gonna be quite as swell for them as it has been.

        • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 07/27/2018 - 12:00 pm.

          Here’s a Hint: It’s Nothing

          The “concessions” that Trump secured from the EU are basically a cease-fire. In other words, the crisis that Trump created is on hold now. Statecraft at its finest! It’s like an arsonist putting out the fire he set.

          As y’all might not care to acknowledge, the commitments are vague promises to do more in the future, and to talk about further reductions in tariffs. There are no targets to hit for importing either soybeans or LNG. EU officials privately call the whole meeting “talks about talks.” Nothing substantive was completed, but things have calmed down somewhat.

          Interestingly, the talks will revive the discussions about a transatlantic trading partnership. The idea started under Obama, but was scrapped because it was from Obama. The Trump minions are denying that it was anything like the Obama talks, of course, but they have to. Can’t risk alienating that base, can we?

          “[H]mmm, I wonder what the Chinese might be thinking?” They’re thinking that Kim is right. Trump really can be played like a guqin. Seriously, you don’t really think they have any respect for the man, do you? They’re also thinking that buying soybeans from Brazil is better than having their agricultural markets subject to disruption from an erratic megalomaniac.

          Speaking of swell, “The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Juncker came to the meeting in Washington well-prepared, with ‘more than a dozen colorful cue cards with simplified explainers,’ such as numbers and factoids about complex topics including automotive trade. Each easy-to-read card had, at most, three figures, a senior European Union official told the Journal.” I’m glad we had such a stable genius representing us, aren’t you?

          • Submitted by Curtis Senker on 07/27/2018 - 09:40 pm.

            You’re having a tough time, I see. It was easier when Obama crawled across the globe on bended knee, apologizing.

            But that’s not who we are. We are the greatest country on the planet. We are responsible for the majority of the technology that moves us forward as a species.

            We have nothing to apologize for; we’re America.

            Going to be swell; y’all can calm down.

            • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 07/28/2018 - 12:04 pm.

              Take a look at

              the number of patents issued to China and to the U.S.
              That’s Trump’s future.

            • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 07/28/2018 - 01:48 pm.

              You Cannot be Serious

              We have just witnessed the President of the United States cancel a long-standing military exercise with an ally whose security we have guaranteed for over 65 years, just to appease a brutal, savage dictator. After that, this same President insulted other allies and then abased himself before the dictator in charge of Russia–you know, the fellow who sees nothing wrong with interfering with our elections and is now starting to meddle with our electrical infrastructure. After that, you can bring yourself to criticize the way President Obama handled foreign affairs.

              That really is too much. I know conservatives are driven chiefly by hatred for Obama, but this really is taking it too far. An apology for past American transgressions does not begin to compare with overlooking foreign interference with our democracy, which is the thing that makes America truly the greatest nation. It does not begin to compare with the steady stream of lies we have been fed about that interference. The damage Trump is doing to our nation far exceeds any misfeasances by the Kenyan Islamofascist usurper.

              “But that’s not who we are. We are the greatest country on the planet.” Don’t worry, your man Trump will take care of that. After all, it’s how Vladimir Vladimirovich wants it.

        • Submitted by ian wade on 07/27/2018 - 12:32 pm.

          Keep guessing…

          Goldman Sachs doesn’t agree with you.

          “For now, the mood among analysts suggests that optimism for a breakthrough in the U.S. and China tensions is low. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. economists led by Jan Hatzius are among them.

          “Overall, we do not believe that recent positive developments regarding U.S.-EU trade should be interpreted as a reduction in risk in the other major trade dispute, with China. In fact, they likely mean the opposite,” the Goldman economists wrote.”

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 07/25/2018 - 02:05 pm.

      Won’t be much change in the polls

      since Trump is already is already on the floor.

    • Submitted by ian wade on 07/25/2018 - 02:36 pm.

      Farmers and analysts are loving it?

      Hardly. Farmers would rather have trade and Trump throwing them a subsidized bone is band aid at best.

      As for the markets…

      Yeah…there’s change coming all right and the big train that it’s riding on is painted Blue.

      Gonna be swell.

      • Submitted by Frank Phelan on 07/26/2018 - 12:34 pm.

        Call It What It Is

        Subsidized bone? Try welfare, that will raise the tide of red ink even more. Conservatives call this sort of thing creating dependency in order to buy votes.

    • Submitted by Neal Rovick on 07/26/2018 - 08:37 am.

      $ 12 billion agriculture welfare payments ?

      Total US agricultural exports $ 138 billion

      Exports to China, Canada and Mexico $ 60 billion, China alone at about $ 22 billion.

      $ 12 billion is not a replacement for $ 60 billion.

      And there are several EU countries that are already net exporters of soybeans so Trump’s predicted deluge of European (our trade foe !) orders is a usual Trump lie to his believers. There is no great demand there for US soybeans.

  15. Submitted by Hiram Foster on 07/26/2018 - 06:51 am.

    economic isolationism

    The impact of protectionism isn’t sudden, and it isn’t general. Some people are hurt by protectionist policies but protectionism does help others. In a mature economy like ours, it probably has an overall depressing effect. What can happen, and what Trump may perceive is that protectionism may have a positive effect in certain states which voted for him and whose support he needs to win reelection.

    The founders, in their wisdom, created a system that favors some voters over others. If you live in a closely divided states, preferably one with a large number of residents, your vote counts for more. What that can mean is that when interests are in conflict, presidents might very well institute policies that benefit those statements to the detriment of others.

  16. Submitted by Jim Roth on 07/26/2018 - 02:06 pm.

    No. Federal prison or exile in Russia wouldn’t matter

    Trump could be convicted of money laundering, tax evasion, campaign and election fraud etc. or go into exile in Russia and his loyal followers would still love him.

  17. Submitted by M. Berger on 07/31/2018 - 01:47 pm.

    Trump won the electoral votes thanks to a “winner take all” corruption of the state voting systems in 1824. Its taken only 200 years but several law firms have filed suit to shut down this system.

Leave a Reply