Democrats Approve of Trump at High Rate

[Dr. Who]

I've always found it weird how Democrats often blame the election on everything other than campaign tactics.

It has to be Russia's fault, or some other scapegoat. As long as they tilt at windmills, their path to winning in 2020 is going to be rough.

All political parties obfuscate to make themselves either look good or look like the victims of conspiracies. It's more palatable than the truth.

[jet57]

Jet you need to chill out, I dont need any credible source of anything to state my opinion. However if you choose to research you will find how many retractions, corrections and apologies have been issued for this presidents coverage by liberal media.

Explain CNNs ratings being at a 5 yr low and their having the lowest ratings of all cable news. Ill give you a hint, they dont report the news, they lie and make $#@! up and distort and embellish. Hating trump is destroying CNN and it cant happen fast enough for me

Sorry but I don't need to "chill out". Your opinion is nonsense, and I don't watch CNN; I don't have cable. But since you have named them liars, it should be snap for you to point out all their lies.

[jet57]

All the Russians did is expose actual factual emails that even Clinton couldn't deny were real. Yes, Russia having that kind of leverage to hack our systems is pretty troubling but they don't have the power to change anyone's votes. At the end of the day, Clinton and the DNC trying to revive the old "Party Boss" nominating system in secret and Clinton's horribly run campaign are the real reasons she lost to the worst candidate in U.S. political history. Especially after the Access Hollywood scandal, Clinton should have been able to coast to a victory even with her baggage, but she refused to step foot in Wisconsin and Michigan even once during the General, because she just assumed that everyone owed her a turn at the presidency.

The email hacking DID change votes: https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...d-affect-vote/

And I will add that as far as Clinton's campaign went I agree with you 100%. Debbie Wasserman Schultz didn't do her campaign any favors either. Trump won for two reasons: Russian interference and the stupid democrats.

[Common]

Warning

Everyone stop with the bickering

If you have questions or concerns about this moderation action, please use the Report button to let us know.

[jet57]

But the popular vote is irrelevant. Trump didn't win because of cheating, no votes were changed from Clinton to Trump in the actual ballot counting. It was her bad campaign decisions and TRUTH about her and the DNC's collusion to subvert the free, democratic primary process that lost her the election. All she had to do was campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan and we would have likely had a different outcome.

Ditto

[Rationalist]

Not those specific points, but the wider, deeper picture can absolutely and factually be spun as negative. For example, yes unemployment is low - but over 13 million Americans work multiple jobs (Census Bureau), and the number may be even higher than that. Wage growth has continued to go up under Trump, but overall it's still much lower than it was in 2009 (BBC), but is overall still stagnant relative to inflation which the wage growth figures don't take into account ( Washington Post ). None of that even touches on the fact that the unemployment numbers don't take into account how many Americans just gave up looking for work for one reason or another (which, depending on how you count it, could be as high as 94 million, The Nation)

The obvious conclusion is that while some figures like unemployment, the stock market, and wage growth look good, larger factors that spell systemic trouble look bad, like the constantly rising cost of living forcing Americans to work multiple jobs just to get by (which kinda dispels the notion that wage growth is in a good place - if it was, nobody would need to work multiple jobs).

This isn't Trump's problem solely, by the way. It's an issue that has been growing to some degree or another since the 1970s.

There's some truth to that, although I'd argue Trump's policies have slowly turned things around. It will take multiple administrations to set things right, but Trump has been better for the working class overall than a lot of his recent predecessors.

Also, some people work multiple jobs to maximize income. I know a few people who do it for that reason. They could comfortably live off of the income from one job, but they choose to work more to increase earnings. This is a combination of just wanting as much money as possible and maybe a bit of being workaholic.

[Rationalist]

It would work out pretty well if you knew more about the economy than just the big flashy numbers. Lots and lots of Americans out there love a candidate that talks about how they have to work three jobs just to afford rent and put food on the table, and how it shouldn't be that way.


That is not accurate.

Well, in a lot of cases, the reason for rent being high isn't the economy. It's about bloated zoning regulations. In areas with few zoning regulations, housing is much cheaper. Instead, you have local governments that employ rent control, which actually exacerbates housing problems.

All places like NYC, LA, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, DC, Boston, and Baltimore would have to do to decrease housing costs significantly would be to lower zoning regulations and open up the market to more construction.

That would do more to make life affordable for Americans than any government program. In short, the problem is largely local, not federal.

[Rationalist]

All political parties obfuscate to make themselves either look good or look like the victims of conspiracies. It's more palatable than the truth.

I can agree with that, although the GOP has generally been better at assessing its strategic faults in presidential elections than the Democrats have been.

Also, the primary process for the GOP seems to be a lot more open than for the Democrats. If the GOP ran primaries the way that the DNC does, Trump would not have become the candidate in 2016. He was hated by most of the establishment.

Sanders was pretty competitive in the Democratic primaries during 2016, but we've seen plenty of evidence that Hillary was essentially made the candidate by DNC meddling. Things might have turned out differently between Sanders and Trump. I personally think Trump would have still won, but I guess we'll never know.

[Rationalist]

The email hacking DID change votes: https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...d-affect-vote/

And I will add that as far as Clinton's campaign went I agree with you 100%. Debbie Wasserman Schultz didn't do her campaign any favors either. Trump won for two reasons: Russian interference and the stupid democrats.

By all means, keep chasing the Russian narrative. The more the Democrats focus on that and not on improving their strategies, the better chance Trump has for winning in 2020.

[Dr. Who]

I can agree with that, although the GOP has generally been better at assessing its strategic faults in presidential elections than the Democrats have been.

Also, the primary process for the GOP seems to be a lot more open than for the Democrats. If the GOP ran primaries the way that the DNC does, Trump would not have become the candidate in 2016. He was hated by most of the establishment.

Sanders was pretty competitive in the Democratic primaries during 2016, but we've seen plenty of evidence that Hillary was essentially made the candidate by DNC meddling. Things might have turned out differently between Sanders and Trump. I personally think Trump would have still won, but I guess we'll never know.

You make a good point about what the DNC did in the 2016 primaries. Hillary was promised the run for President and no one else was going to take it from her.