We should not take too much solace from polling even if Trump‘s approval rating continues to decline. In 1983, Reagan had a 32% approval rating in the polls, and only a year later, in the 1984 presidential election, he won every state except one in the electoral college. The big question on my mind is whether the almost 50-50 standoff between the Republican and Democratic parties can shift significantly or whether we need a new party to change the equation much like we did prior to the Civil War when the Whig party collapsed over slavery. That gave rise to the Republican Party, which was basically a one – issue, anti-slavery party. Perhaps we need an anti-authoritarian party to emerge.
The obvious question is a vibe shift to what? It is not enough just to attack Trump and his policies if that is what they are. Last time I checked, we still have a two party system so the other party, the Democrats, whatever they are now, must reorganize and present alternative policies that will be attractive to center left, center and center right voters. The voters know Trump and what his administration is doing. Do the voters know who the leaders are among the Democrats at the district, state and national levels and what they represent? Do the Democrats know who their leaders are and what they represent as a party?
I hope they can get their act together and present some positive alternatives, but I'm not real optimistic. We're in an era of negative partisanship where neither party is as intended in being actually popular as much as they are just slightly less unpopular than the other. A primary system beholden to each fringe base is a huge part of that problem, and until we address that, I don't see how things will fundamentally change.
There is some hope. Although he will never be president, Governor J B Pritzker of Illinois, a centrist, has issued a loud and clear call for action from the Democrats and independents.
I'm an Illinoisan, and while we could certainly do worse than Pritzker, I'm hoping someone better will win the nomination. His administration has been adequate, but he hasn't done much to address some real structural fiscal problems here in the state (all of our own making, and only papered over by the federal pandemic funding that carried on through last year). Illinois is a solid blue state too, so he's not really doing much to push back against the progressive fringe faction and court the middle.
It would also be an odd look for Dems to nominate a genuine billionaire after excoriating them on their anti-oligarchy tour. Then again (and perhaps I'm just cynical), they would have the same attitude shift that Republicans did about tech CEOs and other elites: it's not really about their status, but what team they're playing for.
Ah, cool! So you got out comfortably before our pension debt bomb will go off. We live in Aurora now, but I grew up in north-central farm country, where my brother and mom still farm.
Trump’s “war” on the economy is hardly surprising to me, and it’s just like Putin’s war on Ukraine. Senseless and poorly executed. Two weak men with outsized egos causing disastrous and deadly outcomes for no good reason at all. Some of us knew this would happen to Trump. Some of us remember his first term and knew he was lying to get reelected this time. Shame on all of us.
Trump's polling first needs to be discounted as the standard unreliable and inaccurate anti-Trump and pro-Democrat job just like we experienced in the 2016 and 2024 elections.
Second, it is like a Democrat MSM methane leak filling a ballon that will deflate as DOGE cuts the NGO money flow that funds the Democrat MSM propaganda engine. The timing will be perfect as Trump is causing them to blow the remaining cash on their balance sheet in time that they will be broke for the 2026 election.
Third, there is another consideration and that is the polling for Democrat love as the alternative to Trump. And all evidence is that the voters would rather suck in a cloud of methane rather than elect Democrats to power.
Persuasion was a lot more interesting when it was just getting started a few years ago. At this point, most of the articles it publishes all sound like this:
"However, never underestimate Trump’s penchant for overplaying an incredible hand. Far from addressing the main issue that powered his return to office—voters’ frustrations with persistent inflation—Trump has instead focused his energy on waging an all-out war on institutions and individuals who he believes have wronged him."
Persuasion increasingly sounds like yet another hyper-partisan outlet: exactly what it originally set out NOT to be!
Hitting Trump on the economy because he's already weak there makes sense, but there's no reason to stop there.
Take a leaf from the Republican response to John Kerry in 2004: his strongest issue was his Viet Nam experience, so that's what Republicans attacked with the infamous "Swift Boat" video. It worked well - arguably because he didn't respond until it had its intended effect, but it still made sense to try.
Since his strongest (least negative) issue is immigration, continue and increase attacks there as well. There are plenty of nonwhite citizens who are justifiably worried about being deported without due process, and Tom Homan made it pretty clear he doesn't intend to stop pulling people off the streets and deporting them to El Salvador. There's apparently a quota that leads immigration enforcers to pull people off the streets even when they know they're the wrong one. These cases need broad, continuous publicity.
We should not take too much solace from polling even if Trump‘s approval rating continues to decline. In 1983, Reagan had a 32% approval rating in the polls, and only a year later, in the 1984 presidential election, he won every state except one in the electoral college. The big question on my mind is whether the almost 50-50 standoff between the Republican and Democratic parties can shift significantly or whether we need a new party to change the equation much like we did prior to the Civil War when the Whig party collapsed over slavery. That gave rise to the Republican Party, which was basically a one – issue, anti-slavery party. Perhaps we need an anti-authoritarian party to emerge.
The obvious question is a vibe shift to what? It is not enough just to attack Trump and his policies if that is what they are. Last time I checked, we still have a two party system so the other party, the Democrats, whatever they are now, must reorganize and present alternative policies that will be attractive to center left, center and center right voters. The voters know Trump and what his administration is doing. Do the voters know who the leaders are among the Democrats at the district, state and national levels and what they represent? Do the Democrats know who their leaders are and what they represent as a party?
I hope they can get their act together and present some positive alternatives, but I'm not real optimistic. We're in an era of negative partisanship where neither party is as intended in being actually popular as much as they are just slightly less unpopular than the other. A primary system beholden to each fringe base is a huge part of that problem, and until we address that, I don't see how things will fundamentally change.
There is some hope. Although he will never be president, Governor J B Pritzker of Illinois, a centrist, has issued a loud and clear call for action from the Democrats and independents.
I'm an Illinoisan, and while we could certainly do worse than Pritzker, I'm hoping someone better will win the nomination. His administration has been adequate, but he hasn't done much to address some real structural fiscal problems here in the state (all of our own making, and only papered over by the federal pandemic funding that carried on through last year). Illinois is a solid blue state too, so he's not really doing much to push back against the progressive fringe faction and court the middle.
It would also be an odd look for Dems to nominate a genuine billionaire after excoriating them on their anti-oligarchy tour. Then again (and perhaps I'm just cynical), they would have the same attitude shift that Republicans did about tech CEOs and other elites: it's not really about their status, but what team they're playing for.
p.s. I know Illinois as I lived in a far northern suburb of Chicago for 32 years leaving in 2019.
Ah, cool! So you got out comfortably before our pension debt bomb will go off. We live in Aurora now, but I grew up in north-central farm country, where my brother and mom still farm.
Where did you move to?
Trump’s “war” on the economy is hardly surprising to me, and it’s just like Putin’s war on Ukraine. Senseless and poorly executed. Two weak men with outsized egos causing disastrous and deadly outcomes for no good reason at all. Some of us knew this would happen to Trump. Some of us remember his first term and knew he was lying to get reelected this time. Shame on all of us.
Trump's polling first needs to be discounted as the standard unreliable and inaccurate anti-Trump and pro-Democrat job just like we experienced in the 2016 and 2024 elections.
Second, it is like a Democrat MSM methane leak filling a ballon that will deflate as DOGE cuts the NGO money flow that funds the Democrat MSM propaganda engine. The timing will be perfect as Trump is causing them to blow the remaining cash on their balance sheet in time that they will be broke for the 2026 election.
Third, there is another consideration and that is the polling for Democrat love as the alternative to Trump. And all evidence is that the voters would rather suck in a cloud of methane rather than elect Democrats to power.
Persuasion was a lot more interesting when it was just getting started a few years ago. At this point, most of the articles it publishes all sound like this:
"However, never underestimate Trump’s penchant for overplaying an incredible hand. Far from addressing the main issue that powered his return to office—voters’ frustrations with persistent inflation—Trump has instead focused his energy on waging an all-out war on institutions and individuals who he believes have wronged him."
Persuasion increasingly sounds like yet another hyper-partisan outlet: exactly what it originally set out NOT to be!
Hitting Trump on the economy because he's already weak there makes sense, but there's no reason to stop there.
Take a leaf from the Republican response to John Kerry in 2004: his strongest issue was his Viet Nam experience, so that's what Republicans attacked with the infamous "Swift Boat" video. It worked well - arguably because he didn't respond until it had its intended effect, but it still made sense to try.
Since his strongest (least negative) issue is immigration, continue and increase attacks there as well. There are plenty of nonwhite citizens who are justifiably worried about being deported without due process, and Tom Homan made it pretty clear he doesn't intend to stop pulling people off the streets and deporting them to El Salvador. There's apparently a quota that leads immigration enforcers to pull people off the streets even when they know they're the wrong one. These cases need broad, continuous publicity.
You are assuming that because people don't like undergoing chemotherapy that they want the cancer back.