A Nation Divided: A New Poll Shows Deep And Widening Split Over Trump


A new Gallup poll shows just how deeply and irreconcilably divided we remain over President Donald Trump.  Some 89 percent of Republicans approve of Trump. That is not just reaching the record levels of Dwight D. Eisenhower, but outpaces Jesus Christ who polls only a 68 percent share and he has two holidays.  However, among Democrats, the rate falls to 7% percent — a difference of 82 percent.

It is the largest gap ever recorded by Gallup in polling on American presidents.

What should worry Trump is the low numbers among the key independent voters. Trump averages a 35% job approval among independents.

However, overall, Trump is still at a 42 % job approval.  That is not far off from Obama’s 44.5% or Reagan’s 44.9% in their third years.

The same division is revealed on the question of impeachment.

A CNN poll shows 51 percent are in favor of removing Trump but 45 percent opposed. That results seems skewed against Trump, but still shows a virtual even division given the margin for error.  Another poll shows a virtual dead heat with 49 percent in favor of removal and 48 percent opposed.

This leaves us in truly uncharted territory that defies conventional political analysis. Indeed, that may be the most lasting legacy of this president in reframing our political equations and understandings.

178 thoughts on “A Nation Divided: A New Poll Shows Deep And Widening Split Over Trump”

  1. For those of us who walk amongst real, live, every day Americans, for a living, they do not cares about the machinations of Congress or the news media. No one in the real world really cares. If anything they have contempt for the whole lot.

    Today I asked graduate medical students in my upper level immunology course what they thought about the Coronavirus outbreak in China, and what this might mean to USA residents. Not one student was tracking it. Then they asked me what Coronavirus was. Since ours was not a Microbiology class I let it go.

    Nadler, Schiff, et al are a disgrace. Lucky for them no one in the real world knows who they are. The economy is grand, winter is here, and people have other issues that consume them

    If only Coronavirus hit Congress….


    1. “Not one student was tracking it. Then they asked me what Coronavirus was. Since ours was not a Microbiology class I let it go.”

      That tells one a lot about Estovir.

      1. Immunology would entail immunoglobulins, cytokines, and engineered immunity including novel oncology therapies. Microbiology would go over different microorganisms, including the coronaviruses, which include everything from the common cold to zoonotic viruses like SARS. It’s the class that turns everyone into a hypochondriac.

        The last I heard they suspected Wigan’s virus was zoonotic in origin. Those can be bad.

        So, what does this say about Estovir? It says that he incorporated epidemiology into his class and the relevance of watching the news for outbreaks. That’s a good thing.

            1. How??? I hate it! I’d much rather it underlined questionable spelling rather than just auto correct it. Autocorrect just mangled one of my texts recently. A group one!

  2. First, Gallup polling has been so bad that they quit doing a daily tracking poll of presidential approval. Rasmussen, who does do daily tracking, shows Trump approval in the upper 40s to low 50s and equivalent or better than Obama at the same point. However, the main point I wish to make is that Americans have ALWAYS been divided. Historians estimate that only some 41% of colonists supported the American Revolution. We know what happened after the 1860 election. Neither FDR or JFK were that popular even though Democrats idolize them both. As for Trump, he wasn’t elected because of his popularity, he was elected because of the unpopularity of his opposition and he’ll be reelected for the same reason.

    1. Rasmussen is not considered reliable because Trump always polls a lot higher with them than all other polls. Trump has never polled in the low 50’s. Neither Obama, JFK or any other POTUS has ever consistently polled as low as Trump for more than 3 years.

      Trump cheated, Period. Full stop. Whether his Russian pals can pull off another “win”, time will tell. We already know they’re working on it. We already know that Moscow Mitch refuses to call for vote or assign to a committee election security bills to help stop such abuse. The only logical reason is that he wants to help Trump cheat again.

      1. nuttycha:
        “Rasmussen is not considered reliable because Trump always polls a lot higher with them than all other polls”


        Couldn’t this this little drop of stupid pass. Talk about confirmation bias. Rasmussen was the only poll to get the 2016 election right and does the only daily tracking poll using data not one commenter has suggested is exaggerated or manufactured. Other than that it’s unreliable.

        You do know Catholic theology teaches you can go to Hell for lying, right?

        1. No, MESPO, polls could not take into consideration Russian use of social media to smear Hillary Clinton in key districts in states where Trump’s internal campaign information indicated that such lies would be effective. You Trumpsters keep trying to pretend this didn’t happen and that Trump is legit, which he isn’t. Trump’s campaign welcomed help from a hostile foreign government and fed them sensitive, insider information needed to pull off this cheat. Read the Mueller Report. Hillary won the popular vote. Democrats won the House in 2018, and but for Republican gerrymandering, they’d have the Senate, too.

          1. “No, MESPO, polls could not take into consideration Russian use of social media to smear Hillary Clinton in key districts in states where Trump’s internal campaign information indicated that such lies would be effective.”
            Yeah it was a $100,000 poorly placed buy in an election where an estimated $2.5 Billion was spent making the big bad Russians ante about .004% of the tally. My guess is that wouldn’t buy you the votes of any self-respecting pickup basketball team but hey why worry about facts, you’ve got emotion in spades. Most were targeted to African-Americans in big cities or Texans in Texas. Not exactly a winning strategy. So year the Reds may have influenced the thinking of some people but I defy you to prove they changed one vote!

            1. If THEY didn’t think it would work, why did they do it? They had sensitive insider information on who could be swayed, and how to do it. What other presidential candidate in U.S. history has ever colluded with Russians to smear their opponent, and provided Russians with the tools to do it? Why did Trump feel the need to do this? He was not, and still is not, acceptable to most Americans who never wanted him in the WH in the first place.

              1. Natasha:
                The Russians did it cause they’re stupid and inept. Mueller spent millions and couldn’t prove collusion but you can. Natasha? Hey are you Russian?

                1. Russians are “stupid and inept”? What rock do you live under? They got a man into space and safely returned him before anyone else. What about their MIGs? They hacked into the DNC and Hillary’s campaign computers, and into Burisma’s computers just in the last couple of weeks.

                  How could Mueller do a complete job of investigation when Trump wouldn’t release documents, refused to testify, and got witnesses not to cooperate? What “collusion” are you referring to? Mueller proved that Trump’s campaign fed information on where to do the most effective hit job on Hillary Clinton. Do you have facts to disprove this? You can’t claim Trump was exonerated when he didn’t cooperate.

                  The real danger of Trump is his flaunting of law enforcement, the right and power of Congress to investigate the Executive Branch and his endless lying, lying, lying.

          2. Read the Mueller Report.
            Read the Mueller Report.
            Read the Mueller Report.
            No matter how many times Natacha repeats this, it does not change the contents of that report.
            And the conclusions of that report do not support her claims that “Trump did not win the 2016 election”, or that “Trump cheated to win the election”.
            If Trump wins in November, I hope that Natacha at least comes up with a new set of lame excuses for his 2020 victory.
            At least we’d have something different to look at that she’d keep repeating hundreds of times for the following four years.

            1. Natacha might suffer from preservation.

              perseveration is a derivative of the word persevere and basically means the persistent repetition of a word gesture emotion or act. it is most commonly seen in survivors of brain injuries who have suffered trauma to the frontal lobe of the brain. without understanding perseveration trying to talk sense rationalize or otherwise intervene may make the situation worse. …the person may be unable to let go no matter what the negative consequence and may be unable to see other possibilities

          3. Natascha do you really think HRC would have made a better president She said she approved of abortion up to the day of birth. That’s a baby killer in my book
            . Also half of the USA were in the basket of deplorables and not redeemable. REALLY

          4. Oktoberist Natacha:

            You read the Mueller Report and stop spreading false propaganda that weakens our country.


            “As I discuss in today’s column, the report does clear the President of the original allegations of collusion with little ambiguity or reservation. Ultimately, he was also cleared of obstruction through the decision of both Barr and Rosenstein.

            I believe the report also vindicates Barr on the criticism of the expected redactions. There was surprising light redactions, particularly on obstruction. Moreover, while some are insisting that Barr’s summary to Congress was not reflective of the report, it did accurately give the conclusions. As for his press conference, it is doubtful that any description would be acceptable to many people. That is why he would have been wise to minimize those descriptions in favor of his discussion of the process.” Jonathan Turley

            1. He did not cooperate with the investigation. Turley’s spin is just that–spin. Getting “cleared” means that a full investigation was conducted, all facts were obtained, and they prove no wrongdoing. That didn’t happen. Trump withheld documents and refused to testify, which hamstrung the investigation. Members of his campaign lied, and were prosecuted and convicted for lying. What did happen is that Mueller proved Trump’s campaign solicited and obtained help from Russian hackers, who told lies about Hillary Clinton in key districts that could sway the Electoral College. The hackers used insider information obtained from Trump’s campaign on where the most-vulnerable voters would be. What was the depth of Trump’s personal involvement in this scheme? Was it proven that Trump knew nothing about it, didn’t approve of it? No. Trump wouldn’t testify. He withheld documents. Mueller’s Report did not clear Trump of anything, and made clear that he obstructed the investigation.

              Turley is a personal friend of Barr, who has repeatedly proven that he is not America’s lawyer, but Trump’s lawyer.

              BTW: there is no “our country” any more. There’s most Americans, who didn’t vote for Trump, who disapprove of him in record numbers and for a record length of time and who want him gone. Then, there’s Trumpsters, a distinct minority.

      2. “Trump cheated, Period. Full stop” Not according to the Mueller report.

        Stop spreading malicious propaganda.

  3. Sorry, I have to take issue with your misleading spin on these statistics. When you consider the margin of error, you must not just subtract or add the margin of error range one value: you must consider the margin of error for both values. So, the approval numbers for Trump are not comparable to Obama and Reagan, and neither Obama nor Reagan failed to ever break 50% approval in legitimate polls in their first 3 years. Neither of them had been impeached. Neither of them cheated their way into the White House with the help of a hostile foreign government. Oh, and the stock market under both Obama and Clinton performed better in their first 3 years in office compared to Trump. Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, but turned it around. Trump inherited a robust and growing economy that has somewhat flattened since he started occupying the WH. Remember these facts when the Dotard starts crowing about his alleged achievements. His latest tweet about the market is full of lies, too.

    Turley keeps trying to normalize Trump, as though it is appropriate for the word “President” to be used in conjunction with that name. It does not. He cheated with Russia’s help, and will never be viewed as legitimate. He tried to leverage foreign aid to an ally for political reasons. He was impeached, and rightfully so, regardless of what the Senate does. That is just part of his so-called “legacy”. There will never be military bases, airports, bridges, ships, monuments, parks or other federal projects named after him. He is a stain on America’s history.

    1. In spite of Natacha’s rant, this impeachment will not matter very much in “America’s history”.
      And it’s unlikely to be a factor in the November election; those who support Trump will agree that this is a “sham, hoax, witch hunt, etc”.
      Those who dislike Trump will cheer this process on in the futile hope that it will negatively affect Trump in the election.
      And those with extreme TDS like Natacha will continue to throw tantrums if Trump wins another term.

      1. People with TDS are Trump supporters, they are the ones that believe the lies, and to believe Trump, you must be deranged.

            1. I can see why the comments of Natacha and Fishwings appeal to you, 3:08 PM anonymous.
              You make really great choices🙄 in your choice of allies here.
              Feel free to jump in at any time with a one or two sentence endorsement of their comments.

              1. Many if not most of the comments on this blog are a waste of time, breath, energy, life…

                It’s a very small pond.

      2. Uh, pal, Trump didn’t “win” a first term. Read the Mueller Report. He has never captured the support of even half of Americans and never will.

        Yes, getting impeached is a very big deal in American history. This is only the third time it has happened. Considering the implications for American security, the checks and balances provided by our tripartite system of government and our relations with allies, Trump makes Nixon look like a jaywalker. Clinton’s impeachment over lying about sexual escapades was purely political. While it was wrong, there were no implications for American security or foreign relations. On the other hand, manipulating Congressional appropriations for political purposes, intentionally withholding military assistance to the disadvantage of an ally in a hot conflict with an enemy of America is a very big deal. The damage to America’s reputation will take years to repair, if it can be done at all. Thumbing his nose at Congress, withholding documents and procuring the absence of witnesses on the nonexistent ground that Article II lets him do whatever he wants, is a serious challenge to the structure of checks and balances established by the Constitution for just this purpose. The SCOTUS made clear, in U.S. v. Nixon, that there is no blanket immunity on the grounds of executive privilege. Executive privilege didn’t protect Nixon, and it won’t protect Trump, so Republicans are trying to ram through a quick negative vote on removal to stop the American public from learning the truth. What is Trump trying so desperately to hide? Why won’t he and the Republicans let Pompeo, Bolton and the other witnesses testify, if he’s done nothing wrong? They can disprove the impeachment allegations if they are really a “hoax”.

        You call my post a “rant” and “tantrum”. Do you have any substantive response to the merits, or is this the usual Fox News approach to negative facts for which Trumpsters don’t have an answer–call the critic names or accuse them of mental illness?

          1. Pay no attention to these nutters, i.e. the ones that refer to comments they don’t like as “rants” and ‘tantrums.”

        1. ” call the critics names and accuse them if mental illness?”
          Not all of the critics , “pal”. Just the ones who are most deserving.
          At times, I’ve given you “substantive responses” but they do not register with you.
          You pepper your repetitive rants/comments with 5-10 nutty questions and then expect people to take you seriously enough to take the time to answer them every time?

          1. Let’s just take the matter of Trump’s claim for blanket executive privilege. Do you disagree that U.S. v. Nixon held there is no such thing absolute unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process? Do you deny that Trump claims Article II of the Constitution allows him to do whatever he wants? Do you disagree that the SCOTUS said that executive privilege applies only to military and diplomatic secrets and documents integral to an appropriate exercise of domestic decisional and policy making functions and deliberative communications? Explain to me how or why intentionally delaying military aid appropriated by Congress (a violation of federal law) to try to leverage the recipient ally of the U.S. into claiming a political rival was being investigated for corruption could possibly fall under the categories of documents that are privileged? If you agree that such documents do not meet the criteria for executive privilege, then explain to me how or why it is not obstruction of Congress to refuse to produce the documents and to lie about a nonexistent right to refuse to cooperate. Lastly, explain to me why obstruction of Congress should not be an impeachable offense.

            Can you answer these questions?

            1. Yes, I can answer them Natacha.
              For the time being, at least, I won’t. Since you have probably asked over a thousand questions in your comments, you can’t realistically expect anyone to drop everything and answer your questions.
              Maybe I’ll prepare a list for you .Where in the Mueller Report does it say that Trump didn’t win the election?
              Where does it say that Trump “cheated”?
              Do you consider Hillary’s 48% to be a ” majority” ?
              Let’s start with these, since you like the Q&A format so much.

              1. I said Hillary got more votes than Trump, and won the popular vote. In fact, she received about 3 million more than Trump. Those are facts. The Mueller Report outlines how the Trump campaign took sensitive insider polling information and provided it to Russian hackers for their use in sliming Hillary Clinton with lies, but only in districts where Trump’s campaign knew it would help sway enough votes to get the Electoral College. That’s cheating. Russia is a hostile foreign power. Those are facts, too.

                You Trumpsters love the Electoral College system because, in the case at hand, it resulted in the candidate who lost the popular vote getting the office anyway. I don’t deny this is the Electoral College system, and would have nothing to complain about if the results were obtained honestly, But Trump welcomed Russia’s help, used information not generally available for a dishonest scheme to spread lies about his opponent. Russian hackers used social media as a weapon to spread lies about Hillary Clinton. That’s cheating.

                When one candidate cheats with the help of a hostile foreign government and gets to assume office, despite losing the popular vote, that candidate is not legitimate.

                1. You either accept that the Electoral College is clearly the constitutional means of winning an election, or you do not.
                  If you want a lopsided victory of four million votes in one state that gives you a net three million vote popular vote nationwide, go with that and forget about the Electoral College.
                  It’s more a matter of recognizing that 270+ EC votes are needed to win the presidency, not whether you like or dislike that fact.

              2. “Yes, I can answer them Natacha.
                For the time being, at least, I won’t. Since you have probably asked over a thousand questions in your comments, you can’t realistically expect anyone to drop everything and answer your questions.”

                Clumsy side step. Cringe factor.

        2. Can someone please explain to Natacha, in words she can understand, how the presidential election works, and how the Electoral College works.

          She doesn’t seem able to grasp this concept. 3 years and counting later, and she still doesn’t understand who won the election. It’s painful to see her keep repeating this misconception.

          She’s more invested in this false story than Rachel Maddow.

          “For the past two years, Rachel Maddow has been a hero of her own spy-thriller.

          She has written, directed and starred in a hit production based on the unlikely premise of a prime-time cable TV show host unraveling the most dastardly plot in American history — one opening monologue at a time.

          Only the story had a surprise twist at the end — she was completely wrong.”

          “This wasn’t simply mindless partisanship. It was a deeper delusion.”

          “Believing otherwise required ignoring common sense (why would the Russians need to collude with the Trump campaign in the first place?), ignoring statements from more sober-minded intelligence officials that there was no evidence of collusion, ignoring the policy areas where Trump was tougher on Russia than Obama, and ignoring how the Mueller probe was unfolding, with no indictments for espionage or conspiracy with the Russians.”



                1. Elvis:

                  “Vol. 1 of the Mueller report is too big to post here.”

                  Let me help you since too much “JailHouse Rock” has rattled your brain. Here’s the Boston Herald on the topic destroying your every assertion:

                  ‘“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” Special Counsel Robert Mueller wrote in his report, according to a four-page summary made public Sunday by Attorney General William Barr following the investigation’s Friday conclusion.

                  Mueller, a former FBI chief, determined that Russia had intervened to try to help Trump — and actually made “multiple offers” to his campaign — but that there wasn’t evidence that anyone involved with the campaign took them up on it.”

                  Let’s Rock. I got you as “Little Joey”:

                  1. Even a clumsier side step than Anonymous uses on here.

                    I’ll keep this short so you can take your dentures out and get back to gumming clit at the nursing home..

                    No need to.collude when you’ve got something compromised. Mueller said as much, albeit with unclear essential context. He needed to just loosen up and say what he really meant.

                    1. No need to.collude when you’ve got something compromised. Mueller said as much, albeit with unclear essential context.

                      Thanks for the issue of your imagination. Been an education.

                    2. The Pelvis:
                      Then they would have had to do it like you do carnal relations — 5000 miles away from your partner. You get angry when you’re shown the fool. That’s good, proves your only half bot!

                    1. Nah. If I was angry you’d know it, Mespo. Guessing I play by different rules than you. As for being the fool, well, reality is on my side, my friend.

          1. Winner take all state delegations are not mandated by the constitution . In federalist 68 Hamilton writes that “the sense of the people operate in the choice of the (president)” and in runoff, which were expected to be common, the House (the people), not the Senate (the states) should decide. The current system is a result of each state trying to maximize its influence and should be reformed or abolished. It is an outrage that we have been governed twice in the last 16 years by a person who represents the least number of voters but has the power to not only set policy but make lifetime court appointments to those who who similarly sport minority viewpoints.

          2. Can someone please explain to Karen that when Trump’s campaign provided insider information to Russians, who are a hostile foreign government, for their use in spreading lies to the most-vulnerable voters in key districts needed to sway the Electoral College, THIS IS CHEATING. That is what happened. Read the Mueller Report. Trump’s “victory” is not legitimate.

            There is no evidence that Trump didn’t know about it, didn’t approve it, and he even invited more hacking. Russians hacked into the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s servers. During one of his vainglory rallies he said: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you can find the missing e-mails.” Why would a POTUS invite a hostile foreign government to hack into any U.S. citizen’s e-mails? Trump never cooperated with Mueller or with the House investigations, claiming a nonexistent privilege and immunity from prosecution, which is against the law. This is obstruction of justice.

            When US intelligence officials reported that Russia did this, Trump defended Russia, publicly, in Helsinki, siding with Putin and against his own intelligence officials because Putin denied it. Putin uses that tape for propaganda. When people in the intelligence community, like Dan Coats, refused to back down from this truth, Trump fired them. He tried to get Ukraine to help him slime the Bidens, having learned nothing from the Mueller investigation.

      3. Anoymous – generally, US History stops at 1945 in high school. We have reached the point where US History should be a 3 semester course, not two. Too much information.

  4. The fallacy is in the words ‘key independent voters’ same mistake the Democrats and Clinton made in 2016 because they failed intentionally or not to count what became the largest voting block of 40% ballots cast from a coalition who voted against Clinton and for an outsider. The same coalition had no budget just passed the word and that block coupled with not the GOP vote which is skewed because they lump RINOs with GOP and not with DNC in the polls, not with the GOP but with Constitutional Republic oriented citizens from as many as two dozen sources including walk away Democrats,

    We checked around and no one in the same group which has enlarged has been polled. Last time we went under the slogan of ballots vs bullets honoring the fallen and wounded military the victims of the Democrats wars and this time it’s D = Socialism among other considerations but sorry no budget just as usual useless polls.

    By the way the national poll called the popular vote is still not an election just a joke

  5. One poll shows 42% in favor of removing Trump from office, but that poll won’t generate the headlines.
    The average of all major polls shows 46-47% in favor of removal.

    1. “One poll shows 42% in favor of removing Trump from office, but that poll won’t generate the headlines.”

      Wanna tell us which poll “shows 42% in favor…”?

      1. The Monmouth poll. You can look at the 538 website for detailed results of dozen of polls, and the composite results.
        One can always finds some polls that are well out of the average ranges, with either higher or lower numbers.
        Typically, the more negative Trump poll results are the ones that get the bulk of the headlines.The ones out of the average ranges that are positive rarely get mentioned.

          1. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/22/poll-voters-support-trumps-removal-dipped-101695
            My mistake…..it was The Economist/yougov poll that had about 42% supporting Trump’s removal.
            The Monmouth poll I remembered with l results showing support for Trump’s removal at 42% it dated, not current.
            I think that Manmouth number is now 49%.
            The link is from today’s POLITICO. Their poll results are pretty much in line with the 538 average results.

  6. Same poll says about 70% wants a legit trial in the Senate. Shows where the 51% for removal could go if witness testimony goes bad. Which is why Mitch M. will never let testimony happen.

    Face it, Trump’s a barker. He began losing the independent vote the nano second he took office. He’ll need another electoral college miracle to stay in. Odds not in his favor. Next year he’s in Mar a Lago full time playing golf everyday until the indictments come in from SDNY.

      1. It’ll be close, but Trump loses. No way the turnout is as low in November as it was in ’16. And independent support dropped as soon as Trump took office — even if it’s leveled out now. Keep in mind, Trump won with fewer votes than Romney got in his loss. No way the turnout goes that low again.

  7. If you don’t choose the President properly by a Majority Consensus of the People, and if you don’t have the roles and responsibilities of the President clearly defined as established in the Constitution, then you will always have a government and country divided along the partisan ideological poles by which you inappropriately assembled the government.

    This is the United States of America, and Congress is the assembly of the States as the decision making assembly of their union. Parties have no role to play in the assembly, control, or decision making of our Government!


    1. The singular American failure is the Supreme Court and the judicial branch which have failed to declare void all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution. “Parties” are immaterial and irrelevant. The Founders fully expected the legislative and executive branches to be highly aggressive in their endeavors. The Supreme Court and judicial branch were created to assure that actions of the legislative and executive branches comport with the clear and obvious meaning and intent of the literal words of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

      Example: The Supreme Court exists to assure that the right to keep and bear arms is not infringed. Democrats and RINOs persistently infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court has no power to legislate or to modify legislation. The Supreme Court has aided and abetted the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court should have been impeached for failing to support the Constitution, abusing its power and usurping power it was not provided by the Constitution.

      “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

      “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
      – Alexander Hamilton

  8. A CNN poll shows 51 percent are in favor of removing Trump but 45 percent opposed.

    NB, CNN pays for the sampling frame.

  9. President Trump is not dividing the country. The democrats and major media are dividing the country and blaming PDJT. Their goal is absolute power, not the President. The current shameful exercise in the Senate is a political ploy to remove or damage a sitting President and weaken the republican majority in the Senate. The democrats have nothing to offer the American people in 2020; but they are willing to divide us into voting blocs then lie, cheat and steal to achieve power.

    1. Well, I have to ask the cousin of mine who complained about how ‘divisive’ Trump was if it was ‘divisive’ to solemnly insist that conventional matrimonial law was ‘unconstitutional’, to insist that prohibitions on abortion are ‘unconstitutional’, or to turn state universities into agents of political mobilization, or to refuse to enforce the immigration laws and impugn the motives of anyone who advocated doing so, or to run a 30 year long lawfare campaign against the Boy Scouts of America, or to insist on importing political disputes into every social venue. (See the knitting site, Ravelry). If you don’t want division, quit aggressive attacks on others. Liberals cannot imagine doing that, because they are malevolent people.

  10. This leaves us in truly uncharted territory that defies conventional political analysis. Indeed, that may be the most lasting legacy of this president in reframing our political equations and understandings.

    Conventional political analysis does not typically include a study of the civics literacy of the respondents of a poll. It should. What is at the root of this divide? The legacy of this president will be that he has exposed the previously deeply rooted corruption within our system of government. Weeding out this corruption should not be a dividing issue. This corruption is as much a threat to this country as an attack by foreign agents. But here we are, with a large percentage of our population defending those that have been exposed as corrupt. Fix that root problem and that will be a defining legacy of the Trump era.

    1. olly, please give us some examples of this claimed fight against corruption from our income tax hiding, nepotistic appointments making, and oligarch loving President.

      1. I left out lobbyist and industry pawn appointment maker still profiting in unknown ways from his presidential activities.

        1. They probably should have added that to the Articles of Impeachment; “still profiting in ‘unknown ways’ from his presidential activities”.🤭

      2. please give us some examples…

        To what end? What are the odds you are going to suddenly have that AHA! moment, based on a recitation of evidence you’ve previously rejected, provided by a no-name contributor on a blog, whose host you’ve branded as a dishonest shill for the RNC?

        No. You’ve had the opportunity time and again to begin climbing out of the hole you’ve dug for yourself and instead you’ve kept digging.

        Own it, don’t own. I don’t care. You are a lost cause.

          1. What a coward and bulls..t artist. Not very good on the latter.

            You see Anon1, that’s perhaps the root of your problem. You’re projecting your failure to deceive (bullsh!t) on to me and anyone else that disagrees with you…including Turley. None of us that disagree with you need to be good at deception. The facts don’t require it. And you consider it cowardly to not take another run at the football Lucy? I consider no longer playing your game as a wise observation of your lack of integrity and intellectual dishonesty. You built that, you own that and nothing will change that.

            1. Olly, like many of your fellow Trumpsters here, you’re a morally confused weakling who can’t hold up an argument on a board dedicated to that purpose and pretend those who disagree with you must be hateful villains and your cursing them out substitutes for actually proving whatever point you wish to make.

              You made a clear though questionable statement above, for which I asked for examples. Your not just talking to me, you’re talking to whoever tunes in here. Show some self respect and back up what you say, or retract it.

              1. like many of your fellow Trumpsters here…

                Only trolls who live in George Soros left-wing bubble say crapola like you

                When you start speaking for yourself, instead of your paid masters, we might take you seriously. But that would be like asking Hellary to stay out of the news for one election cycle



              2. Your not just talking to me, you’re talking to whoever tunes in here. Show some self respect and back up what you say, or retract it.

                🙂 Whoever tunes in here will have the entire blog archive to determine if what you say is true or false, well as long as your archived comments aren’t lost for reasons. I’ve maintained the same user ID since I’ve joined this blog several years ago. I have enough self-respect to let that stand.

  11. Polls, Polls, Polls! Walk the streets of America. That’s the real poll. Our President will win in 2020. Believe pollsters or reality on the streets?

  12. What a wonderful moment in Davos
    This morning listening to Pres.DJ Trump
    Enunciate the economic achievements of America.
    While the Dems squabble in the trough of Hate.

  13. In my opinion, the relevancy of modern polls continues to decline, and Trump’s presidency was the turning point. Polls in 2016 showed Hillary would win, but she didn’t. And even though she won the popular vote, Trump won because of the “disenchanted voter.” The disenchanted voter doesn’t like either party; they don’t like politics in general; if they read the news, they generally come away disgusted; and they DON’T answer polls. They sit back and soak in all the noise and then show up on election day and vote for the person they believe represents the least disingenuous person.

    1. Rob1967…agreed. I think the people elected Trump because he was NOT a politician. So, we understand why politicians (of both parties) don’t like him. I think he threatens their gravy train at taxpayers’ expense. And how many people even watch CNN anymore? I certainly don’t trust any poll they sponsor, because they have a dog in the fight. They cannot appear to be wrong after taking such a major hit in the Mueller investigation. People elected Trump to drain the swamp and if his numbers were high, I’d suspect he was not doing it. His numbers are a reflection of the already-existing divide between those who approve of limited government and those who want everything provided for them.

      1. Trump’s favorability ratings just before the 2016 election were at 37-38%.
        That’s one reason that he was given virtually no chance of winning.
        That’s not “an obsession with Hillary”, but it’s worth keeping in mind.

  14. 92% of Trump’s press coverage is negative and he still has a 42% job approval. And yet, the press does not cover his job accomplishments.

    1. Children in cages. Tax breaks for billionaires. Golfing trips. Dragging us to the edge of war. Making the USA a laughing stock. Let’s be serious. Ending regulations that have cleaned up our water and air. Lies, lies, lies.

      1. Still going with the children in cages lie? Also, we all got a tax break. Why would you want to be taxed more? Haven’t we been pretty much at war for the past two decades?

      2. Justice Holmes – the children in cages, tax breaks for millionaires, dragging us into wars all happened under Obama.

      3. Holmes………..The children and adults in the political metro cages called Baltimore, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco.
        Those “cages” have been maintained by policies of the Democrats in power for more than half a century!
        Unchain those prisoners of failed Democrat programs if you care sbout people!!!

  15. The CNN poll also shows 51% think the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, Pat Paulson served two terms as POTUS and Jim Acosta is the new Ed Murrow. Jeff Zuckerberg heartily agrees. Fancy that.

    1. Our politics devolved into a circus long before Trump. Now he’s the carnival barker leading the clowns. That doesn’t say much for Trump(who I voted for), but he’s well on his way towards reelection.

            1. Cindy Bragg – they both come from protected Democratic districts. I think they want to die in office like McCain.

            2. That’s strange. Estovir apologized to you at 6:49pm, after I mentioned the retiring angle. However it’s no longer part of this thread.

Leave a Reply