The latest Harvard-Harris poll is out, and it is not looking good at all for the blue wave that we have been promised.
The sample of the poll favored Democrats somewhat: 37% Democrat, 32% Republican and 29% Independent.
http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content ... e_Memo.pdf

Some highlights:
47% currently approve of Trump's handling of the presidency, which is nearly identical to Barack Obama's approval at the same point in his presidency.

69% say the economy is either "very" or "somewhat" strong.

68% say their own financial situation is either improving or about the same.

58% approve of Trump's work on stimulating job creation.

57%, approve of his handling of the economy.

70% want stricter enforcement of immigration laws.

61% agree with Trump that our border security is "inadequate."

84% side with Trump against sanctuary city policies blocking notification of ICE.

Nearly three-quarters approve of Trump meeting with Kim Jong Un.

Nearly six in ten think the Robert Mueller investigation is hurting America.

Democrats need to heed the phrase coined by one of their own, "the economy, stupid."

I predict less than half the gains we are being hyped to believe will actually happen. Nancy will then be summarily dismissed as minority leader and the Democratic party will turn further left.

It's got to be tough to be a moderate Democrat right now. An unabashed socialist who calls for de-funding ICE just destroyed a well-connected incumbent in New York. If that doesn't scare moderates, I don't know what will.

Tugger wrote:

VTKillarney1 wrote:

It's got to be tough to be a moderate Democrat right now. An unabashed socialist who calls for de-funding ICE just destroyed a well-connected incumbent in New York. If that doesn't scare moderates, I don't know what will.

Much as is the case for the Republican party right now. All the MAGA's that are winning support or defeating current Republican's are really concerning.

Very true. It is hard to be a moderate in either party.

VTKillarney1 wrote:

It's got to be tough to be a moderate Democrat right now. An unabashed socialist who calls for de-funding ICE just destroyed a well-connected incumbent in New York. If that doesn't scare moderates, I don't know what will.

Much as is the case for the Republican party right now. All the MAGA's that are winning support or defeating current Republican's are really concerning.

Tugg

Surely you don't believe this poll. After all, polls had Clinton winning so clearly they're flawed. Or is it only when it validates your point of view that they're to be believed?

einsteinboricua wrote:

Surely you don't believe this poll. After all, polls had Clinton winning so clearly they're flawed. Or is it only when it validates your point of view that they're to be believed?

Fair point. Are you saying that you don't believe the poll?

MikeDrop wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Surely you don't believe this poll. After all, polls had Clinton winning so clearly they're flawed. Or is it only when it validates your point of view that they're to be believed?

Fair point. Are you saying that you don't believe the poll?

It is a flawed point however. Most political polls in the US are more designed to shape public opinion rather than measure it, and like most of the press, their agenda is to advance the Democratic party. The reason the polls (except one) were so off with Trump is because with the media constantly promoting the idea that he and anyone who supports him is a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic idiot, no one wanted to give the wrong answer, yet they wanted him President so they voted for him.

Ii's a long time before Trump faces the electorate. Before then several situations will probably come to a head. Actually, if Mueller delivers with reports that Trump is really fearing then Trump might not even be President. Right now the GOP and Conservatives are as scared as Trump when it comes to the Special Counsel - and they should be.

"68% say their own financial situation is either improving or about the same." Does that mean that 32% are saying their financial situation is worse? Even with that "Beautiful Tax Cut"? Gee, that doesn't look good. Unemployment is at an all time low but we still Americans working at below poverty level minimum wage. Shouldn't that be improved?

"58% approve of Trump's work on stimulating job creation", and graphing that growth shown it is a continuation of Obama's job performance since 2010. Look at the gray - it hasn't changed since Obama Years - even after a 41.5 Trillion tax cut. Why isn't Trump doing better than Obama?

MikeDrop wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Surely you don't believe this poll. After all, polls had Clinton winning so clearly they're flawed. Or is it only when it validates your point of view that they're to be believed?

Fair point. Are you saying that you don't believe the poll?

I didn't say that. I'm merely flipping the script so Trump supporters see how flawed their argument has been for the past 2 years. I can tell the blue wave isn't as massive as I'd like it to be, especially if Pelosi is still Democratic leader in the House. Some states may elect more Democrats (CA, VA, PA, and NJ), but it's not the big washout many want to believe. The other thing is that I think this poll shows that people are still not sure what Democrats bring to the table so they're sticking with the status quo.

afcjets wrote:

The reason the polls (except one) were so off with Trump is because with the media constantly promoting the idea that he and anyone who supports him is a racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic idiot, no one wanted to give the wrong answer, yet they wanted him President so they voted for him.

Two things to correct there:
1. Many polls were actually taken nationwide. Had more state by state polls been released, a clearer trend would have emerged. It wasn't until the last couple of weeks that we saw Michigan tightening, as well as Pennsylvania. How many polls came out of Wisconsin? Florida still showed a small Clinton lead though Trump had caught up. In essence, the national polls still predicted the outcome: Clinton had more votes than Trump (no matter where they came from). What it failed to predict was where those votes were wasted and where would they have been needed.

2. I'm a firm believer that polls were not wrong; people simply chose to not admit they supported Trump during that time. For all the "go out into the country and see all the Trump signs", it was a shocker to see that Trump clinched the presidency when polls never gave him the commanding lead. My county is a conservative county; very few people had Trump stickers or yard signs yet Trump carried it in the election (of course, in a state like MD, the marginal 50k total vote count pales against the DC/BWI suburbs).

This was a poll of dumb people, right?

"58% approve of Trump's work on stimulating job creation" when he's starting trade wars left and right.
.

Airstud wrote:

This was a poll of dumb people, right?

The greatest number of respondents were Democrats. I will let you draw your own conclusions.

VTKillarney1 wrote:

The greatest number of respondents were Democrats.

Gross.

VTKillarney1 wrote:

Airstud wrote:

This was a poll of dumb people, right?

The greatest number of respondents were Democrats. I will let you draw your own conclusions.

In fairness, they've got a higher percentage of the electorate that's unproductive during the day and will be available to answer their phone....

VTKillarney1 wrote:

It's got to be tough to be a moderate Democrat right now. An unabashed socialist who calls for de-funding ICE just destroyed a well-connected incumbent in New York. If that doesn't scare moderates, I don't know what will.

It is very difficult.

EA CO AS wrote:

VTKillarney1 wrote:

Airstud wrote:

This was a poll of dumb people, right?

The greatest number of respondents were Democrats. I will let you draw your own conclusions.

In fairness, they've got a higher percentage of the electorate that's unproductive during the day and will be available to answer their phone....

Well I don't know, some of them are hard at "work" - blocking office building entrances.


(Actually I don't have the contempt for what they're doing now that I had for the Occupy Wall Street fools; some of the things I.C.E. is doing these days are downright morally repulsive.)

The Republicans have little to talk about these days after electing a guy who brags about gripping women on a bus ride - letting the entire nation know how he feels about women, stiffs his contractors 30% on a final bill because of his obsession about money, and turns his back on the allies of our lifetime because of his love of dictators - and possibly controlled by Putin. History will show that Trump is worst than Nixon and, hopefully, following Nixon in the Impeachment Committee.

So go ahead in complaining about someone who believes in Medicare for all which would be a combined public/private system, just like civilized countries that have better outcomes at half the price. Just don't remind the Christian Conservatives about Jesus talking about care of the sick. If the public understood the additional costs they pay out every day because of our system in shafting the population for the benefit of large companies, like health insurance companies the public would gag.

Ken777 wrote:

Trump is worst than Nixon

Was just thinking that myself earlier tonight.

As I've been saying for a long time, Trump makes Dubya look like Jed freakin Bartlet.

One primary won by a "socialist" (notice the quotation marks and labeled by righties) and, all of a sudden, Democrats are done. Let's just forget the 10 or so other seats they have gained. I think with the seriousness of Kennedy leaving SCOTUS, people get it. I think we will see Democrats taking over both chambers and impeachment. If not, the Republic really is done. We saw the beginning of the end in 2012.

Ken777 wrote:

The Republicans have little to talk about these days after electing a guy who brags about gripping women on a bus ride - letting the entire nation know how he feels about women, stiffs his contractors 30% on a final bill because of his obsession about money, and turns his back on the allies of our lifetime because of his love of dictators - and possibly controlled by Putin. History will show that Trump is worst than Nixon and, hopefully, following Nixon in the Impeachment Committee.

Still talking about 2016 issues that the electorate has moved past? Still clinging to that Putin delusion? Come join us in 2018. If this is what the Democrats are going to run on this November they will regret it.

VTKillarney1 wrote:

Still talking about 2016 issues that the electorate has moved past?

I don't know about you but I see a certain CiC who is holding 2020 reelection campaigns and all he ever talks about is his EC victory and bringing up Clinton for everything.

Who is still talking about 2016?

einsteinboricua wrote:

VTKillarney1 wrote:

Still talking about 2016 issues that the electorate has moved past?

I don't know about you but I see a certain CiC who is holding 2020 reelection campaigns and all he ever talks about is his EC victory and bringing up Clinton for everything.

Who is still talking about 2016?

He’s talking about it because his 2016 talking points worked for him. We know that the Dem’s talking points didn’t work. Big difference.

My experience in every election I can ever remember is that the polls get tight and it gets to be a nail-biter and nobody knows what's going to happen until...

2122M wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

VTKillarney1 wrote:

The greatest number of respondents were Democrats. I will let you draw your own conclusions.

In fairness, they've got a higher percentage of the electorate that's unproductive during the day and will be available to answer their phone....

Says the internet forum warrior with almost 15,000 posts....

2.42 posts per day on average means that you can’t be productive during the day? I’d hate to see how long it takes you to type.

EA CO AS wrote:

VTKillarney1 wrote:

Airstud wrote:

This was a poll of dumb people, right?

The greatest number of respondents were Democrats. I will let you draw your own conclusions.

In fairness, they've got a higher percentage of the electorate that's unproductive during the day and will be available to answer their phone....

Says the internet forum warrior with almost 15,000 posts....

VTKillarney1 wrote:

2122M wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

In fairness, they've got a higher percentage of the electorate that's unproductive during the day and will be available to answer their phone....

Says the internet forum warrior with almost 15,000 posts....

2.42 posts per day on average means that you can’t be productive during the day? I’d hate to see how long it takes you to type.

Wait a minute, you're going to defend EA? The post made reference to a stat that democrats are unproductive during the day and you, Mr. Factcheck Supreme, aren't going to ask for proof to make sure its not a lie?

Or are you one of those 'moderates' that only rebuts anti-Trump arguments but has no interest in fact-checking comments that attack democrats?

2122M wrote:

VTKillarney1 wrote:

2122M wrote:

Says the internet forum warrior with almost 15,000 posts....

2.42 posts per day on average means that you can’t be productive during the day? I’d hate to see how long it takes you to type.

Wait a minute, you're going to defend EA? The post made reference to a stat that democrats are unproductive during the day and you, Mr. Factcheck Supreme, aren't going to ask for proof to make sure its not a lie?

Or are you one of those 'moderates' that only rebuts anti-Trump arguments but has no interest in fact-checking comments that attack democrats?

I took it as a joke. Lighten up.

VTKillarney1 wrote:

2122M wrote:

VTKillarney1 wrote:

2.42 posts per day on average means that you can’t be productive during the day? I’d hate to see how long it takes you to type.

Wait a minute, you're going to defend EA? The post made reference to a stat that democrats are unproductive during the day and you, Mr. Factcheck Supreme, aren't going to ask for proof to make sure its not a lie?

Or are you one of those 'moderates' that only rebuts anti-Trump arguments but has no interest in fact-checking comments that attack democrats?

I took it as a joke. Lighten up.

That'll be the first one you've ever taken. You're a strict literalist when someone goes after the right. You're basically Drax, but in high school (I can only assume summer break is what cleared your schedule for this recent bout of internet fun).

However, when someone on the right lies (or even potentially lies), you can take it as a joke. Interesting.

Well, not interesting. Very, very predictable.

2122M wrote:

VTKillarney1 wrote:

2122M wrote:

Wait a minute, you're going to defend EA? The post made reference to a stat that democrats are unproductive during the day and you, Mr. Factcheck Supreme, aren't going to ask for proof to make sure its not a lie?

Or are you one of those 'moderates' that only rebuts anti-Trump arguments but has no interest in fact-checking comments that attack democrats?

I took it as a joke. Lighten up.

That'll be the first one you've ever taken. You're a strict literalist when someone goes after the right. You're basically Drax, but in high school (I can only assume summer break is what cleared your schedule for this recent bout of internet fun).

However, when someone on the right lies (or even potentially lies), you can take it as a joke. Interesting.

Well, not interesting. Very, very predictable.

Surely you wouldn’t say this without a basis. So please point out the joke from the left that I missed. Now is your chance.

VTKillarney1 wrote:

2122M wrote:

VTKillarney1 wrote:

I took it as a joke. Lighten up.

That'll be the first one you've ever taken. You're a strict literalist when someone goes after the right. You're basically Drax, but in high school (I can only assume summer break is what cleared your schedule for this recent bout of internet fun).

However, when someone on the right lies (or even potentially lies), you can take it as a joke. Interesting.

Well, not interesting. Very, very predictable.

Surely you wouldn’t say this without a basis. So please point out the joke from the left that I missed. Now is your chance.

How about the link teaching you how to do a Google search when you didn't understand what a tough election map meant. I thought that was very funny....

I'm honestly not going to scroll through you rapidly growing list of posts to find other examples, but all-in-all, you're pretty easy to read.

2122M wrote:

VTKillarney1 wrote:

2122M wrote:

That'll be the first one you've ever taken. You're a strict literalist when someone goes after the right. You're basically Drax, but in high school (I can only assume summer break is what cleared your schedule for this recent bout of internet fun).

However, when someone on the right lies (or even potentially lies), you can take it as a joke. Interesting.

Well, not interesting. Very, very predictable.

Surely you wouldn’t say this without a basis. So please point out the joke from the left that I missed. Now is your chance.

How about the link teaching you how to do a Google search when you didn't understand what a tough election map meant. I thought that was very funny....

I'm honestly not going to scroll through you rapidly growing list of posts to find other examples, but all-in-all, you're pretty easy to read.

I didn’t criticize the Google link. So this has no relevance. Actually, on my own, after the Google link was posted, I said that I likely misinterpreted the original statement. So I embraced it rather than criticized it.

So you have no example. And you wonder why your credibility is questioned.

VTKillarney1 wrote:

2122M wrote:

VTKillarney1 wrote:

Surely you wouldn’t say this without a basis. So please point out the joke from the left that I missed. Now is your chance.

How about the link teaching you how to do a Google search when you didn't understand what a tough election map meant. I thought that was very funny....

I'm honestly not going to scroll through you rapidly growing list of posts to find other examples, but all-in-all, you're pretty easy to read.

I didn’t criticize the Google link. So this has no relevance. Actually, on my own, after the Google link was posted, I said that I likely misinterpreted the original statement. So I embraced it rather than criticized it.

So you have no example. And you wonder why your credibility is questioned.

Keep trying to play lawyer. You got that one wrong, there was a joke at your expense and you can't laugh at yourself.

Its ok, you'll mature into that someday. For now I understand the need to act super-smart when you are trying really hard. I went through that too as a kid.

2122M wrote:

VTKillarney1 wrote:

2122M wrote:

How about the link teaching you how to do a Google search when you didn't understand what a tough election map meant. I thought that was very funny....

I'm honestly not going to scroll through you rapidly growing list of posts to find other examples, but all-in-all, you're pretty easy to read.

I didn’t criticize the Google link. So this has no relevance. Actually, on my own, after the Google link was posted, I said that I likely misinterpreted the original statement. So I embraced it rather than criticized it.

So you have no example. And you wonder why your credibility is questioned.

Keep trying to play lawyer. You got that one wrong, there was a joke at your expense and you can't laugh at yourself.

Its ok, you'll mature into that someday. For now I understand the need to act super-smart when you are trying really hard. I went through that too as a kid.

And I took absolutely no offense at that joke. I went along with it and didn't challenge it.

So your point still has ZERO factual basis. If anything, your evidence shows quite the opposite.

But keep trying. Or, perhaps as I originally said, lighten up. This really isn't a hill worth fighting for.

VTKillarney1 wrote:

Ken777 wrote:

The Republicans have little to talk about these days after electing a guy who brags about gripping women on a bus ride - letting the entire nation know how he feels about women, stiffs his contractors 30% on a final bill because of his obsession about money, and turns his back on the allies of our lifetime because of his love of dictators - and possibly controlled by Putin. History will show that Trump is worst than Nixon and, hopefully, following Nixon in the Impeachment Committee.

Still talking about 2016 issues that the electorate has moved past? Still clinging to that Putin delusion? Come join us in 2018. If this is what the Democrats are going to run on this November they will regret it.

If it is such a delusion, why is it still being investigated? Why are Russian connections going to jail or being killed under mysterious circumstances?

2122M wrote:

Keep trying to play lawyer. You got that one wrong, there was a joke at your expense and you can't laugh at yourself.

Its ok, you'll mature into that someday. For now I understand the need to act super-smart when you are trying really hard. I went through that too as a kid.

You seem obsessed with this poster and probably just broke a couple of forum rules chasing that obsession.

seb146 wrote:

VTKillarney1 wrote:

Ken777 wrote:

The Republicans have little to talk about these days after electing a guy who brags about gripping women on a bus ride - letting the entire nation know how he feels about women, stiffs his contractors 30% on a final bill because of his obsession about money, and turns his back on the allies of our lifetime because of his love of dictators - and possibly controlled by Putin. History will show that Trump is worst than Nixon and, hopefully, following Nixon in the Impeachment Committee.

Still talking about 2016 issues that the electorate has moved past? Still clinging to that Putin delusion? Come join us in 2018. If this is what the Democrats are going to run on this November they will regret it.

If it is such a delusion, why is it still being investigated? Why are Russian connections going to jail or being killed under mysterious circumstances?

It is being investigated because it is proper to investigate it. But in a town filed with leaks there has been nothing that has arisen to the level of Trump yet. The indictments that have been secured do not implicate Trump in any way.

This may change, for sure - but it is looking extremely unlikely. If they get Trump, which is a BIG if, my guess is that it is going to be on some sort of procedural issue.

And let's not forget the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that Russia swung the election. Even Comey has said that.

The Democrats have put so many eggs in this basket that it is going to really blow up in their face if they can't deliver - which is perhaps why you see some rather high profile Democrats starting to backtrack.

Well this will really help in the midterm elections:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bi ... 3a8f69b33f

VTKillarney1 wrote:

Well this will really help in the midterm elections:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bi ... 3a8f69b33f

If people shrugged with "grab 'em by the pussy", why would this move the needle one way or the other?

Just like states rebelled against Obama, now the tables have turned and you have states rebelling against Trump. You reap what you sow.

einsteinboricua wrote:

VTKillarney1 wrote:

Well this will really help in the midterm elections:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bi ... 3a8f69b33f

If people shrugged with "grab 'em by the pussy", why would this move the needle one way or the other?

Just like states rebelled against Obama, now the tables have turned and you have states rebelling against Trump. You reap what you sow.

They probably shrugged at Trump’s very old comment because it had absolutely nothing to do with national security.

I think this was inevitable to be honest. The Democrats had a small window of time where the party was fairly united against Trump. I think that window is closing fast. This poll might be wrong, but I still think the promised blue wave will be a damp squib (to mix my metaphors horribly).

Still, five months is a long time in politics, especially with Trump in charge.

EA CO AS wrote:

In fairness, they've got a higher percentage of the electorate that's unproductive during the day and will be available to answer their phone....

Only if you exclude old people

VTKillarney1 wrote:

The latest Harvard-Harris poll is out, and it is not looking good at all for the blue wave that we have been promised.

47% currently approve of Trump's handling of the presidency, which is nearly identical to Barack Obama's approval at the same point in his presidency.

It is also worth noting that the statistic above is not as favorable as you might think. The 2010 midterms were utterly catastrophic for the Democrats.

I do not think this poll is apples to apples for the same point in time of the administrations:

69% say the economy is either "very" or "somewhat" strong.

68% say their own financial situation is either improving or about the same.

Things were VERRRY different in 2011 we were still picking up the pieces from the meltdown...I am pretty sure if you asked those same questions 1.5 years into Obama's term, the numbers would be very different!

I disdain polls. You push for turnout and victory no matter the polls say...

VTKillarney1 wrote:

It is being investigated because it is proper to investigate it. But in a town filed with leaks there has been nothing that has arisen to the level of Trump yet. The indictments that have been secured do not implicate Trump in any way.

This may change, for sure - but it is looking extremely unlikely. If they get Trump, which is a BIG if, my guess is that it is going to be on some sort of procedural issue.
.

The longer this is taking and the wider they cast the nets, it is looking more and more like a fishing expedition.

I consider the turning point was raiding his so-called lawyer's office looking for one thing and all they found about Trump was that he did not take the bait. So, they found something else to indict the lawyer. Fishing.

off-topic, before Seb comes along talking about "righties" and Benghazi! - I agree, that circus was indeed misdirected, they should have been looking into the corruption around the entire Libyan blunder. Hillary received a gift, defending the deaths of a few Americans in war zone for a few months is a lot easier than explaining hundreds of thousands of deaths that revolve partly around blatant Western corruption (French). We'll never know why Hillary turned on a guy we had already turned.

That's right, the red tide is coming so don't you worry, you can just stay home for the election. Just let those darned liberals waste their time and still lose.

VTKillarney1 wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

VTKillarney1 wrote:

Still talking about 2016 issues that the electorate has moved past?

I don't know about you but I see a certain CiC who is holding 2020 reelection campaigns and all he ever talks about is his EC victory and bringing up Clinton for everything.

Who is still talking about 2016?

He’s talking about it because his 2016 talking points worked for him. We know that the Dem’s talking points didn’t work. Big difference.

Two important points. First, Hillary was able to win the actual vote by about 3 Million votes which suggests that something the Demands did "worked". Second, Trump won 4 states by a total of around 67,000 votes TOTAL, which is far from a landslide.

For 2020 we need to start with Special Counsel Mueller. Looking at the number of Indictments and Guilty Pleas so far it is fair to assume that he is building a very strong case that is going to be brutal for Trump and maybe even Pence. Trump might be gone by the 2020 Election.

It is also reasonable to assume that the Dems will make a better investment that was lost in 2016. Those 67,000 votes was a wakeup call, especially for those voters that didn't to to the polls. Don't assume that Trump will be as lucky in 2020.

And don't think that Trump's P***y grabbing tape will be forgotten, especially when it is played a lot in the last 30 days of the campaign. Or the other sexual abuses that saturates
Trump's history.

VTKillarney1 wrote:

It is being investigated because it is proper to investigate it. But in a town filed with leaks there has been nothing that has arisen to the level of Trump yet. The indictments that have been secured do not implicate Trump in any way.

This may change, for sure - but it is looking extremely unlikely. If they get Trump, which is a BIG if, my guess is that it is going to be on some sort of procedural issue.

And let's not forget the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that Russia swung the election. Even Comey has said that.

The Democrats have put so many eggs in this basket that it is going to really blow up in their face if they can't deliver - which is perhaps why you see some rather high profile Democrats starting to backtrack.

The lack of leaks should not be a surprise. Mueller has kept a very tight lid on this investigation and that is driving a lot of people nuts - especially Trump. The indictments to date may not have the optics of not involving Trump, but some, like Flynn, are still on the table in terms of helping the investigation. His sentencing process has been delayed until August 24th - lots of time to add more evidence. Cohen has not been indicted and therefore no need (yet) for him to flip. Let's wait on that one. And then Manafort has not flipped yet, but he has a trial date before the election. Let's see how long a Judge hands him.

The only thing that is in your face is Trump continually attacking the investigation. Is he worried about what has been discovered? Do birds fly?

It is also folly to believe that the Russians didn't influence the election. Don't trust Comey's judgement after his FUBAR 11 days before the election. Or don't hope that the FBI will screw up like that in 2020.

The GOP also has a lot of eggs in one basket - called Trump. Big problems in being a Trump Buddy if all hell breaks loose.

It will be interesting to see if the Mueller Report is made public, or if the GOP will keep under wraps. The pressure to make the entire report public is going to be intense, as will Trump's effort to a coverup. THAT is going to be a huge impact on the election, or the impeachment. And it gets released in late August.\

BTW, Trump's family has not been interviewed by Mueller. Yet.

Since you have a two party system that doesn't appear to want to go away, and that an economic crash is all but certain before 2020, you have two choices : either it happens soon, Trump is blamed for it, loses the midterms, then things continue to stay mostly stuck for the time being. Or Trump keeps/increases his/the GOP power, then the crash happens, and those "socialists" you so fear have a good chance at getting the presidency, house and senate.

VTKillarney1 wrote:

Some highlights:
47% currently approve of Trump's handling of the presidency, which is nearly identical to Barack Obama's approval at the same point in his presidency.

Didn't Obama lose the midterms ?

Saying it doesn’t make it true. Do you have EVIDENCE that Russia swung the election? If not, stop saying that they did.

Aesma wrote:

Since you have a two party system that doesn't appear to want to go away, and that an economic crash is all but certain before 2020, you have two choices : either it happens soon, Trump is blamed for it, loses the midterms, then things continue to stay mostly stuck for the time being. Or Trump keeps/increases his/the GOP power, then the crash happens, and those "socialists" you so fear have a good chance at getting the presidency, house and senate.

VTKillarney1 wrote:

Some highlights:
47% currently approve of Trump's handling of the presidency, which is nearly identical to Barack Obama's approval at the same point in his presidency.

Didn't Obama lose the midterms ?

??

Definition of a midterm election is that it doesn't affect the presidency.