X
    Categories PoliticsPolls

Is Trump Due to Become Popular?

Just about everything has gone wrong for Donald Trump so far, and let’s face it, he has “stepped in it,” many times. That has led to his being the butt of jokes, and, well, a laughing stock around the world. But maybe we’re beginning to see the “pivot” we’ve been watching for these many months.

ADVERTISEMENT

A lot has been made of Trump’s deal with Nancy Pelosi on the debt ceiling–taking just about everyone by surprise. Going into the meeting, Paul Ryan called the idea stupid. Even more surprising, Trump has made a deal with Chuck Schumer to eliminate the debt ceiling.

President Donald Trump on Thursday suggested he is open to getting rid of the nation’s debt ceiling altogether.

“It could be discussed,” Trump told reporters Thursday. “There are a lot of good reasons to do that.”

A day after Trump agreed with Democrat to suspend the debt ceiling for three months, a shorter time period than Republican leaders wanted, reports said Trump also told Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi that he was willing to work with them on legislation to eliminate the ceiling permanently. . .

The idea drew immediate pushback from Republican leaders, who view the debt ceiling as an important tool to extract spending cuts and fight for fiscal reforms.

“There’s a legitimate rule for the power of the purse in Article 1 powers, and that’s something we defend here in Congress,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said Thursday.

The debt ceiling has been a tool for budget hawks. Eliminating that tool will not sit well with Trump’s base. And it follows another deal with Democrats—on DACA, the program that allows immigrants who were brought here when they were young, to stay. And the “Great Negotiator” didn’t feel he should use DACA as a bargaining chip to get his “wall,” according to the Washington Examiner.

The White House hailed a “constructive working dinner” Wednesday night between President Trump and top Democratic congressional leaders, who claimed afterward they agreed to exclude the border wall from a deal on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. . .

“We had a very productive meeting at the White House with the President,” Schumer and Pelosi said in a joint statement. “The discussion focused on DACA. We agreed to enshrine the protections of DACA into law quickly, and to work out a package of border security, excluding the wall, that’s acceptable to both sides.”

FiveThirtyEight has an article giving four possible reasons why Trump has started working with Pelosi and Schumer.

Even without a DACA deal, Trump meeting alone with the Democrats is unusual. What is he doing? The president largely shunned Democrats and governed solely with the GOP for the first eight months of his presidency. Here are four theories about what’s going on:

1. He is mad at McConnell and Ryan. . . this theory is that Trump — having watched congressional Republicans unsuccessfully try to pass the Obamacare repeal — doesn’t think McConnell and Ryan are up to the job of getting major legislation done. . .

2. He doesn’t care about caving to the Democrats on DACA or the debt ceiling. . . So, Trump may not care about these issues that much. And he may have a higher priority ….

3. Trump may be trying to focus his party and Congress on tax reform. Trump and his staff seemed at times disengaged from the Obamacare repeal process. But the president has given speeches in Missouri and North Dakota to tout tax reform in the last few weeks. He tweets about it often.

4. Trump is now governing from the center. This is the most radical theory: Trump, after a dismal seven months that left him as the most unpopular first-year president in modern history, has decided to change course. He’s looking to cut deals and govern in a bipartisan manner or at least act in a way that will get him good press and approval from Washington elites.

Trump is known as being thin-skinned, so he hates criticism, and even though he has used attacks on the media to his advantage, it seems that, deep down, it hurts him to be criticized. Look at the way he gushed about the media response to his “working with the opposition.”

And maybe he has finally looked at the numbers. There are “groupies” who will follow him anywhere, totally enamored with his rock-star status from TV. When you ask such people about things Trump is doing that attack their own best interests, these people come up with excuses for him. They’re not going anywhere.

Then, there are the “true conservatives,” such as Ann Coulter, who are very picky about what he does. Perhaps Trump has decided that there’s no way to really please people like that, so why try?

Of course, as the FiveThirtyEight story suggests, reaching across the aisle may just be a matter of choosing his battles. As the saying goes, “discretion is the better part of valor.” In other words, you’re not a hero if you lose. That is precisely what made Bill Clinton so popular with the public—and so hated by the right. He would take credit for things he couldn’t defeat, which made conservatives froth at the mouth.

Those are the “fundamentals.” But then, there are also technical factors. This writer has studied the market theory and technical analysis. Because of that, he has bet on Trump’s favorability all year, on the betting site, PredictIt, winning almost every time. Regardless of how YOU feel about Trump, the general public will have mood swings. And those mood swings can be seen in charts.

Here is a chart of RealClearPolitics averages of Trumps recent polls. Note that they were in the mid-to-low 30s just a few weeks ago. Now, they’re right at 40. That’s high for Trump.

That’s impressive, but look at the chart on the same page.

As you can see, there’s a slight uptick in Trump’s favorability. But now, look at the same chart, with green “trend lines” that we’ve drawn.

Trump’s popularity has been “trading” within a “trading range.” When his approval hit the “resistance” line it would drop; when it hit the “support” line, he’d rise. But the trend was solidly downward, and smart traders bet on the trend.

As you can see from the green “trend lines,” Trump has solidly broken through “resistance,” and the trend may very well be upward now.

The thing about markets is that they gauge psychology, and psychology takes time to change. Thus a trend will stay in effect until there’s a change in mood.

The amazing thing is that it often foretells events. Why would Trump’s favorability rise at this point? Maybe it’s his reaching across the aisle. Maybe his UN speech will impress people. Maybe he’ll come up with a solution to the North Korean problem, or—dare we say—the Palestinian problem. After all, Hamas and the PLO seem to be working out their problems, which would then give Palestine a united front from which to negotiate any possible agreements with Israel. Who knows?

But if you’re a betting person. It looks like the market has given us a “buy” signal for Trump.

Goethe Behr :Goethe Behr is a Contributing Editor and Moderator at Election Central. He started out posting during the 2008 election, became more active during 2012, and very active in 2016. He has been a political junkie since the 1950s and enjoys adding a historical perspective.

View Comments

  • President Trump will never be popular with the Democratic whiners. These poor deluded individuals are still smarting over the fact that Queen Hillary was rejected by the American electorate.?

    President Trump could find a cure for cancer and he still would be loathed by the left. But everything is cyclical and there is hope for another Democratic savior. I would say it probably will occur sometime in the next 100 years.?

      • The electoral college apparently didn't see it that way. Take a look at the red states and the few blue states. That the most populous state in the union, California, along with populous New York and Illinois went for the Wicked Witch means very little.?

        I wonder what the election commission will uncover. How many people voted more than once, how many non citizens voted and of course another Democratic staple, how many dead people voted for Billary. I think that is called stuffing the ballot box.?

        • What is your source on the claim that the Electoral College does not accept the election results? Have the electors made a joint statement saying they reject the fact that Hillary Clinton had the popular support of voters? Do you have a link?

          Or are you just making things up? You know, lying?

          • Sorry, but you misread my post. I said that the electoral college didn't see it that way meaning that Donald J Trump trounced Hillary Clinton as far as electoral college votes. Now that we have that cleared up, did you read the rest of my post concerning the election commission? I hope that once you encountered a stumbling block you didn't stop reading.?

            Now why don't you respond to me on the meat of my post. Don't tell me that you are still smarting from the shelacking that Queen Billary endured??

          • The only known examples of people trying to vote twice are poorly educated Trump supporters who were trying to balance out the imaginary double-voting Hillary supporters. The Republican lie about voting fraud is a scheme to make people like you commit voter fraud. You are a useful idiot.

          • Poorly educated, is that something DUMBOCRATS tell themselves about their political opposites to make themselves feel good? I suppose any sort of concocted lie will make you poor SNOWFLAKES feel better, especially after the political butt kicking you and your ilk suffered last November!!!?

            Let's say for the sake of compromise that the Wicked Witch actually did beat out President Trump in the popular vote. The end result is that she was still shelacked as far as ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes are concerned. Guess what, under the present system that is what counts.?

            In so many words we are now blessed with President Trump in this country. Billary meanwhile will be nothing but a footnote in the history books. She and her loyalists such as you will be known as LOSERS!!!?

          • You said the Electoral College "didn't see it that way" in response to the fact that the American electorate vastly preferred Clinton over Trump. Are you now admitting you lied on this point?

  • Trump's base continues too expand. Today, as people know, the Venezuelan spokesperson compared Trump to Reagan. Not a bad comparison.

    • Actually, indications are that Trump's "base" is shrinking. The way he's gaining in the polls is that more moderates think he's doing a decent job. But they'll never be his "base."

      • Poll? Which polls? Are the polls you mentioned the same ones that showed that he'd be beaten badly?

        Forget the talking heads. They aren't his base. They think they are. The forgotten people are his base. The ones who cheered his UN speech.

        • That's not true. The polls showed a tightening race, very close at the end, and could not fully gauge the public's response to Comey's last minute intrusion. It was only the commentators who thought Hillary would win by a lot, and that's only because they didn't fully understand her incompetence.

          • Ok. I give up. But If the polls were so narrow why did his daughter say they were going to get beat? Why did Trump respond "We gave it our all" or something to that effect?

          • Because it was such a long shot in the Electoral College. The GOP and Dems have been swapping Ohio and Florida, but Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan were solidly Dem. Only an idiot would believe that Trump would take ALL of them. Ivanka is no fool. It was the pundits who were fools--assuming only the likely outcome.

            Hillary was watching the polls and cancelled the party for election night, including fireworks.

            It angers me when I hear the polls being trashed. They're not all good (some now show Strange and Moore tied!), but the serious polls are surprisingly accurate--especially since only 54.7% of eligible voters actually voted.

            Here's the final poll averages from Real Clear Politics: Hillary 48.2, Trump 46.1.
            https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

            You know what the actual vote count was? Yep, 48.2 to 46.1--exactly as the polls said.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016

          • You make a lot of sense. I was, to be honest with you, shocked when Trump won. I wanted him to win. I voted for him. Still I didn't think he had a chance.

            Yes, Trump was everywhere. He'd even have cut your grass. Hillary wasn't showing up as much at her planned events.

            I felt she didn't want the job as badly as Trump did. So I voted for Trump. She had the experience but not the drive.

          • Since you believed Trump would lose, would you consider yourself a part of the "fake news" media, as often described by Trump and his supporters?

          • Not "fake news" just a realist. I love Trump. He tells it like it is. However, at first I wondered what he was doing on the stage with other polished politicans.

            The more I listened to him the more I found myself agreeing with him. Basically cheering him on.

            Example: Even lately Trump said what millions of people are "thinking" but don't have the platform. He talked about respect for the Flag. Vets without legs would love to STAND for the Flag. Get up NFL, etc. respect the flag.

          • Yet when the media made the same realistic prediction, Trump and his supporters called it fake news. That must make you furious, huh?

            Now, why are you opposed to the first amendment?

      • He doesn't need a base as long as enough people believe in what he is doing and vote for him. That is what you are seeing in the polls. Not just the base. You also forget that many Democrats, including blacks and spanish, vote for Trump also.

          • Where are you getting that idea from? If it's somewhere in your link you need to be more specific. According to Roper:

            Whites: Trump 58% Romney 59%
            Blacks: Trump 8% Romney 6%
            Hispanics: Trump 29% Romney 27%
            Total: Trump 46.1% Romney 47.2%

            Unless you are using terminology in an unconventional and/or sloppy fashion, the idea that Romney could've done "17 points worse" that Trump among hispanics is just absurd. That would mean Trump won 44% of the hispanic vote, which is obviously false. The real difference was only 2 points.

            The numbers show that while Trump did marginally better than Romney in some demographics (and marginally worse in others), the fact is that his demographic appeal was almost identical to that of Romney's campaign.

            All in all, as I have already stated, Romney did slightly better (+1.1%) than Trump.

          • That link makes more sense. But I still have no clue where you're getting the idea that Trump did 5 points better than Romney among black voters (the figure in your link says the difference was 2 points), that Trump did 17 points better than Romney among hispanic voters (your link says the difference was 2 points), or that Trump did 18 points better than Romney among Asian voters (your link says 3 points).

            Did you not read the link? Or are you somehow misreading the graph? Your assertions here are beyond bizarre, especially as you have posted as evidence for your assertions a link that says something completely different.

          • How do you figure??

            Trump 62,984,825
            Romney 60,933,504

            Meanwhile, Hillary got less than 1/10 of 1% fewer votes than Obama.

          • I see your problem. You are using absolute numbers instead of percentages. The number of eligible voters changes from year to year. Therefore we normally consider the percentages.

            An example you might find useful: Winning 2 million votes in the USA is not very impressive. Winning 2 million votes on Denmark would be a major achievement. Why? Because the population of Denmark is significantly smaller than that of the USA.

            The same goes for comparing different election years within the same country. Despite winning more votes as an absolute number, Trump won 1.1% fewer votes than Romney as a function of the total number or votes. That's how we can determine Romney did better than Trump.

            By the same token, Hillary Clinton won 48.2% of the vote in 2016, as compared to Obama's 51.1% in 2012, and 52.9% in 2008.

            If we were to accept your idea that the absolute number of votes determines whether a candidate did well, we would be forced to conclude that George H.W. Bush had a disastrous election in 1988, winning fewer than 49 million votes - 14 million votes fewer than Trump in 2016. However, a more useful analysis of the 1988 election is that Bush won 53.4% of the total vote, and won in a landslide.

            This is why math is important. If you don't understand math, you will come to ridiculous conclusions. Never stop studying!

          • Tapdance all you want. Your original assertion was that Trump won with "the exact same people" Romey had.

            That's wrong on two counts. First, Trump got more than two million more votes, and second, Trump did considerably better among minorities. They were not "the exact same people."

            Your second assertion was that "Obama did significantly better than Clinton did." 62,279 isn't even a spit in the bucket of almost 129 million.

            The big difference between 2016 and 2012 was that Johnson and Stein got almost 6 million votes, instead of 1-3/4.

          • By "exactly the same people" I was obviously speaking in demographical terms. In groups where Romney did well, Trump also did well. In groups where Romney did poorly, Trump also did poorly.

            If you thought I was saying that all of Trump's voters were, down to a person, identical to Romney's voters, you might want to practice reading for comprehension (or, alternatively, practice some intellectual honesty). Nobody likes a liar. That's a big part of why Trump is so unpopular, after all.

          • OK, if you want to play the percentages game, according to the Pew numbers you prefer,

            Trump did
            33% better than Romney with African-Americans,
            7% better with Hispanics,
            5% better with White women, and despite common perception,
            Trump actually got a point LESS of the white male vote than Romney did.

            All of this belies your contention that Trump got the "exactly the same people," even if you change it to "the same TYPE OF people."

          • Wow. You have now switched from increases in percentage points, to percentage increases. Do you really not understand basic math?

            And, no, I never said "exactly the same people." You are lying. Why are you lying?

            Have you now abandoned the Forbes article that you linked earlier? You're just gonna tapdance on to the next claim without acknowledging your previous lies?

            Now, answer the question: Do you believe that HW Bush had a disastrous election result in 1988? Come on, liar. Give an honest answer.

          • Like I said, your problem is that you don't understand the concept of percentages. In reality, a change of several percentage points is quite significant in a general election.

            Do you believe that HW Bush had a disastrous election result in 1988? Answer honestly now.

  • To the global left, which includes many of the diplomats seated in the General Assembly today, Ronald Reagan is still their enemy. The words of Nicolas Madero was meant as an insult to both Reagan and Trump. What Venezuelan foreign minister actually said of Trump was “This racist and supremacist theory he’s exposing, this return to the Cold War, for a moment we didn’t know if we were listening to Reagan in 1982 or Trump in 2017”.

  • Trump is right in not using one thing to obtain something else you want. Everything should pass on its own merits. The problem is Congress does not think this way, Democrat or Republican. If Congress would start passing laws based on, IS IT GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE, they would probably get along better and pass more legislation. No add on's to the bills unless it pertains to or has a direct effect on the bill itself.
    Also, they seem to be overpaid. If you look at the amount they earn and divide it by the hours they actually work, they are making one hell of an hourly wage. Work more and take less time off and more business could be accomplished.
    They also waste a lot of time in Congress talking in front of a bunch of empty chairs. If you are going to talk to empty chairs you may as well just file whatever it is with the clerk and be on your way to work up something else that may help the people.on

    • I'll respond to both of your comments here. The party system exists as a power struggle between two groups who want to run things--and "be important." [The upside is avoiding dictatorship of any one group.]

      Years ago, both parties reached out to all people, so there were "Blue Dog Democrats," and "Rockefeller Republicans." That made it possible to agree on many things.

      On other things, you negotiate--give in one area to get what you really want. That addresses your first sentence. Without "using one thing to obtain something else you want," all you have is gridlock.

      Today, a small number of extremists (their "base") has taken control of each party. It's impossible to do what's "GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE," because on most issues, there is no "the people." What's "good" for half the public is "bad" for the other half.

      To make matters worse, both parties follow "the Hastert Rule," in which each party refuses to negotiate, if they have the numbers to steamroll the other party--and half the public. That may be "majority rule," but it's not "democracy."

      • Out of curiousity, what is the "small number of extremists" controlling the Democratic Party? Can you describe them more closely? How do they control the party? What makes them "extremists?"

      • Are there really "Two Groups?" Or do they want you to think there are "Two Groups" fighting for truth Justice and the American way?

        Yes, I'm dissolutioned. Why? Hillary and Bush watching Trump inauguration speech together and Calling it horse pucky. Not convinced. Why are Bush and Obama suing Trump?

        I've always said they blow smoke then Pat each other on the back. Geez, Trump proved it.

        • The fact that you think everyone thinks and believes exactly as you do (not two groups, seriously??) is why we are in such a mess.

          • That isn't true. Why must I agree with you? I could go on and on but you've made up your mind. Can't change it. Don't want to.