Dana Milbank collected a (still incomplete) list of all the people Trump has insulted and gloated over since we won his surprising election in early November. As I read it, I kept having the same experience: “Oh yeah, I forgot about that one.” It’s more evidence that the specifics of the insults don’t matter. What’s important is that he’s always on offense. He’s always giving his audience more.
It’s true that this demonstrates continuity with this approach to the campaign, but it also makes him a sore winner. And very few people like sore winners. Milbank probably puts too much emphasis on this one point as he uses it to explain Trump’s astonishingly bad poll numbers, but it’s a factor.
Looking back, it will also be hard to judge the way the Bush presidency handled winning the presidency despite losing the popular vote because the 9/11 attacks reshaped everything. But he was struggling by Labor Day of 2001. In late may, Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont was already so incensed by the way Bush was handling the presidency that he defected from the Republican Party and handed control of the Senate over to the Democrats. By late-August, a rift had opened up between Colin Powell at the State Department and the Cheney/Rumsfeld axis. The overall perception was that Bush was acting as if he’d won some giant mandate that simply didn’t exist, and that he wasn’t doing enough to reach out to those who had opposed his presidency. It was beginning to cost him.
Trump may need some unifying event like 9/11 to have any hope of governing with anything approaching approval from the American people.
Compared with other presidents, Trump’s handling of the transition has been judged harshly by respondents. As with his favorable rating, 40 percent say they approve and 54 percent disapprove. In comparison, roughly 8 in 10 approved of the way Obama and former presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush handled their transitions. And about 7 in 10 approved of the way former president George W. Bush handled his, even though it came amid the rancorous 37-day recount of ballots in Florida and a controversial Supreme Court decision that helped put him in the Oval Office…
…So far, Trump has generated little confidence about his ability to make sound decisions as president. When asked generally about their faith in his decision-making, just under 4 in 10 say they have either a “great deal” or a “good amount” of confidence in him, and about 6 in 10 say they have “just some” or “none at all.” That is the mirror opposite of attitudes eight years ago on the eve of Obama’s first inauguration.
It hard to say what factors have played the biggest role in this disapproval. It’s important to remember that 70% to 80% of
the people have traditionally given good marks to previous transitions. That means that Trump has failed in getting any honeymoon from people who opposed him. In fact, a higher percentage voted for him than approve of how he’s handling the job so far.
Some things are obviously beyond his control, but the people he’s chosen to serve in his administration must be as important as how he’s conducted himself on Twitter. He wants to gloat more than mend fences, it’s true, but his appointments are their own form of revenge and disrespect. In many cases, they also seem to betray the messages and promises he made on the campaign trail, which may explain why he’s lost support from so many of his own voters.
The way he’s tormenting our allies in Asia and Europe could also be having an effect, especially among more establishment and cosmopolitan Republicans.
However you look at it, he’s off to a miserable start and it’s hard to see how things can get better from here.
The House’s fourth highest-ranking Republican was heckled during a speech at Martin Luther King Jr. Day rally by attendees protesting the GOP’s plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cathy-mcmorris-rodgers-heckled-heath-care
Republicans love sore winners. They’ve been sore winners for the last 30 years. To be fair, they are consistent, they’re also sore losers.
I generally love BooMan’s stuff but this whole post is just way too measured, semantically-cautious and “New York Times-y.” All this talk about how “generally it’s a little better” and “traditionally incoming Presidents are judged less harshly” and etc. — as if Trump is just another patron at the restaurant and the waiters are furiously ignoring the fact that he’s drunk and unshaven and smells of urine — is exactly the kind of polite rhetoric we don’t need right now.
I mean, I don’t know what else can be done, either — the whole Trump situation is about a bull in a china shop and the china shop proprietors having absolutely no idea what to do about it except to politely tell the bull, “Sir, please be more cautious in your handling of the merchandise.”
My guess is that’s because it’s cross-posted from WaMo, like most everything these days–but I don’t imagine Martin as a “moderating for the sake of the audience” kinda guy.
Similarly, there have been news reports by the useless corporate media (and local affiliates) about some Dems boycotting Trumper’s inaug. The rubes were told that it was the first boycott since Lincoln in 1860 when (all) Southern secessionists refused to attend, and that the cause of (very limited) boycott today is simply “increased partisanship”—as though there is nothing particularly unusual about our prez-elect or the circumstances of his election.
Certainly there was no mention of anything that one might find particularly unacceptable about Trumper and his election.
It would be interesting to compare the difference between pre- and post-election disapproval ratings for the last few presidents. Has his approval gone up less than normal, or does it reflect the fact that he was the most disliked candidate ever pre-election?
I’m pretty sure he’s already below his peak approval, which occurred immediately after winning.
According to RCP, these are some of the pre-/post-election approval/disapproval ratings:
So, Trump’s disapprovals have dropped a little and his approvals have ticked up very slightly.
But I don’t have numbers for other elections.
Yes, those are comparing pre and post election. I said I believe he peaked post election and has gone down in some of the listed polls.
Sure enough:
CNN/ORC: 44/53 present (47/50 post election)
Quinnipac: 37/51 present (44/46 post election)
Gallup: 40/55 present (42/55 post election)
Point being he’s been treading water at best since right after the election, or losing ground rather than increasing from winning the election to inauguration as Obama had in fladem’s description.
A couple of things worth noting:
To answer your question, his numbers have improved.
The last Obama number in ’08 before the election was 63-33 and on inauguration it was 79-18 (+17).
So Obama’s favorable bounce was 11 points better than Trump’s. I think it is fair to suggest some of the difference is a result of polarization since ’08.
Basically Trump’s numbers make me remember Rick Scott’s. They were pretty similar Scott was unpopular and disliked for his entire first term.
And then he got re-elected.
In the exit poll Trump was 38-60 favorable/unfavorable.
http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls
Funny how despicable something beats near nothing every time. (As NOTA, none of the above, isn’t allowed on any US state ballots except for NV, it remains unknown if NOTA can best a despicable nothing.)
What nobody here has yet factored into the reports of DT’s post-election approval/disapproval numbers in comparison with previous presidents-elect is the post-election coverage by the press. Generally it tends to be slobbering for the president-elect even when during the pre-election period it split near 50/50. (Don’t know the last time the media split was near 90/10 as it was in 2016, but whenever, or if, it existed, Mr. 10% always lost.) And if not slobbering, I can’t recall a presidential election when the sources of pre-election negative coverage of the winner didn’t significantly lighten up after the election.
What is also obvious is that a lot of people that disapproved of DT, nevertheless voted for him. And some of those voters (although fewer) still disapprove of him. That’s the nature of forced choice decisions when neither choice is desirable.
Duncan – Miserable Failure
And Troll The World
Nor was I one of those “maybe Nixon (and Reagan and GWB) won’t be so bad” types. Few of those here have come close to experiencing the loneliness of being in the 10% that opposed the Gulf War. Or even being in the 37.5% that supported the far better presidential candidate in 1972 and were mocked for years over that support.
Trump and his Administration might be motivated to allow a major domestic attack by those claiming to defend Islam during his time in office thru inattention. This might be an outrageous suggestion to make about another President and Administration. A major terrorist attack during Trump’s Administration might happen as a result of governing incompetence. But, I mean, look at the characters of these people, and look at the level of unpopularity they are facing. Given these situational facts, I wouldn’t put it past this crew to fail to take their national security responsibilities seriously at the onset of their Administration, with the hope that a major attack by claimed Islamists could change the political and security paradigms later.
Yes, this should essentially be expected, whether intentional or not. One can’t very well escape it in the upcoming Age of Incompetence and Der Trumper’s incessant baiting of Islamists.
9/11 also occurred on the watch of a new Repub administration whose colossal incompetence aided the attackers, although to intentionally downplay terrorism as Bushco did in 2001 would be almost unthinkable in 2017, even for Der Trumper.
Very difficult to see a Dem strategy to counteract this or prepare for a way to level blame at the Incompetents when it happens….
The intelligence services of our allies no doubt already have plans to reduce intel sharing to a bare minimum given the unhinged one and the nuts he’s surrounding himself with. This increases the likelihood of an attack further.
While this might be something for them to dream about, it would eventually backfire in real life. War game it….they ‘allow’ something, but then the intelligence community takes the blame (this would be a plus for the administration), and at this point in their relationship no way the intelligence community plays along. Particularly if Trump starts to fire them, like he says he will. Then any attack will easily be blamed on him and his minions. Sure..Trump can convince the lizard brains..and congress will follow him further down the rabbit hole to purgatory…..but eventually the truth will out.
For the foreseeable future the intelligence community will more than likely leak like a bucket with holes shot in it.
Like they say…Murder Will Out.
.
I sincerely hope you are right.
Well, the problem with the war game scenario that I suggest…..is that Trump and everyone around him are idiots. And incredible ‘kiss uppers and kick downers’.
So they still ‘allow’ something and of course people die. The truth eventually coming out? People are still dead.
‘Murder Will Out’ does mean there was a death.
We are so fucked with these losers.
.
I have stopped watching any news on the TV. All that day and night it is just Trump people making excuses for something the donald said or twitted. That cannot be encouraging for many Trump supporters.
Just like the Bundy people or the wildlife-sanctuary occupiers, they’re about to learn about reality.
Corporate Republicans will not like to see uncertainty in Europe and Asia and will get an earful from their counterparts. Are they strong enough to resist the Know-Nothings who have the run of the White House? At least with the chief Know-Nothing there. Will Congress object and will it do any good?
Ridge
In other news I see Putin is standing up for his man here. But I guess you might surmise he is just worried about the promises he thought he had from his man. Who knows?
It’s pretty obvious that Trump’s mother never taught him that if he didn’t have any thing nice to say to not say it at all. Did he have a mother? Or, was he hatched?
There is a reason his parents packed him off to military school.
Domestically it doesn’t matter much how much people like him. The Republicans are so incredibly dominant across the entire country that they can do what they want to a greater extent than anyone has been able to for a long time.
But things will more likely get worse. Things can always get worse.
You simply state the sad truth of the matter. Power lies with the Republicans at all levels of government and they will not be shy to use it.
There is one bright spot. Because elections are nationalized, the single biggest factor (tied with a great economy) to who controls statehouses is the popularity of the sitting president and his party. Since Trump is so disliked that provides an opening. Of course the Republicans also have various structural advantages:
But the nationalization can result in something like a 3-4 point swing.
Maybe it doesn’t serve Democrats to continue making that claim as an excuse for their poor performance. The 2016 money numbers.
For House seats, Republicans only outraised Democrats by $20 million but they spent all of that plus another $28 million they didn’t have. Good enough to lose only a net six of those seats. On the Senate side the GOP spent $75 million more than Democrats did and the GOP had a net loss of two seats.
In the presidential elections, Democrats outraised and outspent Republicans. Outspent by $122 million.
did outspend Democrats for House and Senate seats but only outraised Democrats for House seats by $20 million
This the fact of the matter; money is good, a clear message about the future and a welcomed person to deliver it is better.
I’m afraid both were deficient in the last election.
So instead of adding up the accounts, what will be the Democrat’s message in the next 4 and 8 yrs? Once that is settled, the right person to deliver it will rise to the top.
R
Talking about state legislatures on the money front. Nationality its more about Obama and DNC letting Dean era infrastructure rot.
Nationalized public opinion means little when there is such significant polarization, down to the county level within states.
A map of the 45%-55% counties over the entire US would be very helpful right now, as would the 40%-60% counties.
Also a map of the over 75% Republican counties.
Someone who is tracking those five maps can probably discern a lot about how the Trump administration is doing.
A trend map against the baseline of those those maps would also be interesting. How much movement has there been since peak Trump?
Don’t know that either party has been in such a dominant position at the federal and state level and with a president (or president-elect) that has approval ratings around 40%. We could be in uncharted waters. OTOH and recently, we’ve seen very weak (unpopular) GOP governors in states where the GOP dominants the legislatures and most of the governors have survived re-elections. (McCrory is one exception, but the odds for Democrats are low unless they start doing something very different.)
Good. Very very good. Now I wait.
What’s important is that he’s always on offense.
No, he’s not. He’s often on defense. Wins some, gets a draw on some as attention is exhausted, and doesn’t sweat those he walks away from with a loss because they are quickly forgotten as he spews out another offensive tweet.
Offensive defense.
Every event gets him in the gizzard if it is remotely related to him and his ego.
Looks very Oniony.