The Perils of Trump

Trump nation-tracker-overall-1

Trump has become one of the most unpopular President’s in history in the shortest time on record.

Because he lost the popular vote by such a wide margin, he didn’t enter office with much support outside his party. That support is now gone.

Whether Trump’s approval rating will drop further depends largely on independents and Republicans — he has almost no support to lose among Democrats. If those voters do sour on him, that could pose a threat to Republicans in the midterm election in 2018. The incumbent president’s approval rating historically serves as a good predictor of how many seats his party will lose at midterm.

Based on recent studies, we can make some predictions of where future erosion could occur.

His core support represents about 22% of the population. These folks are going to support Trump no matter what.

The next group are going to support him based on what he delivers. These represent another 22% of the population. These first two groups, the “believers” and the “conditionals” make up the 44% of the population (more or less) that approve of Trump’s performance so far.

The “conditionals” are interested in an improved economy, cleaning up Washington corruption, defeating ISIS, and building the wall in that order. If he fails to do any of those things, he will lose their support.

Let’s look at the challenges that Trump has with this group of “conditionals”.

Trump’s economic plan has a big problem. There aren’t enough workers to support the growth that he has promised. Worse than that, Trump is also expected by this group to put a tough immigration plan in place. Immigration is the easiest place to find the workers that Trump’s economic plan REQUIRES.

Here’s the math. We currently employ 152M people. Trump wants to add 25M more jobs. He needs that job growth in order to deliver the 4% a year GDP growth that he has promised. He’ll get 8M from population growth. If we are able to return to historical highs in workforce participation, he’ll get another 8M. That still leaves him 9M short.

There are only two places he can find those extra jobs. Either immigrants are going to fill them or he’s going to have to figure out how to convince baby boomers to come out of retirement.

The problem is that he can’t fill them with immigrants because one of the other things that the conditionals are going to hold him accountable for is keeping immigrants out and deporting those who are here illegally. That leave seniors. 19% of those 65 and over, work today. In order to hit his numbers, that percentage has to increase to 32%. Even that won’t get the job done, because 7M jobs are filled today by undocumented workers. If you deport all of those workers in addition to keeping new workers out, Trump’s plan adds only 9M new jobs. That’s not nearly enough to hit his GDP numbers. It barely keeps up with the jobs that population growth will require.

Trump is left between a rock and a hard place. Investments to grow the economy without increases in both productivity and workforce are going to spike inflation as demand exceeds supply. That’s going to lose him the support of the conditionals who will have a harder time buying a house, paying their adjustable mortgage, buying a car, and paying their bills. If he reneges on his immigration plan, he will lose the support of the conditionals even if it does help him keep his economic promise.

Trump has already lost the last two groups (curious and resister). He won’t get them back because their views are diametrically opposed to his base and the conditionals. They don’t want a wall.  They want to keep Obamacare. etc.

The only logical result is a continued erosion of the “conditionals” as Trump fails to deliver on his promises.

Most presidents lose ground during their first two years. The average decline since World War II is just short of eight points, according to a compilation by Marquette University political scientist Charles Franklin. If Trump follows that pattern, he could end up with an approval rating in the high 30s — perilous territory for congressional candidates running in swing districts.

If he survives all of the other challenges that currently seem to surround his administration, the historic patterns leave him in very dangerous territory. Bush II lost control of both the house and the Senate in 2006 because the country was tired of the Iraq War. His approval ratings were in the 30’s.

House members are already dealing with tea-party-like disruptions at their local town halls. Republicans are already backing away rapidly from any immediate action on Obamacare replacement because of fears of the impact that might have on the 2018 elections. Trump hasn’t even started to try to get his agenda through Congress, and the news cycles are dominated by stories of disarray, conflict, and foreign intrigue.  By way of comparison, by the third week of the Obama administration stimulus legislation was already being debated.

The closer that we get to the 2018 elections, the less likely it will be that at least House Republicans are going to be willing to take controversial votes. If healthcare reform remains undone, some voters are going to hold him accountable for NOT making the healthcare changes he promised. Other voters are going to vote for Democrats to PREVENT him from making the changes that he promised.

There is no clear path for Trump to improve his situation.

There are only many opportunities for it to get worse.

26 Responses to “The Perils of Trump”

  1. Keith says:

    Hi Jeff. Hope you are well this winter sir!

    If he comes 9 million jobs short and runs out of workers, meaning everyone who wants a job has one, do you really think people are going to be upset?

    You articulated years ago, along with the liberal economist from the NYTs, how President Obama could get a 4% growth rate. You never mentioned running out of workers then. Why now?

    You’re losing your strong rational thinking. You have created a set of assumption leading to your predictions. Maybe right and maybe wrong. But you’re guessing. You haven’t guessed well recently.

  2. Jeff Beamsley says:

    If he comes 9 million jobs short and runs out of workers, meaning everyone who wants a job has one, do you really think people are going to be upset?

    I never said everyone who wants a job will have one. We are effectively at or near full employment now, but there are a lot of people who would like better jobs. The problem is that they know how to mine coal, for example, and the jobs that are available require computer skills.

    Half of the support that Trump has today is “conditional”. That’s based on the article that I quoted.

    Those are people who are willing to give Trump a chance to deliver on his promises. Economically, those promises were to grow the country at 4% and add 25M jobs. Specifically, his promise to coal workers and steel workers was that he would bring their jobs back. I didn’t cover it in this post, but those jobs aren’t coming back because of technology, not regulation. New steel mills are highly automated. New coal mining use mountain top removal rather than digging tunnels. Both of those technologies employ significantly less people with different skills than the traditional mills and mines. So those specific voters are going to be disappointed.

    The basic math is that he doesn’t have enough workers to grow the country at 4%. That was also supported by the article that I listed. Wasn’t just my “guess”.

    You articulated years ago, along with the liberal economist from the NYTs, how President Obama could get a 4% growth rate. You never mentioned running out of workers then. Why now?

    Obama did not have the restrictive immigration policies that Trump has. Instead he was proposing a path to citizenship and a method to bring new workers into this country legally. I have said REPEATEDLY that our immigration policies will change as the country realizes that we NEED new workers.

    If Trump goes down the path of making it easier for new immigrants to come into this country and work, he will also lose his “conditional” voters because he will be breaking his “tough on immigration” promises. If he attempts to stimulate the economy without providing enough workers to supply demand, he will rekindle inflation which will also hurt the “conditional” voters because their costs of living will go up.

    You’re losing your strong rational thinking. You have created a set of assumption leading to your predictions. Maybe right and maybe wrong. But you’re guessing. You haven’t guessed well recently.

    First of all, not guessing. I’ve listed references for each of these assumptions.

    Second, my predictions of continued erosion in Trump support are turning out, if anything, to be conservative.

    His job approval rating in the latest Gallup poll is now just 40%. As the articles that I have listed have said, he has already lost all those that voted for someone else. What he is losing now are those that voted for him.

    I predicted that he would have problems with Russia. Guess what? He had to fire Flynn in an attempt to stop the bleeding regarding illegal contact with Russia prior to his taking office. Now we are in a Watergate situation where people want to know who else in his campaign were talking to Russia, what did Trump know, and when did he know it.

    He hasn’t even started to dig into Obamacare replacement and townhalls across the country are getting mobbed. It has already leaked that Republicans are terrified of taking a vote on this before the 2018 election.

    Because of his promises, “conditionals” will punish him by voting for Democrats if he makes their situation worse. His base may also punish him by simply not going to the polls if he fails to take action.

    I have already admitted that I was wrong about the election.

    If you think that I have missed anything since then, feel free to point it out.

  3. Jeff Beamsley says:

    BTW, a couple of good quotes from NYT

    In record time, the 45th president has set off global outrage with a ban on travelers from Muslim-majority countries, fired his acting attorney general for refusing to defend the ban and watched as federal courts swiftly moved to block the policy, calling it an unconstitutional use of executive power.

    The president angrily provoked the cancellation of a summit meeting with the Mexican president, hung up on Australia’s prime minister, authorized a commando raid that resulted in the death of a Navy SEAL member, repeatedly lied about the existence of millions of fraudulent votes cast in the 2016 election and engaged in Twitter wars with senators, a sports team owner, a Hollywood actor and a major department store chain. His words and actions have generated almost daily protests around the country.


    Kevin Madden, who served as a senior adviser to Mitt Romney during both of his presidential campaigns, said Mr. Trump’s voters in 2016 wanted him to overhaul an establishment in Washington, which they view as long on promises, long on process but short on action.

    “Voters certainly asked for change. They certainly wanted to see disruption,” Mr. Madden said. “But if change begins to look like confusion and disruption morphs into disorder, you risk losing a certain level of confidence with voters.”

    54% of the country (according to Gallup), have already lost confidence in the president. 22% will support him until the end. It’s the support of the other 22% (the conditionals), that is currently eroding. Every day that disruption continues to morph into disorder and these conditional voters see very little movement on their key issues, they will lose confidence that Trump is the guy. His risks are outlined in the nature of their support. He has to deliver on his jobs promise for those that want a better job. So far he hasn’t done much on this front. He has to demonstrate that he is cleaning up Washington corruption. So far he appears to be the source of corruption rather than the cure. He has to take some definitive action on ISIS. His only action so far, the special forces raid, was a failure. He has to build a wall and take immigration action. His actions here, though dramatic, have proven poorly conceived and poorly executed.

    I don’t see a path to stability for this administration.

    As a result, I don’t see any actions that he is going to be able to take so stop the bleeding with regard to the erosion of his current base of support.

    My prediction remains that when his approval ratings fall into the 30’s, which they likely will in the near future, his party will panic and begin distancing themselves from him in an effort to save their majority in 2018.

    That means his ability to get anything through Congress that will help his situation will disappear. It may also mean that Congress will begin paying more attention to their own agenda rather than his. That agenda may include a wide range of investigations into the misdeeds of his administration.

  4. Keith says:

    We’re three weeks in. Relax.

  5. Jeff Beamsley says:

    This is not change. This is chaos.

    It is not making American great again. It is the “unmaking” of America.

    There are a minority of voters who are going to support Trump no matter what. The same was true of Nixon.

    Nixon also ran a divisive campaign in 1972. He painted McGovern as a left-wing radical. McGovern didn’t help his own cause with his pick of VP. Nixon won in a landslide.

    A year and a half after his second inauguration, he resigned rather than face impeachment.

    The major difference was that Democrats controlled both the house and the senate in 1972.

    The Russian involvement in the 2016 election could be the scandal that brings down the Trump administration. The only missing ingredient is for Trump’s approval ratings to fall into the 30’s. That will turn enough Republicans in both the House and Senate into adversaries that investigations will be allowed to move forward. If investigations are allowed to move forward, they WILL find something.

    There are a lot of Republican Senators up for election in 2018. We have already seen Trump’s labor secretary withdraw because he didn’t have the votes in the Senate to be confirmed.

    Trump’s opposition currently has the momentum.

    The bureaucracy is leaking like a sieve.

    Demonstrations continue to dominate the headlines.

    What can Trump do to change the conversation?

    If he can’t get the nation talking about something other than his failures to govern, he will continue to be under attack. Those attacks will finally force Congress to act to save their own jobs.

    Why should I relax when an historic event is unfolding?

  6. Jeff Beamsley says:

    The final days of Trump

    Act 1

    Leaks suggest deep connections between Russians and the Trump campaign.

    Mainstream media push for congressional investigations while continuing to publish the leaks that support the claim that there is something here.

    White House fires Flynn after admitting that they knew about his illegal conversations for weeks. His firing was because everyone else found out.

    White House and conservative media blame leakers for the problem and continue to deny that anything happened between Russians and the Trump campaign. White House threatens actions against leakers.

    Act 2?

    Trump’s popularity ratings take another hit.

    Senate agrees to take up investigations.

    More leaks provide more detail to support claims that some in the Trump campaign were coordinating the release of hacked emails to Wikileaks.

    The individuals involved in facilitating the transport of hacked emails from Russian hackers to Wikileaks start to be identified. They confirm that the first releases of hacked Clinton emails were deliberately scheduled to occur on the same day that the Trump “sexual assault” tape hit.

    Act 3?

    Trump’s popularity ratings take another hit.

    I’ll let you fill in the rest.

  7. Jeff Beamsley says:

    From Pew Research today

    The intensity of the public’s early views of Trump is striking: Fully 75% either approve or disapprove of Trump strongly, compared with just 17% who feel less strongly. Nearly half (46%) strongly disapprove of his job performance, while 29% strongly approve.

    This level of strong disapproval already surpasses strong disapproval for Barack Obama at any point during the eight years of his presidency. The only occasion when strong disapproval of George W. Bush was higher than for Trump currently was in December 2008, near the end of his presidency.

    According to Pew, Trump’s approval rating is now 39%.

  8. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Richard Cohen in an opinion piece in the Wash Post

    In the end, Nixon had to quit. I believe Trump will meet a similar fate, but things have changed since Nixon’s time. The Senate, which in the end gave Nixon the fatal nudge, is not the institution it once was. (Where have you gone, Barry Goldwater?) As for the so-called mainstream media, it has nowhere near its old influence nor its old audience. Little works as it once did. Even the electoral college, designed to keep a Trump out of the White House, became the vehicle for his victory.

    The remedy remains political courage — a determination, particularly by congressional Republicans, to reject the normalization of Trump and his ways. Trump will not change. The question is whether an opportunistic and supine Congress will.

  9. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Latest Gallup Poll now has Trump’s approval rating at 38%. You wonder why Trump is planning a big rally in Florida? It’s the ONLY thing that he can do to demonstrate that there are people who still approve of his Presidency.

    The rallies, however, are not going to convince the 56% of voters who currently disapprove of his job performance.

    A memo leaked that he was planning to use 100K National Guard troops to round up illegal immigrants.

    What can he do to stop the bleeding?

    BTW, there was someone else we all know who also used large rallies to demonstrate his popularity.

  10. Keith says:

    Is he going to use 100k national gaurd member? “Fake news?” Lol
    How about the New York Times false article on the “Russian connection?”
    24 hours a day the media, mostly, are trying to set a maritime about Trump. I would do exactly what he’s doing. Go over the median head with my message. I watched Rance Prebus this morning on meet the press with Chuck Todd. chuck had a narrative of the Gen Flynn situation. Rance said “he wasn’t honest with the VP so we let him go. Chuck asked the same question over and over trying to play the narrative that the Russians and Trump are in cahoots on everything including the election. Rance was very patient with Chuck but was clearly annoyed. Every time Rance would say we weren’t sure he was honest with the VP Chuck just kept going back to his narrative.

    You certainly don’t accept there’s a media bias. From sun up to sun down on CNN has different hosts. Not one of them are not against Trump. Mostly the rest of the national media is the same.

    You fail to recognize one thing when you quote the percentages you do. Of the choice were again Hillary or Trump the result would be the same. Let letMr Trump do what he’s going to do before we through him out.

    I must admit your lack of patients with this administration is humorous.

    This is how it’s going to go down.

  11. Keith says:

    Are you really comparing Trump to Hittler?
    Think seriously about that. Do you think he is Hittler?

  12. Jeff Beamsley says:

    1. The 100K National guard troop story was based on memo that was leaked from the Department of Homeland Security to the AP. The White House never denied that this was an internal DHS memo.

    Press Secretary Sean Spicer spoke to a White House reporters as President Trump prepared to leave for a trip to South Carolina, saying, “That is 100% not true. It is false. It is irresponsible to be saying this. There is no effort at all to round up, to utilize the National Guard to round up illegal immigrants.”

    But Spicer’s comment added two interesting wrinkles. First, he scolded the AP for not seeking comment before publishing the story. But as a reporter responded, the AP had asked both the White House and the Department of Homeland Security for comment multiple times before publication, and had received nothing.

    Spicer also said, “It is not a White House document.” That statement was intriguing, because Spicer wasn’t denying that the memo was real; he was only saying it came from outside the White House. But that didn’t conflict with the AP report, which said the memo was written by Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly. “I don’t know what could potentially be out there, but I know that there is no effort to do what is potentially suggested,” Spicer added.

    2. This was not Fake News. The story was not invented. The AP has the physical document. It attempted to get verification from both the White House and the DHS before it ran with the story. AP posted the full text of memo. The 11 page document has lots of detailed information that is accurate, AND, more importantly the DHS later CONFIRMED that this was one of their leaked documents. That was ALL the AP ever claimed it was. This may have never been a serious plan, but it is an authentic internal DHS document. Printing it is what news organizations are SUPPOSED to do because the public SHOULD know what their government is planning. Since then we have a seen what the final version involves hiring thousands of new immigration agents and empowering local police to participate in the process of rounding up illegal immigrants rather than the national guard.

    3. The NYT story was also carefully researched and verified by FBI officials. This is the same FBI that you supported in their investigation of the Humma Abdin emails in the last two weeks of the presidential campaign. What about that story, other than the fact that the Trump campaign denies that it happened is “false”? Here’s the link if you’d like to read it again.

    This is leaked information, so they are not going to name the FBI officials, but the story was corroborated by more than one source AND they claim to have the phone tap transcripts. These are the same sort of phone tap transcripts that took down Flynn. What SHOULD be happening is a Congressional investigation. But the ONLY way that there is going to BE an investigation is if news organizations like the NYT keep the pressure on Congress to DO ITS JOB. You were the one who insisted that Clinton did something illegal without ANY proof. Why are you now giving Trump a pass about something that is potentially WAY more serious than Clinton’s emails and a potential legitimate issue of national security? Benghazi was the longest and costliest investigation in our history and proved nothing. Why are you opposing an investigation into something WAY more serious? Don’t the American people have a right to know? If it turns up nothing the country and Trump administration will both be much better off.

    3. I saw the Meet the Press interview with Priebus and Todd. Your confirmation bias is showing. Priebus lied on an earlier show when he said Flynn hadn’t talked to the Russians about sanctions. That’s a fact. Todd asked Priebus when he learned that Flynn had lied. Priebus didn’t give a good answer because a WEEK went by between when Yates told them that Flynn had lied and the White House actually did something. Todd asked Priebus if he read the transcripts himself and Priebus said that he couldn’t answer the question. Why couldn’t he say either yes or no? The reason why that was a fair question is because Priebus had just said that the White House (which includes him) had decided that Flynn didn’t do anything illegal in those conversations, but Priebus was unwilling to share any more details about what those conversations really were or why they weren’t illegal. Then Todd asked another reasonable question. Why didn’t the VP know what was going on during the week that others in the White House were “deposing” Flynn about his conversations? Priebus said that VP always knew, but in fact the VP didn’t know because during that period of time he was defending Flynn and saying that he never had the conversations that the White House knew had actually happened – or the VP was also lying in defending Flynn. So Todd asked another reasonable question which was whether Priebus felt bad that they made the VP look as though he was out of the loop. Priebus said that they moved very quickly, but he never denied the fact that a week went by when the VP was defending Flynn and others in the White House knew that Flynn was lying. The Todd asked about Flynn’s motivations. Priebus said that either Flynn lied or he forgo (yeah right) but it didn’t matter. But he had earlier said that they knew right away that Flynn hadn’t told the truth and it took a week (and lots of negative press coverage) before Trump fired him. Priebus’ excuse was that the President was busy including approving the Dakota pipeline twice according to Priebus (you think he might have been a little nervous at that point in the conversation). But what Priebus was really trying to do was change the subject because Todd was getting very close to tripping Priebus up in his own statements. So then Todd asks if Flynn also lied to the FBI on the 24th which was 3 weeks before Flynn resigned. Priebus also dodged that question because that would have either suggested that the FBI sat on the information OR that the White House knew WELL before the time that they said they found out that Flynn lied. The Todd asked if the FBI interviewed anybody else in the White House. Why did he ask that question? Because if Flynn had told them that someone at the White House directed Flynn to have the conversations that he had with the Russians, the FBI would have interviewed that person too to corroborate Flynn’s story. If at some point in the future we find out that Priebus lied, that could be the beginning of a Watergate-type cover-up.

    Then Todd asked him if anybody in the campaign had contact with Russian agents. Priebus gave the political answer, which is that he didn’t KNOW of any. Then he went after the NYT story. He didn’t say that NYT story was FALSE or a LIE. He said that it was “grossly overstated”. What does that mean? How can you not have any contact and then say that the story was grossly overstated. The NYT story said, “repeated contacts”. That means more than one. Priebus said “grossly overstated”, so he’s not arguing that there weren’t contacts. What he is arguing about is the word “repeated”. Then he went on to say it was “total baloney”. So if it was “total baloney” which is hardly very precise, square with “grossly overstated”? Then he quotes the top Republican Nunes as saying that the NYT article was total garbage, but I couldn’t find that quote. What I could find is that Nunes said there would be no investigation in the house. Then he misquotes the NYT by claiming the story said constant contacts when it said repeated contacts. And he criticized the Times for not naming their sources, but obviously the NYT is not obligated to name their sources, they are only obligated to corroborate the stories that they print, which according to their story they did. Then he complains about a WSJ story. They are his buddies. They ARE a source of Fake News that in past Priebus himself quotes regarding the ACA. But when the publish a story he doesn’t like suddenly they are part of this larger media conspiracy too? He then minimizes the speculation of a power struggle in the white house, as if that isn’t important. But it IS important because the White House so far as been behaving erratically and people deserve to know why. Then he talks about what people REALLY care about which is jobs and money, but they have done NOTHING so far on either front. So don’t blame the newspapers for holding you accountable for both the things that you ARE doing AND the things that you AREN’T doing.

    Todd is undeterred and asked another important question. The senate sent a letter asking the White House to preserve all documents. Why did they do that? Because that’s another potential Watergate trip point. If it turns out that documents were destroyed, people will go to jail and the President could be impeached. Priebus tries to minimize this letter by saying that nothing will come of it, and that’s his job. But the reality is that the Senate does not send these sorts of letters to the White House every day. Then Priebus tries to make his point that he has “clearance” to make the comment that there is nothing to the NYT story, but he never denied that contacts didn’t happen. What he did instead was create a straw man claiming things that the NYT story DIDN’T say and then knocking that down. He’s not a sloppy guy, as he says. He’s a very smart guy who never said that there were NO contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia. He only said that there weren’t constant contacts.

    Then Todd asked a GREAT question regarding Trump’s comment that the press are the enemy of the American people. He asked Priebus how the President could advocate for American values across the world when he is unwilling to support the concept of a free press at home. Priebus said this is nothing new, but no previous president said that the press is an enemy of the american people. Then he goes on to say that essentially the President didn’t mean what he said. But the President continues to make statements that suggest that he really DOES believe what he said. So Priebus lied here too. Then Priebus tries to blame the press for printing leaked stories, so Todd asks if the White House doesn’t bear some responsibility for all the leaking that is going on. He doesn’t answer that question either. Instead he attacks the claims again that there is dysfunction in the White House. But the question remains, if everyone is on the same page, why are there so many leaks.

    Here’s the link to the interview. Listen to it again question by question with the context that I’ve provided. If you feel I’ve missed something please let me know.

    4. Fake News – Trump has appropriated this term. Fake News used to mean made up news mainly posted on Facebook by people making money off conservative click bait. Now it means ANY news story that is critical of Trump. This is VERY dangerous territory. It is the role of the media to hold government accountable. When Trump says the media are an enemy of the people, that’s Hitler talk. There are 60% of the people today that AGREE with all of the criticism that the media has leveled against Trump. So “the people” that Trump is talking about are not ALL of the people. In Trump’s terms, the media are the enemy of the people that agree with him and those people are the only “true” americans. The reality is that Trump has done NOTHING to reach out to the 60% of voters who oppose him. Instead he is governing for the minority that elected him. So it is entirely logical and appropriate for the majority that feels disenfranchised to object. And yes, Organizing for Action is one of the groups that is helping organize these protests. Please tell me your problems with people exercising their first amendment rights in an organized fashion. The NYPost article jumps the tracks a little bit in bringing in Saul Alinsky. Here’s a more reliable story on the same subject. This isn’t a secret to anyone who has been paying attention.

  13. Keith says:


    Where was this level of anlysis for 8 years. Hillary’s email server and her answers would have taken you and your wonderfully detailed mind 30 seconds two sentences to totally destroy her. This is why I find you so difficult to understand.

    Hittler – you categorized Trump as Hittler above and I asked you if that’s what you are seriously calling him in the above post and video. Not going any farther until I understand you correctly.

  14. Jeff Beamsley says:

    I’ve commented repeatedly about clinton’s email server. You just didn’t like my answers. Clinton DID get investigated. That’s all that I’m advocating regarding Trump and Russia. The administration IS NOT denying that there were contacts. Instead they ate attacking the newspaper for reporting the contacts. They also denied reports that Flynn had inappropriate contacts with Russia until the FBI leaked that it had transcripts. Then they criticized the leaks and the newspapers that printed them. Not sure why this is difficult to understand.

    As far as Hitler, you have admit that there are disturbing parallels and that’s all I’m saying. Calling the press an enemy of the American people IMHO steps over the line. Holding big rallies where only your supporters ate welcome is also troubling. Refusal to be accountable for the facts. That is deeply concerning. Suggesting that the only true Americans are the minority that support him could signal the start of policies to disenfranchise those who oppose his policies. That’s not how a democracy is supposed to work. Questioning the motivations of the judiciary, is also deeply concerning when we ate supposed to have a judicial system that is impartial.

  15. Keith says:

    All presidents hold rallies, even early in their presidency. President Obama did, GW did, Clinton did, etc. this isn’t new. Now Trump is Hittler for doing the same thing. It didnt hear you calling President Obama Hittler. President Obama whined loudly and often about Fox, Clinton did so to a lesser degree.

    I find zero comparison with Trump and Hittler. I find a guy who chooses his words some what poorly at times. He’s a salesmen and I understand how salesmen speak. “The best” “big league” “I’ll tell you that much” and my lest favorite when anyone says it “believe me.”

    All I have time for.

    Please stop with the Hittler comparisons. It’s probably the lest fair thing you’ve ever written. You also know it’s not true.

  16. Jeff Beamsley says:

    All presidents hold rallies, even early in their presidency. President Obama did, GW did, Clinton did, etc. this isn’t new.

    Sorry but this is not true. Obama first big rallies where 9 months after his inauguration and were in support of his healthcare reform plan.I can’t find any Bush II rallies post election in either 2001 or 2005. Couldn’t find evidence of Bill Clinton rallies in the year following his elections either.

    Neither Obama or Clinton claimed that the press were an enemy of the people. I don’t have any problem with any President complaining that their press coverage is unfair. But Trump says that ANY criticism of him is Fake News and that ALL media that criticizes him can’t be trust. No President has ever said that.

    Let’s agree to keep track regarding Hitler.

    Here are some of the things that Hitler did that Trump has not done yet.

    1. 1925 Hitler forms his own private bodyguards called the SS
    2. 1933 Hitler introduces press censorship
    3. 1933 Hitler, citing the communist threat, ends civil liberties
    4. 1933 Hitler gains popularity by banning the communist party
    5. 1933 Hitler gets legislation passed which makes him a dictator, no longer accountable to either the legislature or the courts.
    6. 1934 Hitler’s supporters riot and kill Hitlers main political opposition
    7. 1935 Hitler rebuilds Germany’s army violating the Treaty of Versailles
    8, 1938 Hitler’s forces destroy 7,500 Jewish shops, 400 Jewish synagogues, and send 20,000 Jews to concentration camps
    9. 1939 Hitler invades Poland and WWII starts

  17. Keith says:

    Here is a loose comparison…. For context only.

    Jesus over turning the tables in the temple.

    Trump over turning/exposing the career infected rotted nature of DC and the mainstream media.

    He held the rally to speak over the heads of the media and directly to the U.S. I have zero fault with this and would never compare that to Hitler.

    No one is against a free press. However this one is creating a narrative.

    One day after the election the losers rallied. The mainstream media covered it in glowing fashion. How would they have cover a losers rally the day after President Obama was inaugurated?

    Show me the nuanced microscopic anlysis regarding the money spent in the stimulus bill that you gave of the Prence interview above by you or the mainstream media? Did you or the mainstream media account for even one dime of that money? Sun up to sun down, 7 days a week? So when he says the mainstream media is the enemy of the American people I understand what he means. I would not have said it lie that however. I would have said what a great disservice they do for the American people.

    Trump is not Hitler. when he rounds up Muslims and burns them by the millions I’ll join you in saying so. Until then you’ve joined the far far far extreme of the far far left. It not even conceivable to suggest he is.

  18. Keith says:

    note – it can’t be said Trump wants to dismantle the press while expanding the number of journalists at the press conference and taking too long answering all the questions asked of him at said press conference.

  19. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Here is a loose comparison…. For context only.

    Jesus over turning the tables in the temple.

    Trump over turning/exposing the career infected rotted nature of DC and the mainstream media.

    Would be a good analogy except for the fact that he isn’t taking steps to resolve what you call the “rotted nature of DC”. He has just brought in a different set of “rotted” people. As far as the media is concerned, he hasn’t exposed anything (other than to those who already believe the media is to blame) regarding the media. If anything he has reminded reporters what their real job is, which is to dig up the news rather than regurgitate what the White House is handing out. As a result, they are currently winning this war with regard to who can be trusted.

    A new poll from Quinnipiac University suggests that while people may be broadly unhappy with the mainstream media, they still think it’s more credible than Trump. The president regularly accuses the press of “fake news,” but people see more “fake news” coming out of his own mouth.

    The poll asked who registered voters “trust more to tell you the truth about important issues.” A majority — 52 percent — picked the media. Just 37 percent picked Trump.

    Trump also continues to slide in the polls regarding his job performance. He’s at 39% approval in the latest CBS poll. In the aggregated RCP poll, his disapproval rating is now over 50%.

    He held the rally to speak over the heads of the media and directly to the U.S. I have zero fault with this and would never compare that to Hitler.

    I have no problem with him holding a rally. I do have a problem when he uses his rally to spread propaganda he labeled as truth.

    “I also want to speak to you without the filter of the fake news,” Trump said, later adding, “We are here today to speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

    1. He quoted Jefferson to suggest that he isn’t the first President to have a problem with the press. But Jefferson, even though he sometimes disagreed with the press, felt they were essential to democracy. I used the relevant quote in my previous post. Jefferson never called the press an enemy of the people.

    2. Trump took credit for reducing the cost of the F-35 contract. That’s also a lie. All of those cost reductions were already in the pipeline when he took office. He should have credited the Obama administration for negotiating them.

    3. Defending his stalled immigration ban, Trump said “there was no way to vet those people. There was no documentation. There was nothing.” That’s a big lie. Trump has done nothing to improve the strong vetting system that was already there. Stopping it has not made it stronger.

    4. He claimed that his election has increased optimism in the country. “Look at what’s happening to every poll when it comes to optimism in our country,” Trump said. “It’s sweeping across the country.” What has increased in ECONOMIC optimism because the economy continues to improve. Obama should get that credit. ALL of the polls regarding Trump’s job performance and our standing in the world are at historic lows.

    Using rallies to spread propaganda is EXACTLY what Hilter did.

    No one is against a free press. However this one is creating a narrative.

    Responsible newspapers are supposed to do two things. They are supposed to inform their readers without opinion and motivate their readers with opinion. You continue to blur the two. A well researched story about repeated conversations between the Trump campaign and Russian officials is NEWS. Priebus DIDN’T deny that there were conversations. He denied that there were a lot of them. That is spin.

    A series of well researched stories about turmoil in the White House is NEWS. Because Trump has NEVER held an elected office, it naturally raises the question of whether Trump is capable of running a government organization. That is a legit question.

    I’m not sure what you mean by using the term “narrative”, but if it is another version of “fake news”, you’re wrong.

    One day after the election the losers rallied. The mainstream media covered it in glowing fashion. How would they have cover a losers rally the day after President Obama was inaugurated?

    Losers rally? Now THAT’s a narrative. 🙂 Women rallied after the election AROUND THE WORLD. They rallied to demonstrate that they did not support things that Trump HAS SAID about women. IT WAS NEWS. When millions of women self-organize around the world and demonstrate in a peaceful and joyous way, that’s NEWS.

    There WERE losers rallies around the country to oppose Obama’s healthcare reform and the media covered them. They happened about nine months into Obama’s administration.

    Show me the nuanced microscopic anlysis regarding the money spent in the stimulus bill that you gave of the Prence interview above by you or the mainstream media? Did you or the mainstream media account for even one dime of that money? Sun up to sun down, 7 days a week?

    Not really the same issue, but here’s a summary story that does what you asked.

    And yes the conservative BIASED media WAS dominated by all kinds of stories about how terrible the plan was. But NONE of their predictions came true.

    Why you are having a difficult time finding an Obama analogy is because there were NO scandals in his administration.

    So when he says the mainstream media is the enemy of the American people I understand what he means. I would not have said it lie that however. I would have said what a great disservice they do for the American people.

    You THINK you understand what he means. In fact you DON’T know what he means. Instead you are taking what he says, putting it through your own bias filter and coming up with something that is more reasonable.

    I agree with you that a biased press does do a disservice to the country by not doing their job. I disagree, however, with your claim that all press is biased.

    Trump is not Hitler. when he rounds up Muslims and burns them by the millions I’ll join you in saying so. Until then you’ve joined the far far far extreme of the far far left. It not even conceivable to suggest he is.

    I agree. The problem is, of course, that by the time that he has convinced everyone that rounding up all of the Muslims is a good thing, putting them in some camp where they can be guarded is probably the next logical step. Without an independent press it is going to be hard to track how they are treated in that camp. So that’s why I believe we should start a little sooner in tapping the brakes on this sort of behavior. That’s my motivation in holding him accountable for his attempts to delegitimize the press and the judiciary. But just to be clear, I don’t think that Trump is Hitler. I do believe that he is using some of Hitler’s tactics. Hopefully he won’t be as successful with those tactics now as Hitler was in the 30’s. We are more aware now of the potential consequences if those tactics are allowed to play themselves out.

  20. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Here’s how radical Trump is.

    Did you actually read the article?

    Yes the survey said that 80% of those polled thought local law enforcement officials that arrest illegal aliens for crimes should turn them over the immigration. But it also said that 53% OPPOSE building a wall. If you want to run the country based on polls, half the country doesn’t want to build a wall, half the country doesn’t want to suspend the refugee program, half the country does not want to hire 10K more agents, and half the country does not want to suspend federal aid to cities that refuse to deport illegal aliens.

    I suspect that if the law enforcement question were asked differently, it would have gotten a different response. For example, should cities deport illegal aliens arrested but not convicted of a crime? Should cities deport illegal aliens who are awaiting an immigration hearing for an application for asylum? Should cities deport illegal aliens arrested for non-violent crimes like driving without a license?

    Here’s the real problem and why sanctuary cities exist. Police arrest an illegal alien for driving without a driver’s license. They convict him of that crime and put him in jail. They notify the immigration service. The illegal alien completes his sentence. Immigration hasn’t shown up yet to pick him up. What should the city do? If they continue to hold him, who pays? More importantly, this person is now being held without the opportunity of due process which is itself a crime. For a while the government paid to keep them in jail, but then local police forces started “stacking them up like cordwood” because it generated cash for the city. That practice is also illegal. So that was also stopped.

    What Obama did, was limit the scope of this deportation to illegal aliens convicted of serious and violent crimes. I don’t have a problem with and most sanctuary cities don’t either.

  21. Jeff Beamsley says:

    note – it can’t be said Trump wants to dismantle the press while expanding the number of journalists at the press conference and taking too long answering all the questions asked of him at said press conference.

    Sloppy thinking.

    Trump could pack the room with reporters from Brietbart, Newsmax, Infowars and would still be attacking the free press. The whole concept is that the press are free to hold elected officials accountable. Hitler didn’t eliminate the press. He eliminated the press that opposed him and replaced it with government run organizations. Same thing happens in every dictatorship. Russia has lots of media, but they are all either directly or indirectly controlled by Putin.

  22. Jeff Beamsley says:

    BTW, same website, different poll.

    Six in 10 say they oppose building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, the president’s foremost campaign promise, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday.

    Only 37 percent support building a wall on the border. The percentage of voters opposed to the proposal increases to 65 percent if the U.S. has to pay for it, and 33 percent would support such a proposal.

    Slightly more than half of respondents, 54 percent, are also against repealing the Affordable Care Act, and 43 percent support the repeal of former President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare legislation.

    About one-third of voters are “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned” they’ll lose their current health insurance if ObamaCare is repealed, and 68 percent are “not so concerned” or “not concerned at all.”

    Half of voters are concerned the cost of their healthcare will rise with the repeal of ObamaCare, and 44 percent are concerned that quality of their healthcare will get worse if the law is repealed.

    About half of voters are also opposed to restarting the Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipelines.

    The poll finds majority opposition to reducing taxes across the board. Sixty-two percent oppose such reductions, even if it increases the deficit, and 31 percent support that proposal.

    About three-quarters of respondents say they are against lowering taxes on the wealthy, and 54 percent are against removing regulations on businesses and corporations.

    The poll found greater support for other areas of Trump’s agenda.

    A majority of voters, 54 percent, support “renegotiating trade deals with other countries, even if it means paying more for the products you buy” and 87 percent of voters support increasing federal spending for roads, mass transit and other infrastructure.

  23. Jeff Beamsley says:

    You claim to know Trump’s mind and that he really doesn’t mean that the press is the enemy of the american people when he says that.

    Please answer a couple of other questions.

    1. What does Trump mean in particular when he and Preibus call the NYT Russian connection story Fake News, and in general when he calls any article that criticizes him Fake News?

    2. What does Bannon mean when he refers to the press IN GENERAL as “the opposition party”?

  24. Jeff Beamsley says:

    BTW, that totally unfair fake news story in the NYT? The FBI today refused a White House request from Priebus to comment on it. This is the same Priebus who bragged to Chuck Todd that he had talked with all of the top intelligence officials who assured him that the story was “garbage”.

    Apparently the FBI has not yet concluded their investigation into this “garbage”. As a result they won’t comment on it.

Leave a Reply