Yea but this was all before that one hour call between Putin and Trump. Putin now has his instructions on how to manipulate American opinion during 2020!
Making excuses already?
Why not run someone who cannot be defeated by a butterfly flapping in a hurricane?
While Barr being incredibly more despicable than Lynch will not permit FBI to run a sting in London.
Not sure why we’re seeing this graph, but some thoughts.
The most interesting aspect of this graph is the stability of Trump’s ratings. Those who support him, support him wholeheartedly. Those who oppose him, do so as well.
No president has ever won re-election with Trump’s net approval ratings (gross approval shown above). On the current trajectory, he has little opportunity to improve his ratings.
More important is Joe Biden’s performance in the polls. USA Today writes, “The share of Democrats who named Biden as their top choice of the crowded field surged from 29% at the end of March to 38% after his announcement.” This puts Biden more than 3:1 over his nearest opponent.
I interpret this as meaning the Democratic primary is over. Further, as I have stated, our model suggests that the country is moving back to center, and by rights therefore, the AOC and other socialist surge should peter out, and it has. Notably, AOC has barely been heard from since the 57-0 defeat on the GND, and Biden’s surging popularity will signal to Democrats across the spectrum that the center will be the focus of action. Therefore, as our model suggests, the center will hold, and the median voter will fall into the Democratic camp, as Trump cannot much extend his support past the 42nd percentile on the a good day.
For Trump, this is bad news indeed, in two respects. First, the Democrats were supposed to dish up some unpalatable candidate from the far left. Didn’t happen, and it’s not going to happen. Second, the speed and size of the vote coalescing around Biden means the Democrats are laser-focused on ejecting Trump from the White House, and the center of the party is going to call the shots. The size of his support is also strongly suggestive that Biden’s appeal will extend well into the center right, notably those same voters who last year put 40 Democrats into the House from traditionally Republican seats. The Democrats will win the moderate Republican suburbs.
My read on this is that, on the current trend, Trump will not only lose, he will lose big.
Steven Kopits: Because of an earlier comment by sammy about Trump approval rates.
Since it has gone way to the bottom of another thread I do not wish to go digging through again, let me say a couple of further things about your uncle, largely nice.
So clearly he has a respectable career and largely done well. He would probably be an all right governor on the Fed board, although I think probably he is not the best person for it now for several reasons already stated.
A final observation is that there is another reason why he almost certainly will not be appointed by Trump. It is that he stood up to Victor Orban. As far as I am concerned, and probably most others here, this is something admirable on his part. Congratulations to him for that, really. OTOH, Orban is one of those foreign authoritarians whom Donald Trump thinks is really great and cool. He will not appreciate that action by your uncle. That is why your uncle has zero chance of being appointed, however worthy he may be.
Well, thank you, Barkley. I do not think my uncle is likely to be nominated, just that he is a viable candidate, particularly if prior direct experience matters.
I’d add that, as I said earlier, Trump will lose not on ideology, style or personal comportment. He will lose on competence. That’s where his risk is.
Actually, Moses, Steven and I having a reasonable debate here is far from new. We used to do this way back before either you or even Menzie was here, although I think pgl was around then.
I remember in particular the period over a decade ago when there was a lot of publicity about how the world was nearing, or at, or even beyond “peak oil.” As one of the world’s leading experts on oil and the economy, Jim Hamilton followed this debate quite closely and put up a lot of posts on it over the period of time when this controversy was at its peak. He was open to the possibility that it might be true, and sometimes linked to some of the more intelligent and informed commentators pushing the argument, although without as near as I could tell ever getting on the bandwagon of it and supporting the view.
I think my view was pretty close to Jim’s, having also observed “limits to growth” people making fools of themselves in the 1970s by predicting a similar near end to any reasonable supply of oil or lower oil prices, a forecast that fell on its face very hard in the 1980s. My own study of the world oil industry dates back a half century when I wrote an undergrad seniors honors thesis at UW-Madison in 1969 on “A History of Oil Price Changes in the Middle East,” in which I forecast that OPEC would probably in he not-too- distant future attempt to gain control over world oil supplies and raise its price, which indeed came four years later. I would also spend some serious time in the Middle East later, serious enough that I know some people whom “Bone Saw” MBS put in the Riyadh Ritz Carlton, one of whom is still there, or at least not released to his family or formally charged with anything.
As for Steven, in those days, and I think still now, his consulting firm was focused on the oil industry, and while I did not agree with everything he wrote here, most of the time he actually did report or cite actual facts or close facsimilies thereof, unlike some of our current Trump toll gang that just shamelessly repeats total falsehoods they hear on Fox News or out of conspiracy theory websites or wherever. I will even give him credit that if I remember correctly he accurately predicted that fracking in the US would be a key reason why the “Peak Oil” argumenty was incorrect.
I have disagreed with him recently on a number of items, and sometimes quite vigorously. But I recognize that he generally deals with data that is not just made up out of thin air, even if sometimes it is not misleading or otherwise not fully accurate. I prefer to debate with such people than those who just out and out lie, like several of the current Trump troll gang seem to do basically all the time, following in this manner, their master in the WH.
It’s really entertaining, watching Kopits and Barkley Junior have a civilized conversation. Two men of comparable and equivalent “intellect”. I feel a warm fuzzy in my heart right now.
While making it clear I am not full-heartedly against Menzie filtering vulgarity and “toning things down” from time to time, I ask Menzie (or really the question could more strongly be applied with all due respect to Professor Hamilton) an open ended question—of somewhat rhetorical purpose but can be answered if the spirit moves him. Would you prefer a “civilized” blog of the type of back and forth “courteous” comments of the like between Kopits and Barkley Junior above as the “standard fare” of your blog?? Or more “frictional” “angry” and “base” comments which find the idea of Kopits’ uncle being on the Fed a literal laugh riot???
Menzie, may I pose the odd synopsis to you that this blog would bore people to tears if the above “civilized” interchange was the “staple food” of your blog?? Menzie, do me a favor and think about that awhile while munching on premium crackers and your favorite Wisconsin cheese. If you like cheese the same as most of the Chinese people I’ve met in my life—you’ll be getting a rough idea of what this blog would taste like.
I think it’s likely that Trump loses in 2020 and lightening would have to strike twice for him to pull it off again. Still, sometimes lightening does strike twice. But unless the GOP has a real “come to Jesus moment” and tries to reach beyond its current demographic, then 2020 is probably the last real shot the GOP will have at winning the WH for a long, long time. A few months ago I saw some joint think tank presentation on C-SPAN of some political scientists who did computer simulations of the Electoral College outcomes given current demographic trends and the demographics of current GOP voters. The bottom line was that Trump would be an underdog in 2020, but beginning with 2024 and beyond (out to six election cycles) the GOP had basically no chance of winning the WH after 2020. Of course, that assumes the GOP doesn’t do any self-reflection and sticks with the angry, old, downscale white male voter. After the 2020 census the new Electoral College will lean more towards the south, but it will be a more urban and less GOP south, very much the same way that Virginia and Colorado moved from solid red to solid blue states. We will probably see the same thing WRT states like Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona and Florida, which are already competitive and near purple states. And I suspect that most of the GOP leadership understands this, which explains why Mitch McConnell has been willing to “go nuclear” when it comes to judicial nominations. Sen. McConnell understands that the GOP will be in the wilderness for a very long time, so he needs to pack the courts as fast as he can because this is probably the last realistic opportunity that he’ll have. GOP politicians can fight a rearguard action only so long, but eventually the inevitability of demographic shifts will overcome gerrymandering and voter suppression. Demographics are a bitch. To paraphrase Max Planck, progressive politics advances funeral by funeral.
BTW, there is a pretty decent counter-argument to be made related to donald trump and 538 blog.
Two passing thoughts, 1) Don’t expect that argument to be made by our usual suspects, as it’s actually a logical argument with quite a bit of foundation to it.
2) Don’t expect ME to be the guy making an argument that supports donald trump’s popularity among “the great unwashed”, as I would NEVER.
HOWEVER…… The argument is low lying fruit, if any of our rural inbreds who visit this blog can spot it. Paging Dr. CoRev!!! Paging Deputy JBH!!!! Paging Diploma Mill Kopits!!!! Paging California Orange Picker PeakIgnorance!!!! There’s an RC Cola spill in aisle 6!!!!
It is quite easy……..
The democrats continue to have nothing to sell. They liberal line from the candidates does not play to the “party”. They torpedoed Bernie. The underlying dogma is something like Nixon on the entitlements thread. The dem party is more opaque than Trump tax returns. The democrats had to go to the level of deplorables and lost due to inexperience in 2016.
The traitor theme with a sprinkling of he is a crook theme will continue. Whether the spy gate and FBI IG bring it up, that “traitor” as the official democrat meme has utterly lost me to any one bearing the label democrat.
I will never vote a democrat.
Putin’s pet poodle will never vote for a democrat? Stop the presses. Snicker!
I thought you did not support warmongering in the Middle East, ilsm. Are you keen on having a war with Iran? Or is this one going to be over by the time the 2020 election comes around so we shall have peace in the MENA while Bone Saw MBS chops up his critics and sends gobs of money to Jared Kushner’s family? Or maybe Trump’s anti-Iran policies will just lead to a coup by pro-American and Saudi and Israeli groups I Iran who will lead us to universal harmony and low world oil prices?
If not, well, I guess having a president in power who repeats PUtin’s claims that Russia has no interests in Venezuela and no personnel there, and so on, even as his SecState was just saying the contrary about a nation that is experiencing the worst economic disaster in all of Latin American history. No problem there, let us move on to approving the annexation of Crimea and maybe the forthcoming one of uppity Estonia.
It is the economy. If it is good, Trump will be re-elected and we get four more years of reality TV. If it is bad, we get something else. My take is that it will not be great in 2020, and we get something else. Biden? Maybe, but I am not convinced.
The data say otherwise. Trump’s approval ratings today are consistent with an economy in a stiff recession. That’s incredible, actually. And the numbers also say that the support or resistance is personal. Take a look at other presidents, and you’ll see many, if not most, of them have wide swings in popularity over time, with their low points during recessions — but at the same level Trump is today. Consequently, even should the economy hold together, Trump is unlikely to benefit. On the other hand, if the economy deteriorates, Trump’s ratings will probably not decline as much as they would otherwise. But they could fall into, say, the high 30s, which would leave him a long way from re-electable.
As for Biden, true, we are still a long way from the election. On the other hand, with his lead now 30 points over his nearest rival, I think the Democrats will want to push him right through. Biden is unobjectionable to suburban Republicans in a way that the rest of the field is not. He polls favorably against Trump. Democrats are going to place a premium on evicting Trump over progressive policies this time around. That suggests that Biden has an easy run through the primaries. That’s what I think and our model says.
Moreover, the size and speed of Biden’s approval growth I think is indicative of the mood on the moderate Republican side. It speaks to the strength and conviction of the center left, which is probably not all that different from that of the center right.
I think the President is in a world of trouble.
pgl’s comment about Putin needs some reflection.
When did it become alright to call the opposition candidate a traitor?
Obama may have distanced himself from FBI/CIA shinanigans; spying on the Trump campaign….. or not.
BUT the voice of reason over the traitor screed in 2016 should have come from the bully pulpit instead of silently allowing his party to try and win on “Trump is Putin’s toy”.
If there is nothing better than ‘Trump is Putin’s toy’ and not bloodthirsty enough for Rachel Maddow to run on there will be no moral choice in 2020.
Apparently Obama was very concerned about what the FBI was reporting to him about the massive activities by GRU and other Russian entities clearly approved of by Putin that he did some minor things about it, such as closing consulate in San Fran and limiting use of some other Russian facilities in MD and Long Island. He was clearly, and reasonably, concerned about appearing to influence the election by coming on strong publicly about all this, with most of his warnings to Putin being private, with, reportedly, some cutback happening after he made his objections known privately.
As it was, for his main move to be more public and aggressive about it he wanted bipartisan support and went to the bipartisan “Gang of 8” cleared to see seriously classified stuff. We now know that 7 of those were willing to go along with Obama’s effort, but one opposed it and stopped him dead cold, leading to him keeping his fairly weak responses private and in the case of the consulate closings, after the election I think. That individual was Sen. Mitch McConnell. So, the current GOP line about Obama not doing enough, repreated on Fox News and its affiliate you like, RT, is a pile of hypocritical garbage.
If Obama was “very concerned” he took no action. In some circles that might be gross negligence. All he did was shoo the butterfly!
If the FBI turned anything up as they tried to turn Mr. G.P. then Obama the chief defender of the constitution should have done a “defensive brief” to Trump at the bare minimum.
No Obama realized the public knowing Trump was under the microscope would have reacted badly!
There were no indictments from the Mueller thing despite his breach of professional bounds. A thorough review of the FBI actions might prove the “evidence” was illegally achieved. A thing to investigate!
The traitor meme should have been stopped by a Rose garden or Oval office prime time speech! In July 2016!
BTW I do not watch US TV, since years ago I observed the news misleading on many stories I had direct knowledge.
“If Obama was “very concerned” he took no action. In some circles that might be gross negligence.”
That is a lie which of course Mitch McConnell repeated today. Of course people still remember that it was McConnell who said we should do nothing. He is a lot like you – a liar laced with incredible hypocrisy.
Sorry, but you are lying here. I thought you were above that sort of thing. Read my post again.
One can sneer that it amounted to “shooing the butterfly,” but he did force the Russians to close their consulate in San Francisco as well as limiting their access to two facilities in the East. Are you on his case that he did not make a big public fuss about this prior to the election? He was avoiding appearing to influence the election, which has been accepted practice by presidents for a long time, although not always followed. It is on the record that he made a private complaint to Putin at some point in 2016, which supposedly resulted in some scaling back of Russian activities in the election, although exactly by how much remains not public.
Are you simply denying all that?
Also, are you denying that it was GOP Sen. McConnell who single-handedly blocked Obama from making a public warning to state election officials about what was going on? Frankly, that is where I think Obama should have been more aggressive, given the totally bad behavior of McConnell on numerous fronts and just gone ahead and done it. But he was playing it straight, unlike McConnell.
Of course, it may well have been that he held back on that because he expected Hillary to win and did not want to muddy the waters by so publicly intervening on a clearly sensitive matter. That may have been foolish on his part, but indeed the vast majority of observers were predicting victory for her. I myself always thought he had a chance to win, and the minute Comey came out with his bit against her 11 day before the election I became convinced he would, and the evidence is overwhelming that this action did do it, even though now Trump and his allies excoriate Comey.
Do you seriously disagree with or question any of this, ilsm? Depite your being too far into the bag for Putin, I have seen you show some knowledge and intellect on these matters, especially regarding the Middle East. Has all that just been flushed down the toilet somehow for some unknown reason?
‘When did it become alright to call the opposition candidate a traitor?’
Trump is not the opposition candidate. He is the President. And he is selling out our nation to the Russians. That is as clear as day. Even if he pays you handsomely to excuse his treason.
Were you asleep in 2016? Maybe it was you and not Putin?
I was wide awake although reading your incessant trolling does make me drowsy.
I think that their conclusion is obvious:
‘Nearly four hundred former federal prosecutors have put their thumb on the scale in favor of President Trump’s obstruction conduct being criminal. Based on the conduct outlined by special counsel Robert Mueller, the Justice Department would have been able to indict Trump, had he not been a sitting president, they said in a statement Monday.’
Of course we will hear the usual YADA YADA YADA from the Usual Suspects as well as from Putin’s pet poodle ILSM!
Sounds like 400 to ZERO, how DNC got rid of Bernie!!!! How many federal prosecutors were asked and said Barr is 100% correct and Mueller’s only job was to get indictments, but got culled.
“thumb on the scale….” says a lot of the [whatever supposed vote of] agreeables (labeled differently) formers against Trump.
He who designs the survey (experiment) or asks the questions can sell a bridge to anyone looking to be fooled.
pgl is that your idea of a statistical random sample of former federal prosecutors?
Right on cue – Putin’s pet poodle barks! He Vlady – give Fido his bone!
“How many federal prosecutors were asked and said Barr is 100% correct”.
Zero so far and the number who say otherwise has grown to 600. It was not a survey. If you think it was – you are dumber than I gave you credit for. This list is growing as more prosecutors speak out. But do keep repeating this insanely stupid trolling and your absurdity grows more obvious with each of your comments!
“He who designs the survey (experiment) or asks the questions can sell a bridge to anyone looking to be fooled.”
Yes ILSM is truly dumber than any of us give him credit for. No dumbass – know one designed a survey. Keep it up and you are one funny little dude!
Yeah, DNC tilted strongly to Hillary, but then Bernie did super well in caucus states where his more fervent supporters turned out more than Hillary’s. The bottom line is that Hillary got more primary votes than he did. Maybe he would have been a stronger candidate than she turned out to be, but she in fact beat him without needing either the DNC or the superdelegates.
This is just silly stuff, ilsm.
Sec. of State speaking at the 11th Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting in Rovaniemi, Finland:
“Steady reductions in sea ice are opening new passageways and new opportunities for trade. This could potentially slash the time it takes to travel between Asia and the West by as much as 20 days.”
The bizarre quote highlights how the secretary of state’s speech largely focused on trade competition rather than the Council’s mission of environmental protection. Global warming does have the effects scientists notes per our Sec. of State whose speech undermines the usual right wing BS. But hey – more passageways helps shipping. What could be the downside? I guess serving in the Trump White House does pollute everyone’s brain!
I follow Rasmussen polls because, historically, they have been excellent, especially in election results.
Trump Approval Index Month-by-Month
Last modified: 05/04/2019 08:27 am
When tracking President Trump’s job approval on a daily basis, people sometimes get so caught up in the day-to-day fluctuations that they miss the bigger picture. To look at the longer-term trends, Rasmussen Reports compiles the numbers on a full-month basis, and the results for Trump’s presidency can be seen in the graphics below.
The president earned a monthly job approval of 50% in April, up two points from March and his highest monthly rating since February 2017, his first full month in office. In January of this year, Trump’s monthly job approval had fallen to 44%, its lowest level in a year. But it jumped five points to 49% in February following his well-received State of the Union speech, recapturing the high ground he held for most of 2018. Forty-nine percent (49%) disapproved of the president’s job performance last month, but that’s down two points from March.
(Want a free daily email update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
Daily tracking results are collected via telephone and online surveys of 500 likely voters per night. The monthly numbers in this article are based on approximately 10,000 interviews each month with likely voters. The margin of sampling error is less than +/- 1 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
Everyone has their own favorites, but for political polls, I think Rasmussen’s focus on likely voters has served them well.
BTW, I just checked on it, and the title of my 1969 honors thesis was actually, “Changing Patterns of Concession Agreements in Middle East Oil.” It is barely legible anymore (old typing on bond paper),, burt I forecast a continuation of the then movement to nationalize holdings by foreign majors (e.g. ARAMCO in Saudi Arabia), with the majors trying to get as good deals as they could beforehand. I did also forecast that OPEC would make serious efforts to raise oil prices when they largely completed this wave of nationalizations, especially of independents, which indeed was accurate. I finally said that the majors would be quietly supportive of these efforts as higher oil prices would boost their profits, which, indeed, also came to pass. I concluded that, however, those higher oil prices would be subject to random unexpected discoveries of new oil supplies, as happened in 1930 when the East Texas oil find tanked oil prices that had been propped up by the As Is and Red Line agreements between the leading majors of a few years earlier.
Problem with US today is that everything is a financial play. When I said EUR3M, JPY3M are going down; the US house price is shooting up with no slightest self-doubt.
The US industrial production is always too unstable (to predict).
The trade is not a problem per se econometrically. But there’re arguably deeper political problems.
So in your view, it is ECB and Japanese monetary policy and not the FED that affects the US economy? Or do you even have the slightest idea what LIBOR rates are?
1) As Bruce Hall points out, Rasmussen is “Likely Voters.” This is who you want to poll.
2) Obama had similar approval numbers as Trump at that point in time. We know how that turned out reelection-wise.
3) No one that voted for Trump in 2016 is likely to change their vote to D. Most are pleasantly surprised at how well he is doing. This freezes the 2016 electoral map. He is probably picking up converts who see the economic boom for themselves and were originally scared off by the Trump is Insane propaganda. However more Dems will show up who didn’t vote for Hillary because it was already “in the bag” for her, until it was not.
4) Trump is getting better. His last few speeches were off the charts good, and he has perfected his messaging and counterpunching.
Did you not notice that in both Wisconsin and Michigan the Dems took the governorships? Trump had his highest net poll rating on his Inauguration Day. Sorry, but plenty of people who voted for him have changed their minds or are open to doing so.
As for great speeches, let us see. He has threatened to impose more tariffs on China, which tanked financial markets all over the world, and then he suggested that he deserves to have two more years added to his term because of the Mueller Report. This is “great speeches”? How far out of your mind are you?
Does KellyAnne Conway write your comments for you or what?
Sammy Rasmussen is “Likely Voters.” This is who you want to poll.
Almost every live poll uses both likely and registered voters. And although it sounds intuitively right that you’d want to focus on “likely voter”, it turns out that it’s not true. It really depends upon how far away from the election you are. Most pollsters down weight “likely voter” results until you get within 60 days of the election.
Twenty years ago Rasmussen used to have a good reputation; but that is no longer the case, which is why fivethirtyeight only weights them with a C+ rating. You can look at their average error margin and it’s nothing remarkable.
No one that voted for Trump in 2016 is likely to change their vote to D.
Well, some surely will because even a lot of Trump voters had to hold their nose before voting for him. But you’re forgetting that after four years some of the core Trump demographic will have moved to a cemetery zip code, and that’s important because Trump’s margin of victory in three upper Midwest states was razor thin. Meanwhile, the “D” demographic is growing and some of those who couldn’t vote in 2016 will be voting in 2020.
Trump is getting better. His last few speeches were off the charts good
Trump’s speeches are getting tiresome. It’s the same old show with the same old tired lines. He’s in an endless loop.
House democrats are “in an endless loop.” of conspiracy theories and he’s a crook activities as if they really do not want to do anything……..
If only GOPsters gat a free ride like Hillary.
You are still barking? What’s the matter – has Putin not given his pet poodle his bone yet?
“conspiracy theories”? Even the unredacted Mueller Report shows 10 instances of likely obstruction of justice by Ttrump. Over 500 former federal prosecutors from both parties have signed a letter saying that if he were not president, Trump would be indicted and probably convicted of obstruction of justice.
The only conspiracy theory here worth anything is the one that has Barr lying to cover up Trump’s crimes, with Trump committing even more obstruction of justice by refusing to let any federal official obey any subpoena coming from the Congress. That is an impeachable offense, btw, as Richard Nixon discovered. Or are you unaware of the grounds for impending impeachment that led Nixon to resign?
Oh, and Brezhnev liked Nixon; was quite unhappy about his resignation.
Here were the final polls for the 2016 election:
As reported by Rasmussen, the poll that correctly called the 2016 presidential election was IBD/TIPP. This is their current look:
One interesting aspect is their “Quality of Life” index.
The Quality of Life Index also rose in May, by 3.6% to 63.3, easily erasing April’s 0.5% dip and following March’s 5.1% gain. It remains above the average for this index under President Obama, which was 53.7. Unlike other measures, the Quality of Life Index has been relatively steady over the past 17 years.
Unless the economy goes south in the next 18 months, it will be difficult for the Democrats to convince the American voters that they are not well off.
Hilarious cherry picking there, Bruce. Somehow the only index from IBD/TIPP you report is the one out of the five that is above 50%, although they all did rise this past month. The others, still underwater, are about presidential leadership, job approval, direction of the country, and standing of nation in the world.
Bruce Hall We all know that Rasmussen’s final poll was the closest in the 2016 presidential race; but Rasmussen was also the worst (by far) in the 2018 election. And Rasmussen’s final 2016 poll was something of an outlier within Rasmussen’s own polling. Prior Rasmussen polls had Trump winning the popular vote by a comfortable margin. It was only their very last poll that got it right. Sometimes a stopped clock is right too. You don’t look at one forecast to evaluate forecast accuracy. You look at how well some forecasting group does over multiple forecasts. There was a time when Rasmussen was pretty good; but today they’re no better than mediocre based on their overall history.
it will be difficult for the Democrats to convince the American voters that they are not well off.
Well, Trump is doing his darnedest to make sure voters aren’t well off. Voters have a “what have you done for me lately?” attitude. After the economy has been doing well for a while voters tend to put less emphasis on how well things are going and other things rise to the surface. Like all things, economic prosperity is subject to the law of diminishing returns. What Trump needs isn’t just to maintain current growth, but he has to increase the rate of growth; otherwise voters don’t see things as improving. The point is that after voters ask “what you’ve done for them lately?”, they then ask “what are you going to do for me now?” And did you notice that Trump’s numbers were not very good in those polls except for the Quality of Life index?
This is the single most dangerous chart that exists with regard to the US future.
That he still has nearly half the country’s support after proving over and over that he’s one of the most stupid and immoral people in the history of US government, there is no saving the US. It deserves whatever hell continues to rain down on it.
Comments are closed.