Only Two Percent of Americans Who Voted for Trump Regret It

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

Two Percent

President Donald Trump is getting ready to mark his 100 days in office as the least popular commander in chief of the modern era at this point in their presidency. But among his supporters, there are no regrets as 96 percent of those who voted for Trump said they would do it all over again if the election were held today, according to the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll. In contrast, 85 percent of Americans who voted for Hillary Clinton said they’d vote for her if the election were held today. That’s not because Clinton voters would support Trump, but rather because they say they’d be more willing to back a third party candidate or not vote at all.

The poll makes clear what numerous surveys have already pointed out: Trump has not enjoyed the typical 100-day honeymoon period. Overall, only 42 percent of Americans approve of Trump’s performance as president and 53 percent disapprove. The number is worse in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll that puts Trump’s overall job-approval rating at 40 percent, four points lower than it was in February. That is in sharp contrast to the average 69 percent approval for past presidents at or near the 100-day mark. President Barack Obama, for example, had a 69-26 percent approval rating near his 100 days in office.

More than half of Americans don’t think Trump has accomplished much in his first 100 days. Forty-five percent of Americans flat out say that Trump’s presidency is off to a poor start while 19 percent say it’s been “only a fair start.” That compares to the 35 perent who say the president’s first 100 days have been “good” or “great,” according to the NBC/WSJ poll.

That doesn’t mean it’s all doom and gloom for the president. The Post/ABC poll also finds some surprisingly positive evaluations of the commander in chief’s performance on certain issues. More than half of Americans—53 percent—say Trump is a strong leader, including 25 percent of Democrats. Plus 73 percent of Americans approve of the way he has been pressuring companies to keep jobs in the country. A plurality—46 percent—also approve of the way he has been handling North Korea. The president also gets high marks for his recent military actions in Syria, which 62 percent of Americans say they support, according to the NBC/WSJ poll.

Still, despite these few bright spots, the polls point to mostly bad news for the president as 56 percent say he doesn’t have the judgment to serve effectively as president and 58 percent doubt his honesty and trustworthiness. The public also seems to have noticed Trump’s penchant for changing his mind, with 55 percent saying he doesn’t follow a consistent set of principles.

Democrats should be cautious about getting too gleeful about Trump’s numbers though as 67 percent say the Democratic Party is out of touch with the concerns of most Americans, according to the Post/ABC survey. Both Trump and the Republican Party have better scores in that regard with 58 percent and 62 percent, respectively.

 

 

[CaliCat 3,957]

It seems only 2 percent will admit it or say it out loud. As the smoke lifts more will come to realize the mistake they made.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

10 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

It seems only 2 percent will admit it or say it out loud. As the smoke lifts more will come to realize the mistake they made.

Perhaps these polls have type same error as before the election  where folks would poll one way with a live pollster and another way with a robopollster

Edited April 23, 2017 by ccneat

[CaliCat 3,957]

You can only give the guy the benefit of the doubt so many times. At some point the voices will grow louder.

[Transborderwife 4,666]

Speaking logically, even though they may not be pleased with him, many would still prefer him to the alternative 

[IAMX 3,055]

"Slate" 

 

And while I would, without any doubt choose Trump over Hillary, it was irrelevant because I had a lot more options than those two.

Edited April 23, 2017 by IAMX

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

If the question was based on the election you would have been guaranteed that kind of response from the poll. No Trump supporter or republican would openly admit that they would have voted for Clinton. 

 

But how is his success being judged?

 

I bet no Hawaiin judge would have challenged the same immigration ban if Obama had presented it,  at a guess there would have been no court cases brought at all anywhere in the country. 

 

[Transborderwife 4,666]

1 minute ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

If the question was based on the election you would have been guaranteed that kind of response from the poll. No Trump supporter or republican would openly admit that they would have voted for Clinton. 

 

But how is his success being judged?

 

I bet no Hawaiin judge would have challenged the same immigration ban if Obama had presented it,  at a guess there would have been no court cases brought at all anywhere in the country. 

 

I disagree nor do I think that the comparison needs to be made because it's unlikely that it'd ever happen in the first place.

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

5 minutes ago, Transborderwife said:

I disagree nor do I think that the comparison needs to be made because it's unlikely that it'd ever happen in the first place.

Did Obama not pass something similar in 2015?  Obviously not as restrictive as the Trump temp ban but if he had been pressed to make a tougher law it would not have been challenged. 

[IAMX 3,055]

1 minute ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

Did Obama not pass something similar in 2015?  Obviously not as restrictive as the Trump temp ban but if he had been pressed to make a tougher law it would not have been challenged. 

Similar bans have been enacted, only now have judges had an issue with it, but it's the 9th so.. hope it sees its day in SCOTUS.

[Transborderwife 4,666]

4 minutes ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

Did Obama not pass something similar in 2015?  Obviously not as restrictive as the Trump temp ban but if he had been pressed to make a tougher law it would not have been challenged. 

No not really similar at all

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

6 minutes ago, Transborderwife said:

No not really similar at all

I am not living in the US just yet so my news comes from my in laws and the web. Also since my wife filed the I-130 I have only started to take a more active interest. President Obama drafted a law to speed up the immigration status for the children of illegal immigrants. By doing so this impacted directly on the I-130's filed by American born citizens, the USCIS centres became over loaded and have not got out of the backlog since. There was no legal challenge even though it directly impacted American families and kept some separated for long periods of time. 

 

Have I read it wrong? 

 

Currently the feeling I get for President Trump's first 100 days that it makes no difference what kind of law he tried to pass because there was always going to be challenge either way. This bit of running to a judge to get a law blocked sets a very dangerous president for any law passed by any future POTUS. 

 

From an outsider looking in I would consider his first 100 days as 100 days of obstructionism by the opposing side. 

[spookyturtle 9,465]

1 minute ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

I am not living in the US just yet so my news comes from my in laws and the web. Also since my wife filed the I-130 I have only started to take a more active interest. President Obama drafted a law to speed up the immigration status for the children of illegal immigrants. By doing so this impacted directly on the I-130's filed by American born citizens, the USCIS centres became over loaded and have not got out of the backlog since. There was no legal challenge even though it directly impacted American families and kept some separated for long periods of time. 

 

Have I read it wrong? 

 

Currently the feeling I get for President Trump's first 100 days that it makes no difference what kind of law he tried to pass because there was always going to be challenge either way. This bit of running to a judge to get a law blocked sets a very dangerous president for any law passed by any future POTUS. 

 

From an outsider looking in I would consider his first 100 days as 100 days of obstructionism by the opposing side. 

 

Obstructionism by the opposing side? And his party controls the House and Senate? 

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, Mr&Mrs G. said:

I am not living in the US just yet so my news comes from my in laws and the web. Also since my wife filed the I-130 I have only started to take a more active interest. President Obama drafted a law to speed up the immigration status for the children of illegal immigrants. By doing so this impacted directly on the I-130's filed by American born citizens, the USCIS centres became over loaded and have not got out of the backlog since. There was no legal challenge even though it directly impacted American families and kept some separated for long periods of time. 

 

Have I read it wrong? 

 

Currently the feeling I get for President Trump's first 100 days that it makes no difference what kind of law he tried to pass because there was always going to be challenge either way. This bit of running to a judge to get a law blocked sets a very dangerous president for any law passed by any future POTUS. 

 

From an outsider looking in I would consider his first 100 days as 100 days of obstructionism by the opposing side. 

Hmm. I'd largely consider it successful in that he did most things he promised (and could do himself) right from the get-go. 

 

I knew from the get-go some of the things he promised required the approval of Congress. 

 

What I do fault him for not delivering on is DACA. I've yet to read an explanation as to why he can't do this.. its as easy as the swipe of a pen. Should've been done first day along with the BP/immigration EO.

 

Another thing I fault him for is early decisions that cater to the GOP establishment that tried to cheat and swindle him out of the race. While one could say its Trump extending an olive branch, it seems self destructive to his campaign.

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

12 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

 

Obstructionism by the opposing side? And his party controls the House and Senate? 

The legal challenges were brought before judges who lean towards the democrat party. Which pretty much guaranteed them a result in their favour. 

 

Where there any legal challenges brought against President Obama or is this going to be the norm for the future?