Skip to content

Comment on Grave Concerns Over White House Efforts to Transfer Nuclear Tech to Saudi Arabiaparent

Comments

I'm curious why you think his re-election chances are so high?

Comparing to the post-WWII Presidents who failed to get a second term, Ford, Carter, and the first Bush, they all had much higher net approval ratings at almost all comparable times through their terms.

Carter and Ford both had approval ratings almost as low Trump's at this point, but they had much lower disapproval ratings, giving them much better nets.

Scroll down here for post-WWII President approval/disapproval/net rating charges over time compared to the current President over time [1].

[1] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/...

My reasoning is, that Democrats seem to be playing the same notes as for previous election (mainly social justice), except with more "socialism" (higher taxes). It seems unlikely that this time they succeed... unless they change strategy before the election, of course!

Your reasoning is not backed up by evidence.

In the 2016 election, "Social Justice" barely made the top ten issues people voted on[1] (#1, It's the economy, stupid!) The independents that swung for Trump were worried about their jobs (or lack thereof). His base was more concerned with social justice issues, but they would've voted for him anyway.

The democratic candidate, nor her running mate were widely known, or even running on social justice issues. [2]

Lastly a higher tax on the wealthy is highly popular, even in republican circles. As are some "socialist" type policies like medicare for all. [3]

[1] http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-i...

[2] https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/22...

[3] https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/425422-a-m...

I don't understand how [1] makes your argument... Sure economy is important, but the question is, do the policies differ? Like, it's probably 99% important to voters that they elect a "natural-born American" but if both candidates fulfill this condition, it makes 0% of the decision to whom they will vote for.

I perceived (and I thought many other people did also) as Sanders running more on economic issues (equality, taxes, etc) and Hillary running more on social justice issues (deplorables, "woman card", equal pay, immigration, racial justice, etc)

I perceived (and I thought many other people did also) as Sanders running more on economic issues (equality, taxes, etc) and Hillary running more on social justice issues (deplorables, "woman card", equal pay, immigration, racial justice, etc)

Most of the notable Democratic candidates are running far more heavily on economic issues than Clinton was, and even the more centrist ones like Gillibrand are campaigning on things that in 2016 were Sanders-exclusive signatures, like Medicare for All. Clinton may have won the 2016 nomination, but Sanders was a lot more influential on the trajectory of the party.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.