Polling shows 27% strongly approve of Trump and 42% have a strongly unfavorable view

[jserraglio]

CNN A record number of voters already hold a hardened opinion of Trump https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html

[Barry]

It's certainly possible you'll get what you want. But you also may be setting yourself up for a hell of a disappointment.

I recall four years ago that there were multiple polls at various points in the general election race that indicated close to 60 percent of the public said they wouldn't vote for Trump under any circumstances. Yet here he is running for reelection. And it's possible that enough people will decide they won't vote for a guy who may have dementia to give Donald four more years. We'll see.

I just checked his approval numbers on Real Clear Politics. They are very much in line with what they've been for most of his presidency; certainly no worse than average and a little higher than that in some cases.

People who said Trump had no chance four years ago - and they were all over the place, famous and not-famous - showed me and countless others (something like 62 million) what schadenfreude is all about. I actually had to run into a bathroom stall a couple times the day after the election because that feeling was bursting out of me. I didn't feel it would be seemly to show it in a room full of shock and misery (in other words, a mainstream newsroom).

[jserraglio]

Different election, remember? Likely to be a referendum on the incumbent this time around.

Trump's dementia? I admire your forthrightness in squarely facing up to one of your guy's most nagging conditions. Nevertheless I disagree about its probable impact: maybe the repeated evidence of Trump's mental deficit won't matter much to voters: after all they voted in a cripple as President four times, the last time not even his own party believing he'd survive.

It's Mourning, not Morning, in America. This ain't 1984 ... YET.

At the moment, the nation faces 33 million unemployed and a nuclear-level death toll from a disease that was supposed to go POOF! when warm weather hit. Fortunately for Trump, such things have never impacted a sitting President facing reelection. Incumbents in 1992, 1980, 1968 and 1932 all went on to serve a second term, no?

2016 may not wash in 2020. If anything, the 2018 midterms would be a better point of comparison, but even that's not a good one.

You cite Trump's NATIONAL approval numbers. Those may be misleading (just ask Hillary). What about his approval numbers in battleground states?

There was a reason the daily WH virus briefings were canceled. Any idea why? Andrew Cuomo is still going strong with his briefings. So is Mike DeWine who has become a national figure. Why hasn't Trump been similarly helped by his leadership in this crisis?

Trump is a known quantity now. Will that be to his advantage among swing-state Independents and Dems who voted GOP last time, or not?

Trump has high unfavorables, much higher than his likely opponent. He also stands for office stained by impeachment. Impeachment gonna appeal to college-grad Independent women voters in places like the Philly suburbs, or not?

Biden has higher favorable ratings and is a seasoned politician. Hillary he is not. Likability is an important factor in Presidential elections. Brad Parscale (he who got threatened by a litigious boss) is talking about launching what is termed a "Death Star" against Biden. Suggesting the outlook out there on the radical Right's lookin' pretty hopeful, right?

Trump has a record to run on this time, a record spotty at best and spotted by prominent defections within his own party.

Though Biden now leads them, national polls mean little in a close contest. Let's talk Electoral College instead. Trump is running behind or dead even in 5 states he needs to carry: Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.

Now despite all that, I concede Trump still could win, but I predict that he MUST win Ohio and Florida to take the Electoral College. If he loses both, he's toast. Even if he loses one, it ain't gonna make for a pretty picture.

BTW, if Trump wins but the GOP loses the Senate, I can live with that, so long as the Donald's Corona LYSOL MIRACLE CURE don't do me IN IN the INterim.

[lennygoran]

Trump has high unfavorables, much higher than his likely opponent.

What about when Barr investigates and finds things? Regards, Len [only half sarcastic]

[lennygoran]

What about when Barr investigates and finds things? Regards, Len [only half sarcastic]

A serious followup. Regards, Len




William Barr’s Perversion of Justice

The attorney general is turning the Justice Department into a political weapon for the president.

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.

May 9, 2020



“History is written by the winners,” William Barr, the attorney general, said Thursday when asked how he thought future generations would assess his decision to drop all criminal charges against Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser, who had pleaded guilty twice to breaking the law. “So it largely depends on who’s writing the history.”

In service to Mr. Trump, Mr. Barr is abusing his power not to write, but to erase, some of the most important lessons of American history.

The Watergate scandal, with its revelations of how dangerous a renegade White House could be, led to reforms meant to ensure an independent Justice Department, one faithful to the law rather than to the Oval Office.

The nation had seen firsthand how much harm a president with no respect for the rule of law could do — particularly when he used the Justice Department, under a compliant attorney general, to protect allies, punish adversaries and cover up wrongdoing.

Among the key reforms were stronger transparency and ethics rules, like the creation of independent inspectors general to root out waste, fraud and abuse in the executive branch. (Mr. Trump has been firing inspectors general he thinks are not loyal to him.) There were also new limits on presidential power, like the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act. (President Trump broke that law last year, according to the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, when he withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine.)

To Mr. Barr, these reforms were obstacles to a vision of a virtually unbound executive. For decades, he has pushed to give presidents — Republican presidents, anyway — maximum authority with minimal oversight. In a 2018 memo criticizing the Russia investigation, he argued that the president “alone is the Executive branch,” in whom “the Constitution vests all Federal law enforcement power, and hence prosecutorial discretion.” For the attorney general, that discretion includes cases involving the president’s own conduct.

If you’re having trouble distinguishing Mr. Barr’s vision of the presidency from the rule of a king, you’re not alone. “George III would have loved it,” said Douglas Kmiec, who led the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

“Bill Barr’s America is not a place that anyone, including Trump voters, should want to go,” wrote Donald Ayer, who served as deputy attorney general under the first President Bush. “It is a banana republic where all are subject to the whims of a dictatorial president and his henchmen.”

Bill Barr’s America is the one we’re now living in. The Justice Department, in the midst of a presidential campaign, has become a political weapon.

Having absorbed the lessons of Watergate, mainstream Republicans once balked at the politicization of the Justice Department — even by Republican presidents. When President George W. Bush’s attorney general Alberto Gonzales fired eight United States attorneys because they were not aggressive enough in prosecuting Democrats, the outrage was bipartisan, and he was forced to resign.

But today’s Republicans, who could be most effective in defending the integrity of American justice, appear either too afraid of Mr. Trump or too eager for short-term partisan advantage to confront the danger to the country.

Mr. Barr’s decision to drop the charges against Mr. Flynn may be his most egregious abandonment of his role as the public’s lawyer, but it’s certainly not the first. Last year, barely a month after he was confirmed to his post, he stood before the American people and misrepresented the contents of the long-awaited report by Robert Mueller, the special counsel who investigated ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in 2016.

The report itself, at 448 pages, documented extensive evidence of those ties, as well as multiple instances of lying and obstruction of justice by Mr. Trump and other top government officials. Mr. Barr’s four-page summary claimed the opposite — that Mr. Mueller had found no collusion or obstruction of justice. Mr. Mueller protested, and yet weeks passed before Americans could see the report themselves and discover just how much Mr. Barr had twisted its findings to benefit Mr. Trump.

In March, a federal judge called Mr. Barr’s characterization of the report “distorted” and “misleading,” and said his “lack of candor” called his credibility into doubt.

But Mr. Barr didn’t stop there. He also rejected a report by the Justice Department inspector general finding that there was sufficient evidence to open the Russia investigation. He referred to the investigation as “spying” and ordered a criminal inquiry into its origins. He intervened in the prosecutions of two of Mr. Trump’s top advisers, Mr. Flynn and Roger Stone, for whom he recommended a lighter sentence than his own prosecutors had sought. And he declined to open a criminal investigation into last fall’s whistle-blower complaint against Mr. Trump, saying it did not qualify as an “urgent concern.” The complaint ultimately led to Mr. Trump’s impeachment.

Last month, Mr. Barr went on Fox News and called the Russia investigation “one of the greatest travesties in American history,” and said, “We’re not dealing with just mistakes or sloppiness, there was something far more troubling here; and we’re going to get to the bottom of it.”

With these remarks, Mr. Barr appears to have violated Justice Department policy against publicly discussing current investigations. His insistent attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the Russia investigation and absolve Mr. Trump of any wrongdoing also appear to violate department policy against taking any actions that could be seen to have a partisan political purpose, especially in an election year.

The damage Mr. Barr is doing extends beyond policy violations. He has weakened the morale of the department by undercutting career prosecutors — men and women who devoted their lives to the rule of law. Four of them quit the case against Mr. Stone, who was convicted of federal crimes including perjury, wire fraud and witness intimidation, when Mr. Barr intervened to ask for a lighter sentence. Another quit the case against Michael Flynn shortly before the department filed its request with the court to drop all charges.

President Trump couldn’t be more pleased. He has shown little sense of the law, other than that whatever it is, he must be above it. He has never given the slightest hint he thinks the Justice Department exists for a reason other than to protect his interests. And no wonder, since he took his cues from President Richard Nixon himself. “I learned a lot from Richard Nixon, don’t fire people,” Mr. Trump said on Thursday. “I learned a lot. I study history.” One of the most important lessons? “He had tapes all over the place. I wasn’t guilty, I did nothing wrong. And there are no tapes.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/09/opin ... e=Homepage

[jserraglio]

Q: How might a right-winger define empathy?

A: Schadenfreude.

[lennygoran]

Q: How might a right-winger define empathy?

A: Schadenfreude.

Yeah you bet I looked it up!

Definition of schadenfreude

: enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others
Examples of schadenfreude in a SentenceRecent Examples on the Web These series conjured powerful, primal feelings in their heyday, whether that was loathing, schadenfreude or joy. — Kelly Lawler, USA TODAY, "Way too 'Extreme': Trashy reality shows' comeback makes TV revolting again," 26 Feb. 2020 Finebaum seemed to delight in the schadenfreude that accompanied one of the lowest moments of Harbaugh’s tenure. — Rainer Sabin, Detroit Free Press, "That time Michigan's Jim Harbaugh nearly settled his feud with SEC apologist Paul Finebaum," 30 Dec. 2019

I would ask this-is there a difference between enjoying the trouble of all people vs. enjoying the trouble of only all your enemies? And in to which category would trump fall? Regards, Len

[Barry]

Different election, remember? Likely to be a referendum on the incumbent this time around.

Different election; same media.

And as far as the second part, it may be helpful to go back and look at Obama's approval ratings at a similar juncture when he ran for reelection. I'm fairly sure they were no better than Trump's. He was not a popular president in 2016. He won largely by running an extremely negative campaign against Romney, who didn't fight back nearly as hard as someone like Trump would.

[Barry]

What about when Barr investigates and finds things? Regards, Len [only half sarcastic]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/ ... narrative/

Flynn and the Anatomy of a Political Narrative

Let’s look at some more of that Times report on Flynn’s downfall. For the legal analysis of Flynn’s exchanges with Kislyak, the president’s aides consulted the FBI, not DOJ:

The Obama officials asked the F.B.I. if a quid pro quo had been discussed on the call, and the answer came back no, according to one of the officials, who like others asked not to be named discussing delicate communications. The topic of sanctions came up, they were told, but there was no deal.

So no misconduct. To the contrary, the incoming national-security adviser asked a Russian counterpart to discourage his government from escalating tensions, which is what we would want any American diplomat to do. “There was no deal.” Sanctions were merely mentioned, as one would expect since they’d just been imposed, but Flynn made no agreement to accommodate the Kremlin in any way.

But see, those are the actual facts. Who cares what actually happened? What matters, it turns out, is what “Obama advisers” and their FBI co-creators could imagine it into: There must be Trump collusion with Russia because we’ve concluded Putin would otherwise have retaliated.

[jserraglio]

Different election

And some things never change.

Q: What does Trump put on his sympathy cards?

A: Better you then ME!!!!!!

[jserraglio]

it may be helpful to go back and look at Obama's approval ratings at a similar juncture when he ran for reelection. I'm fairly sure they were no better than Trump's. He was not a popular president in 2016 [sic]

At this juncture, in May 2012, Mr. Obama's approval rating as President fluctuated between 47-48%. His numbers steadily rose from Jan thru Dec 2012. By Sept thru the rest of 2012 they were over 50%.

Mainstream Media's to blame for that.

Now for a contrast with the MSM , take Sean, Laura and Tucker. They don't tell the truth, they tell what OUGHT TO BE THE TRUTH. And may God bless'em for it.

[Holden Fourth]

It's the missing 31%, who the pollsters weren't interested in polling, that caught the Democrats with their pants down. Take these polls with a grain of salt.

[lennygoran]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/ ... narrative/

So no misconduct.

The Secrets Flynn Was Desperate to Conceal The former national security adviser’s lies protected himself. But they also protected Trump.
May 8, 2020
David Frum


Russian intelligence services intervened in the 2016 U.S. election to help elect Donald Trump. They intervened in ways that were illegal, and they intervened in ways that were clandestine. In the context of an election decided by 80,000 votes in three states, they intervened in ways that probably were decisive. Altogether, the Russian action to elect Donald Trump in 2016 ranks among the most successful intelligence operations in world history.

President Trump and his supporters dismiss these facts as “the Russia hoax,” but facts they are—facts beyond rational doubt.

Yet despite three years of investigation, much of the Trump-Russia story remains mysterious. We don’t know why the Russians intervened so aggressively, and we don’t fully know how.


We don’t know the why because of the limits of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, some imposed from above, and some imposed upon himself. The inquiry, for example, seems not to have delved into Trump’s business dealings, despite their potential relevance.

We don’t fully know the how because so many witnesses lied, destroyed evidence, or suffered memory lapses. Did the Trump campaign share polling information with the Russians? Who in the Trump campaign communicated with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, when, and how? Mueller's investigation ultimately failed to find the evidence to answer those questions.


Among those who lied and suffered memory lapses was Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser.

There have been so many Trump scandals since 2016—so much defiance of law and Congress—that it’s easy to lose sight of what exactly Flynn did. There’s so much noise and fog that it’s hard to remember why his actions were important.

Quinta Jurecic and Benjamin Wittes: To Trump, ‘complete and total exoneration’ is always right around the corner

During the 2016 election, the Obama administration declined to hold Russia to account for its intervention. That’s a story in itself. On December 29, 2016, however, the Obama administration did at last announce punitive sanctions on Russia.

The imminence of these sanctions triggered a flurry of communications between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. The Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, reached out to Flynn on December 28. Flynn was vacationing in the Dominican Republic, but on December 29, he spoke multiple times with Kislyak.

On December 30, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia would not respond to the sanctions. That same day, Trump tweeted his thanks: “Great move on delay (by V. Putin) - I always knew he was very smart!” Another round of calls followed between Flynn and Kislyak.

What exactly happened here? At first, Trump’s team denied that anything untoward had occurred. On January 15, 2017, Vice President–elect Mike Pence appeared on CBS’s Face the Nation to assure the country that Flynn and Kislyak had not discussed the Obama sanctions. “He had sent a text to the Russian ambassador to express not only Christmas wishes but sympathy for the loss of life in the airplane crash that took place,” Pence said, referring to a December 25, 2016, accident that had killed 92 people. “It was strictly coincidental that they had a conversation. They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia.”

Pence’s statement was not true. Flynn lied to the FBI about the calls. Back in 2017, Pence insisted that Flynn had lied to him too.

Flynn’s lies mattered not because of some technicality about the Logan Act, the ancient and much-disregarded law forbidding private diplomacy. Flynn’s lies mattered because they may have concealed a deal between Trump and Russia over sanctions.

The Flynn-Kislyak call was recorded by U.S. intelligence agencies. The judge in Flynn’s case ordered that the call be released. The Department of Justice successfully resisted the order by arguing that the recording was irrelevant to Flynn’s conviction and sentencing.

And so Congress and the public remain unaware of what exactly was said to dissuade the Russians from retaliating in December 2016, and what—if anything—the Russians asked for in return. Congress and the public remain ignorant about whether Flynn acted on his own or was directed by President-elect Trump. Congress and the public remain uncertain whether Pence had himself been deceived when he delivered a false reassurance on CBS in January 2017—or whether he was part of the deceit.

Flynn’s lies protected Trump and the Trump administration. Flynn himself has paid a price over the past three years. But in the end, the lies protected him as well. The Justice Department has dropped the case. Flynn will not be sentenced for lying to the FBI, a crime to which he pleaded guilty. He will now become a conservative celebrity, a Trump surrogate on television and the campaign trail. The way is open for him to enjoy fame and recover wealth.



https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... al/611377/

[lennygoran]

Bill Barr Twisted My Words in Dropping the Flynn Case. Here’s the Truth.


The F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn was constitutional, lawful and for a legitimate counterintelligence purpose.

By Mary B. McCord

Ms. McCord was an acting assistant attorney general for national security at the Justice Department from 2016 to 2017.

May 10, 2020


At the direction of Attorney General Bill Barr, the Justice Department last week moved to dismiss a false-statements charge against Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser. The reason stated was that the continued prosecution “would not serve the interests of justice.”

The motion was signed by Timothy Shea, a longtime trusted adviser of Mr. Barr and, since January, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington. In attempting to support its argument, the motion cites more than 25 times the F.B.I.’s report of an interview with me in July 2017, two months after I left a decades-long career at the department (under administrations of both parties) that culminated in my role as the acting assistant attorney general for national security.

That report, commonly referred to as a “302,” is an interesting read. It vividly describes disagreements between leadership of the Justice Department and the F.B.I. about how to handle the information we had learned about Mr. Flynn’s calls with the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and, more specifically, Mr. Flynn’s apparent lies about those calls to incoming Vice President Mike Pence.

But the report of my interview is no support for Mr. Barr’s dismissal of the Flynn case. It does not suggest that the F.B.I. had no counterintelligence reason for investigating Mr. Flynn. It does not suggest that the F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn — which led to the false-statements charge — was unlawful or unjustified. It does not support that Mr. Flynn’s false statements were not material. And it does not support the Justice Department’s assertion that the continued prosecution of the case against Mr. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to knowingly making material false statements to the FBI, “would not serve the interests of justice.”

I can explain why, relying entirely on documents the government has filed in court or released publicly.

Notably, Mr. Barr’s motion to dismiss does not argue that the F.B.I. violated the Constitution or statutory law when agents interviewed Mr. Flynn about his calls with Mr. Kislyak. It doesn’t claim that they violated his Fifth Amendment rights by coercively questioning him when he wasn’t free to leave. Nor does the motion claim that the interview was the fruit of a search or seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment. Any of these might have justified moving to dismiss the case. But by the government’s own account, the interview with Mr. Flynn was voluntary, arranged in advance and took place in Mr. Flynn’s own office.

Without constitutional or statutory violations grounding its motion, the Barr-Shea motion makes a contorted argument that Mr. Flynn’s false statements and omissions to the F.B.I. were not “material” to any matter under investigation. Materiality is an essential element that the government must establish to prove a false-statements offense. If the falsehoods aren’t material, there’s no crime.

The department concocts its materiality theory by arguing that the F.B.I. should not have been investigating Mr. Flynn at the time they interviewed him. The Justice Department notes that the F.B.I. had opened a counterintelligence investigation of Mr. Flynn in 2016 as part of a larger investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian efforts to interfere with the presidential election. And the department notes that the F.B.I. had intended to close the investigation of Mr. Flynn in early January 2017 until it learned of the conversations between Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak around the same time.

Discounting the broader investigation and the possibility of Russian direction or control over Mr. Flynn, the department’s motion myopically homes in on the calls alone, and because it views those calls as “entirely appropriate,” it concludes the investigation should not have been extended and the interview should not have taken place.

The account of my interview in 2017 doesn’t help the department support this conclusion, and it is disingenuous for the department to twist my words to suggest that it does. What the account of my interview describes is a difference of opinion about what to do with the information that Mr. Flynn apparently had lied to the incoming vice president, Mr. Pence, and others in the incoming administration about whether he had discussed the Obama administration’s sanctions against Russia in his calls with Mr. Kislyak. Those apparent lies prompted Mr. Pence and others to convey inaccurate statements about the nature of the conversations in public news conferences and interviews.


Why was that so important? Because the Russians would have known what Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak discussed. They would have known that, despite Mr. Pence’s and others’ denials, Mr. Flynn had in fact asked Russia not to escalate its response to the sanctions. Mr. Pence’s denial of this on national television, and his attribution of the denial to Mr. Flynn, put Mr. Flynn in a potentially compromised situation that the Russians could use against him.

The potential for blackmail of Mr. Flynn by the Russians is what the former Justice Department leadership, including me, thought needed to be conveyed to the incoming White House. After all, Mr. Flynn was set to become the national security adviser, and it was untenable that Russia — which the intelligence community had just assessed had sought to interfere in the U.S. presidential election — might have leverage over him.

This is where the F.B.I. disagreed with the Justice Department’s preferred approach. The F.B.I. wasn’t ready to reveal this information to the incoming administration right away, preferring to keep investigating, not only as part of its counterintelligence investigation but also possibly as a criminal investigation. Although several of us at Justice thought the likelihood of a criminal prosecution under the Logan Act was quite low (the act prohibits unauthorized communications with foreign governments to influence their conduct in relation to disputes with the United States), we certainly agreed that there was a counterintelligence threat.

That’s exactly why we wanted to alert the incoming administration. Ultimately, after our dispute over such notification continued through the inauguration and into the start of the Trump administration, the F.B.I. — without consulting the Justice Department — arranged to interview Mr. Flynn. By the time Justice Department leadership found out, agents were en route to the interview in Mr. Flynn’s office.

The account of my July 2017 interview describes my department’s frustration with the F.B.I.’s conduct, sometimes using colorful adjectives like “flabbergasted” to describe our reactions. We weren’t necessarily opposed to an interview — our focus had been on notification — but any such interview should have been coordinated with the Justice Department. There were protocols for engaging with White House officials and protocols for interviews, and this was, of course, a sensitive situation. We objected to the rogueness of the decision by the F.B.I. director, Jim Comey, made without notice or opportunity to weigh in.

The Barr-Shea motion to dismiss refers to my descriptions of the F.B.I.’s justification for not wanting to notify the new administration about the potential Flynn compromise as “vacillating from the potential compromise of a ‘counterintelligence’ investigation to the protection of a purported ‘criminal’ investigation.” But that “vacillation” has no bearing on whether the F.B.I. was justified in engaging in a voluntary interview with Mr. Flynn. It has no bearing on whether Mr. Flynn’s lies to the F.B.I. were material to its investigation into any links or coordination between Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.

And perhaps more significant, it has no bearing on whether Mr. Flynn’s lies to the F.B.I. were material to the clear counterintelligence threat posed by the susceptible position Mr. Flynn put himself in when he told Mr. Pence and others in the new administration that he had not discussed the sanctions with Mr. Kislyak. The materiality is obvious.

In short, the report of my interview does not anywhere suggest that the F.B.I.’s interview of Mr. Flynn was unconstitutional, unlawful or not “tethered” to any legitimate counterintelligence purpose.


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/10/opin ... e=Homepage

[jserraglio]

It's the missing 31%, who the pollsters weren't interested in polling, that caught the Democrats with their pants down. Take these polls with a grain of salt.

In this case, the national polls in 2016 predicted the popular tally correctly: Hillary won three million more votes than Donald.

In a Republic, One Man One Vote's writ don't run. Mr. Trump might win more votes than Mr. Biden and still lose the election, and vice versa. It's happened twice already this century.

[Barry]

it may be helpful to go back and look at Obama's approval ratings at a similar juncture when he ran for reelection. I'm fairly sure they were no better than Trump's. He was not a popular president in 2016 [sic]

At this juncture, in May 2012, Mr. Obama's approval rating as President fluctuated between 47-48%. His numbers steadily rose from Jan thru Dec 2012. By Sept thru the rest of 2012 they were over 50%.

Mainstream Media's to blame for that.

Now for a contrast with the MSM , take Sean, Laura and Tucker. They don't tell the truth, they tell what OUGHT TO BE THE TRUTH. And may God bless'em for it.

You're again only going by Gallup, which has not turned out to be the most accurate polling firm in the past several elections. You need to see a variety of polls to get the most accurate picture. If I were to only go by Rasmussen, Trump's approval rating is higher than Obama's at the same juncture. They are in about the same ball-park if you take the average.

On Fox, I don't watch them unless there is something like a press conference or debate happening that I want to see. I consider all of the 24-Hour cable news networks to be garbage. But I will add that Fox News only exists because much of the country was sick of getting their news from the perspective of the liberals that completely dominate major newsrooms in this country.

And believe it or not, Fox doesn't lie more than most of the other networks and media outlets out there. Media outlets would be defending never-ending law suites if they intentionally lied. As I've told you multiple times, the issue isn't lying. It's selective truth telling. All of them, including Fox, are extremely selective about which truths they tell and and which they don't tell you. If a truth will support the narrative they're pushing in an effort to push public opinion in their desired direction, they present it. If the truth would detract from their narrative, forget about it. Or it will be buried on an inside page or justified in some hit opinion piece.

Here are a couple examples from Georgetown Con-Law Professor Jonathan Turley:

https://twitter.com/JonathanTurley/stat ... 97ST2QY11A

"Stephanopoulos played Obama's statement without noting that he was wrong on charge and wrong on the lack of precedent. No one mentioned that Obama's DOJ dismissed a case in front of the same judge on the same basic grounds..."

https://twitter.com/JonathanTu.../statu ... 5277691904

"NBC's Chuck Todd just blasted GOP governors for saying that the increases in cases reflect more testing. However, Gov. Pritzker just said the very same thing as have other Dem. governors who are reopening their economies. Todd began today by saying "it is not partisan to say." "

[jserraglio]

Talk about discounting evidence that does not fit one's narrative! Gallup has been doing respected polling for decades.

Not for a second was I suggesting that Obama's were great polling numbers. Clinton polled at 60 or more in his 2nd term after impeachment when he didn't even have a campaign. I was merely reporting what I found in the Gallup archive for incumbent president Obama in election year 2012.

Why would anyone waste time averaging a slew of polls when everybody agrees national polls don't give an accurate picture of what is happening in the states that really count?

That's like judging a beauty contest by a set of silhouettes of a contestant shot by ten different photographers. I suspect one of the very few competent WH staffers, Kellyanne Conway, or Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale would in essence tell you the same thing.

A poll of that sort shows only a broad tendency one way or the other at any given time. And right now there's no question in my mind that the trend is AWAY FROM TRUMP. We shall see if that means it's toward Biden.

[lennygoran]

Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale would in essence tell you the same thing.

He better not say anything-I'll sue him for every cent he's worth! Regards, Len [fleeing]

[Barry]

Yet you seem to enjoy posting these irrelevant national polling numbers and making pronouncements on what the polling trends are.

I'm merely pointing out that you're painting an incomplete picture.

Another comparison would be to judge whether a film is good or bad based on one review rather than a cross-section.

Actually, the most recent Gallup poll has Trump back up at 49 percent. This is the first time I can recall that both Gallup and Rasmussen have had up that high simultaneously. Other polls have him in the low to mid 40s. It's a hodge-podge of relative meaninglessness.

[jserraglio]

He better not say anything-I'll sue him for every cent he's worth! Regards, Len [fleeing]

Don't knock the guy. He's one of the very few who dares these days to tell Mr. Trump the truth: "Mr. President, you are slipping in the polls in crucial battleground states. You are in danger of losing Ohio and Florida if you do not change course."

[Barry]

How dare Fox point out NBC's deceptive editing!

https://www.foxnews.com/media/chuck-tod ... flynn-edit

[jserraglio]

Whatcha talkin' bout? I love Fox! They got the only TV entertainment I watch. But they do need to get rid of deadpan talking heads like Chris Wallace.

I miss Bill O'Reilly.

[lennygoran]

Don't knock the guy. He's one of the very few who dares these days to tell Mr. Trump the truth: "Mr. President, you are slipping in the polls in crucial battleground states. You are in danger of losing Ohio and Florida if you do not change course."

You're absolutely right-it's not him I want to sue-it's actually trump I'm after! Regards, Len

[Barry]

Whatcha talkin' bout? I love Fox! It's got the only TV entertainment I watch. But they do need to get rid of deadpan talking heads like Chris Wallace.

I miss Bill O'Reilly.

I used to enjoy his monologues. That was the only thing I would sometimes tune into. But I also find Tucker's monologues to be entertaining (although it's been a while since I've watched one).

Actually, while i hate the current state of news reporting in the country, one good thing is that a site like Real Clear Politics has links like that (on both sides) that show you where and how the various networks, web sites and newspapers operate by double standards.

By the way, there were four polls in the last two months of the race that had Hillary ahead in PA by double digits in '16, although most of them did show the race tightening in the final weeks and days. Only a GOP polling firm showed Trump winning the state, by a single point. One poll from Franklin & Marshall still had her up by 11 in the final week of the race.

[jserraglio]

With all due respect, you're missing the boat on Tucker if you just listen to what he says. You gotta watch his FACE. It's like silly putty. Come on, even Donna Brazile likes Tucker: "My dear boy ...", she says.

I also like Greg Gutfield and Jesse Watters and the legs of whoever it is that sits in the FOXy babe chair on "Five". I that's show . Great TV. "Five" and a shot of bourbon after dodging teen hormones all day. It doesn't get any better than that.

But, Fox, lose the PC crapola and bring back Bill. I wanna see him debate Stephen Colbert again.

[Barry]

With all due respect, you're missing the boat on Tucker if you just listen to what he says. You gotta watch his FACE. It's like silly putty. Come on, even Donna Brazile likes Tucker: "My dear boy ...", she says.

I also like Greg Gutfield and Jesse Watters and the legs of whoever it is that sits in the FOXy babe chair on "Five". I that's show . Great TV. "Five" and a shot of bourbon after dodging teen hormones all day. It doesn't get any better than that.

But, Fox, lose the PC crapola and bring back Bill. I wanna see him debate Stephen Colbert again.

I can't stomach those people who are on during the weekend. I tried tuning in on a Saturday night once and found it unbearable.

[jserraglio]

But "Five" is on only on weekdays. I highly recommend it if you can get home from work that early. I can b/c school lets out 3:30-4:00 and I could, if I so wished, walk home.

I am not being sarcastic. I think it's a good show even tho' it's highly formulaic. For one thing, folks on there genuinely seem to like each other and are determined to laugh off their disagreements. We can all learn from them.

Greg Gutfield is a funny guy.

[Barry]

But "Five" is on only on weekdays. I highly recommend it if you can get home from work that early. I can b/c school lets out 3:30-4:00 and I could, if I so wished, walk home.

I am not being sarcastic. I think it's a good show even tho' it's highly formulaic. For one thing, folks on there genuinely seem to like each other and are determined to laugh off their disagreements. We can all learn from them.

Greg Gutfield is a funny guy.

One of the only other people who is not left of center at my office once recommended that show to me. I believe you on the entertainment value, but I just don't have any desire to watch those kind of shows.