Ask Arthur 2024, Part 2: An Orange hue

It’s no surprise that several questions this year deal with US politics, including some specifically about the regime due to take power on January 20. Today I thought I’d take on questions related to the Orange One.

The first question is from Roger Green, who asked:

How would you explain to someone that your disappointment at djt not being held liable for his crimes and alleged crimes is not from a personal vendetta against him, but by the sense that the rule of law has been totally scuttled?

The question kind of assumes that I know hoards of people who wouldn’t understand that, and I don’t. Whether Americans or Kiwis, people I talk with (online or in real life) all think he should have been held accountable for all his crimes, not just the political ones, but his various business-related crimes, too. Those people just assume that the rule of law has failed if someone like the Orange One has almost never has to face criminal trial (his 34 state felony convictions in New York notwithstanding), and they would never assume that someone had a personal grudge against him.

For a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of the Orange One, there’s probably nothing I could possibly say that would help them understand or to convince them that it’s not just “radical communist leftist thug” hatred of the Orange One. However, a study has shown that AI has promise in helping conspiracy theory believers come to their senses, so maybe that approach could work for people bathing daily in MAGA koolaid.

In between those two extremes are a lot of people who aren’t true believers nor particularly sceptical of MAGA, either. Some of them may be too young to really remember the Orange One’s 2017-21 Reign of Error, or, more likely, they’re just not tuned into politics enough to pay much attention, and might be persuadable. If so it’d be because of what Roger was saying: The rule of law matters.

There’s one thing more, though: I’ve never once heard any of the Orange One’s fiercest opponents say that he should be arrested for non-existent crimes, something the Orange One says about his “enemies” pretty much every day. His fiercest opponents have never suggested that he should be thrown in prison without trial, but that, too, is something the Orange One says about his “enemies” pretty much every day. It’s really true that every one of their accusations is a confession, and that the ones who hold personal vendettas are all on the MAGA side.

So, for a person willing to listen in good faith, I’d probably say something along the lines of what Roger said in his question and begin simply saying that the disappointment is based on “the sense that the rule of law has been totally scuttled”. If they brought up the “personal vendetta” thing, I’d probably have to point out, as I have here, that the side with the vendetta is not those who oppose the Orange One.

Next, Roger asked:

Orange says he will impose 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico on Day 1. Why is this an inane idea?

I’d call rather call it insane than inane, but I know that the Orange One has absolutely no idea what tariffs even are, and doesn’t understand at all how they actually work. For the benefit of anyone reading this who doesn’t know, tariffs are paid by the importer, and NOT by the country the goods are coming from, as the Orange One keeps stubbornly insisting, even after world-renowned economists debunked him. The cost of those tariffs are ultimately always passed on to consumers, meaning prices consumers pay always rise whenever tariffs on imports are imposed.

The specific problem with the Orange One’s particular tariff threats against Canada and Mexico is that nearly everything US consumers buy—cars, fresh fruit and vegetables, oil, building materials, and so much more—comes in whole or in part from those two countries. If the Orange One follows through on his threat, ordinary Americans will see prices for nearly everything they buy jump by at least 25%—or, more realistically, maybe a lot more than that because corporations will take advantage of the opportunity to raise prices by more than the tariff amount in order to increase profits, just like many did after Covid.

I’ve noticed that the Orange One hasn’t been threatening Mexico as much since Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum stood up to him; maybe Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau should do the same. I wouldn’t be surprised if China doesn’t get tariffs imposed, though, because the actual incoming president, Elon Musk, depends on China for manufacturing his products, among other things.

Next, Roger asked about the Orange One’s nominees:

I heard Chris Christie on George Stephanopoulos' Sunday morning talk show suggest that the Democrats should challenge only one of the orange man's nominees for the Cabinet on the theory that if they go after three or more they won't be able to affect any of them. I happen to think this is BS but I was wondering what you thought.

I’ve heard a lot of Democrats and folks on the Left say something similar. For example, Brian Tyler Cohen has said many times that if everything feels like a 5-alarm fire, nothing feels like a 5-alarm fire. The central thing for both is one of tactics: Some of the Orange One’s choices are far worse than others, and the Republican majority in the US Senate is far too comfortable with doing whatever their party’s Dear Leader wants—except for being willing to approve Matt Gaetz because he was so awful that not even sycophantic Republicans could back him. So, since many or most of the Orange One’s nominees will be approved, the argument goes that the focus should be on stopping the worst of them, such as Kash Patel for FBI and Tulsi Gabbard for director of National Intelligence.

However, there’s an obvious flaw in that strategy: Rightwing media’s propaganda would spin that strategy as personal vendetta (vendetta is clearly a central theme in MAGA-land…), against the nominees because they’re close to the Orange One (or whatever). So, maybe a better strategy is to release whatever publicly available data exists on the nominees, and have Democrats go on Leftwing alternative media to spread awareness, as well as asking direct, pointed questions in confirmation hearings.

Pete Hegseth is apparently pretty much an all around awful person, but it’s unlikely he could damage the country as much as Patel and Gabbard. Pam Bondi as Attorney General would also be awful, but in addition to being hyper-partisan and unalterably loyal to the Orange One, she’s also VERY ambitious and no doubt views the job as positioning her to run for higher office, even president. So, she’d be more likely to lead the Orange One on, but avoid doing anything blatantly illegal or unconstitutional. So, going after too many awful but not catastrophic nominees could risk getting the worst confirmed. I wouldn’t want to be in Senators’ shoes!

Finally today, my friend Sherry asks:

Everyone knows we are doomed and bound for terrible change here in the U.S. How can I fight Trump on his road to autocracy and an oligarchy? He is immune to any law, and he and his minions will do whatever they want.

Even though I’m on the other side of the world, I feel the same fear and trepidation. I’ll say first that it’s important to remember how incompetent and stupid the Orange One is: Those natural traits are what saved the USA in 2017-21. A lot of what happens in the upcoming regime will depend on which of his gang members get confirmed by the Senate, but the essence of who the Orange One is hasn’t changed.

The second thing to keep in mind is that the Orange One’s entire political method is”kayfabe”, the pro wrestling term meaning “the portrayal of staged events within the industry as ‘real’ or ‘true’.” As a member of the WWE Hall of Fame because of his long business association with them, and apparently being a genuine fan, everything the Orange One says is kayfabe. This is what his fans were getting at when they said they took him seriously, but not literally. His entire political career is built on what he learned from pro wrestling.

Put those two things together, and it means he’s unpredictable, and talks a lot of shit, but the danger he poses will mainly be to his personal “enemies” and to the wallets of ordinary people who will suffer from his fetish for tariffs (see above). However, as I also talked about above, the level of danger will depend on which of his many awful cabinet nominees actually get confirmed.

Something to remember is that direct lobbying of members of Congress works: When incoming president Elon Musk ordered Republicans in the House to vote against a continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown, his followers on Twitter flooded the Capital with messages demanding Republican Congressmen vote it down—and they did. If enough Americans contact their representatives and tell them to oppose the latest batshit crazy thing the Orange One or his boss Elon demand, they’ll do it. Most Democrats in Congress will do that automatically, of course, but many Republicans are pretty susceptible to pressure (unless they’re full-on MAGA), especially from the folks who live in their districts.

Next, never “obey in advance”, that is, we mustn’t do what we think the autocrat will demand before he demands it. I’ve seen people talking about deleting their social media accounts, or just their posts, so the incoming regime can’t use it against them. Apart from the fact that it’s stupid (everything’s archived, even on Facebook, for a long time), it means voluntarily giving up one’s freedom, willingly, and without even being asked. This isn’t easy precisely because people are frightened of what could happen if they state their opposition to whatever the regime has just proposed.

Another very important thing is to seek out independent media on the Centre and Left. The legacy media utterly failed to take seriously the danger the Orange One posed to democracy and the rule of law. There are numerous media organisations to follow, depending on your interests and issues of concern, but here are some I highly recommend: ProPublica is an award-winning nonprofit independent news organisation that specialises in investigative journalism. They’re non-partisan, but being on the side of the people and justice means the Right doesn’t like them. Another good choice is Democracy Docket, a legal organisation that specialises in fighting for democracy and voting rights. They talk at length about litigation on those issues. Then there’s The Bulwark, a centre/centre right pro-democracy media outlet that was built by never-trumpers, including present and former Republicans, along with some Democrats. For a perspective more to the left, there’s Meidas Touch. For a more or less centrist team, there’s Crooked Media, which was founded mainly by former senior staffers of President Obama. All of these organisations have YouTube Channels (and I subscribe to them all), but for the hardest-working progressive on YouTube, it’d have to be Brian Tyler Cohen, who I mentioned above. His content is direct: He doesn’t dance around the issues, including getting sweary sometimes (I identify with that, LOL), and he has interesting guests.

The independent progressive and pro-democracy media will help keep you informed about important issues that the legacy media doesn’t even talk about. There are plenty more than the ones I’ve listed, of course, so my advice is to try different ones and see what resonates with you.

Finally, and tying this all together, be careful about taking the regime too seriously. While they’re absolutely a threat to democracy, not everything they say is actually real (kayfabe again). Sometimes folks in the regime or Rightwingers in Congress or the legacy media will say outrageous things in the hope it was cause an over-reaction from the Left. This is why focusing on a few issues is important, as is one thing more: Occasionally turning off the news and social media from a little while will be very important to preserve our mental health.

And remember: It was because of the disaster that the Orange One oversaw in 2017-2018 that Democrats won so many seats in Congress in the 2018 elections, why President Biden won in 2020, and why the supposed “Red Wave” of 2022 because more of a pink puddle as Democrats outperformed everywhere, beating the predictions and even history. The moral of the story is that the Orange One’s incompetence and stupidity, combined with what an awful person he his, will inevitably cause a reaction and a rejection of him and Republicans more broadly.

All of which is to say: There’s always reason to hope, even when things seem bleakest. The MAGAts want us to feel discouraged, deflated, defeated, and powerless. Don't give them what they want!

Thanks to Roger and Sherry for today’s questions!

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-24”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously in the 2024 series:

”Let the annual inquisition begin for 2024” – The first post in this year’s series.

”Ask Arthur 2024, Part 1: Pardon?” 

Ask Arthur 2024, Part 1: Pardon?

Today I begin answering questions in the 2024 “Ask Arthur” series. In past years I started with the first question asked, and then continued more or less in order, sometimes grouping questions with similar subjects/themes together. This year, however, one of the later questions is more time-sensitive than the others, so I’ll begin with that one.

Before I begin, though, anyone can still ask new questions: Leave a comment on this post, or see the other options down below, at the end of this post. I’ll call time on new questions in a later post in the series, but I’ll finish this “Ask Arthur” series by December 31.

So: This year’s first question, as is usually the case, is from my pal Roger Green, who asked:

Hunter Biden pardoned by his dad. Orange said, "What about the J6 hostages?" which is silly because orange can do it himself. Thoughts? And also, who else should Joe pardon?

I Can’t think of anything I care about less than President Biden pardoning his son. I wasn’t the least bit surprised that the Right were—or, more likely pretended to be—freaking out about it. I don’t recall a single one of them whining after 45 pardoned his son-in-law’s dad—or any of the other criminals (or his own co-conspirators) that he pardoned. So, their reaction was largely performative, as it so often is. Some of them were even unintentionally hilarious, like the far-right guy who made an “error-filled” movie about illegal immigration who publicly complained about the pardon—despite getting one from 45. Glass houses, and all that.

What I find extremely tiresome, though, is the hand-wringing and rending of garments from those on the Left, including some I like and respect. One legal commentator went to great lengths to condemn President Biden, declared he’d lied about not pardoning Hunter, that his reputation and legacy was destroyed, and he kept droning on about how the pardon violates norms—even though he’s previously noted how the Orange One has already shattered norms and precedent and will do FAR worse once he’s enthroned in January. A prominent political YouTuber I’ve watched for years declared that “of course Biden shouldn’t have lied”, however, he’s also consistently pointed out the old norms are gone, and the incoming guy will do whatever he wants, whether it’s legal or not, and without regard for the Constitution. 

I have NO idea whether or not President Biden “lied” when he said several times that wouldn’t give Hunter a pardon—and neither does anyone else, Right or Left. However, there’s strong evidence supporting the assertion that he didn’t lie. In his statement on the pardon, President Biden said:

No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son – and that is wrong. There has been an effort to break Hunter – who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me – and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.

Indeed, “no reasonable person” (emphasis added), which obviously excludes the Republican politicians whining so loudly about the pardon. If President Biden had not pardoned Hunter, the supplicants the Orange One installs at the FBI and as Attorney General would almost certainly launch phoney “investigations” into Hunter Biden, followed by corrupt indictments (indeed, even after the pardon Republican politicians in Congress declared they’d continue with their own phoney “investigations”, anyway, because, well, politics…). A pardon was the ONLY way to protect Hunter from politically-motivated harassment and persecution. I think Joe Biden did the right thing, and I fully support it.

This brings up the question of “pre-emptive pardons” for folks who haven’t committed any crimes, but who the Orange One considers to be his personal enemies because they dared to hold him to account for his many crimes. He absolutely intends to keep his promise of revenge, a promise he repeated many, many, many times over the past couple years. So, should President Biden protect those the Orange One wants to destroy? I think that depends on the individual.

Many of the folks in question are high-profile politicians who can raise donations to help pay for their legal defence against the partisan attacks from Orange One’s minions and their phoney investigations and fraudulent “indictments” (assuming they can convince grand juries to indict with absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any crimes having been committed). If they do manage to somehow “indict”, there are laws against malicious or corrupt prosecutions, and it’s not inconceivable that they could end up with an unbroken record of hundreds of losses in court—unless they get the right MAGAt judge, and, if so, we can guess what the far-right Republican Supreme Court might then do.

Because of all that, and years of partisan harassment and prosecution, some of the folks in the Orange One’s crosshairs may prefer to accept a pardon. I fully understand why they might, and wouldn’t blame them if they do accept one. So far, though, Ive seen that some folks presumed to have targets on their back, like former US Representative Adam Kinzinger and newly-elected US Senator Adam Schiff, have said they don’t need or want a pre-emptive pardon. Will anyone else say they do want one? We know that a Republican House of Representatives “report” “calls for an FBI investigation into [former US Representative Liz] Cheney, accusing her of witness tampering by being in touch with star witness Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide.” The chairman of the committee, Barry Loudermilk (MAGA-Georgia), notoriously gave a tour of the Capital to two insurrectionists right before the January 6 attack, which, whatever Barry might say of it, nevertheless gave the insurrectionists valuable reconnaissance before their attack. Yet, curiously, Barry wasn’t “criminally investigated”.

All we know for sure is that when the Orange One is formally installed in power, he’ll do whatever he wants, rule of law be damned, and that will include pardoning his most obsequious allies—if they’re sufficiently fawning, grovelling, and submissive. Having said all that, I’m not sure he’ll pardon all the people convicted of the crimes they committed on or about January 6, 2021. The Orange One is incapable of censoring or muting himself, and in an interview recently he seemed to equivocate slightly on his earlier promise to pardon them all. Who knows? The guy has never shown that he understands, much less cares about, anything to do with the rule of law or the norms of behaviour for someone in the office he’ll, tragically, soon occupy, and he probably doesn’t understand the seriousness of the crimes so many of those people were convicted of. On the other hand, he wants to be worshipped, so that will probably decide his actions.

The reason that I moved this topic to the top of the list is that last week, some 10 days after Roger asked his question, President Biden pardoned 39 people and commuted the sentences of 1500 others, and there’s no reason to think there won’t be more. I wanted to avoid the Christmas rush. I also delayed publication a couple days so I could tone down my contempt for the Orange One and his party. This post is as dispassionate as I can be—which is precisely why I've avoided writing about US politics.

Thanks to Roger for today’s question!

It’s not too late to ask a question: Simply leave a comment on this post (anonymous comments are allowed). Or, you can email me your question (and you can even tell me to keep your name secret—though, why not pick a nom de question?). You can also ask questions on the AmeriNZ Facebook page, though keep in mind that all Facebook Pages are public, just like this blog. To avoid being public there, you can send me a private message through the AmeriNZ Facebook Page.

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-24”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously in the 2024 series:

”Let the annual inquisition begin fpr 2024” – The first post in this year’s series.

Will it be counted?

I’ve voted in the 2024 US federal elections, as I always do, but I don’t know for sure that my ballot will be counted. There are several different reasons for that, but all of them have the same cause: Republicans. The party that once liked to call itself “The Party of Lincoln” has now positioned itself as an enemy of democracy, and voters like me are in the party’s crosshairs.

US citizens living overseas indefinitely are entitled to vote in federal elections, just like US military personnel stationed overseas can. US citizens living overseas temporarily, like workers on a short-term assignment from their US employer, or those attending school overseas, would most likely apply for a standard absentee ballot. However, US citizens who are living overseas indefinitely (like me), register through a state-administered federal system, using the Federal Post Card Application (FPCA) to register and get a ballot. The FPCA forms require a Social Security number, the number of one’s state Driver license or state ID. Many US citizens living overseas indefinitely won’t have a state driver license or ID card, so providing them isn’t mandatory (it’s probably there to establish ongoing state residency for folks that applies to). All applicants also provide the address where they were last registered to vote. The organisation “Vote from Abroad” has a good explanation of what a “US voting address” is on their website:

As a US citizen living abroad, your “voting address” is the street address of the last place you lived in the US. This general rule applies even if your family no longer owns the property, or you no longer have ties to the state, or you don't intend to return to that address or that state, or if it no longer exists as a residence. It also doesn't matter if you were ever registered to vote at that address.

If you are a US citizen who has never lived in the US, your “voting address” is the street address of the last place your US citizen parent (or spouse) lived in the US. If both of your parents are US citizens, you may use the last US address of either one.

The Republican presidential candidate has been whining constantly about mail-in voting of all kinds, and has repeatedly demanded it be ended (which won’t happen because it would harm Republicans, too), and lately his target has been to demand that no mail-in votes be counted after Election Day. He recently talked yet again (again) about suing to end mail-in voting [this was discussed by Democracy Docket’s Marc Elias and Brian Tyler Cohen on a recent episode of their “Democracy Watch” YouTube series].

This gets at MAGA Republicans’ first attempt to destroy voting by mail: Their hand-picked Postmaster General, who has done everything in his power to destroy postal delivery efficiency and timeliness, something Republicans want because it would mean that completed postal ballots may take too long to be delivered to the various states’ election authorities, just as MAGAts want.

Right now, many US states, including my native Illinois (which is, of course, the place of my own FPCA registration and voting) accept and count all postal ballots postmarked on or before Election Day that are received with a certain number of days after Election day. This long-standing programme has become a particular target of Republicans.

In Illinois, ballots—again, postmarked on or before Election Day—will be counted if they’re received within 14 days after Election Day. On May 25, 2022, a lawsuit, Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections was filed on behalf of three Republicans, including US Representative Mike Bost (R-IL12), who was one of 126 Republican US Representatives to sign an amicus brief in support of Texas v. Pennsylvania, the infamous and idiotic MAGA lawsuit filed with the US Supreme Court contesting the results of the 2020 presidential election in another state—one they don’t even fucking live in. It was surely one of the most utterly bizarre and offensive legal stunts MAGA Republican politicians pulled, apart from every other suit filed by the Republican loser’s team of misfits and ne’er do wells. Then, January 6, when so many of them tried to stop the certification of the election and install the Republican candidate as president, even though he lost the election, was lightyears worse—as was the violent insurrection the Republican candidate incited.

The Republicans’ Illinois lawsuit argued that federal law requires all US states to hold Election Day on the first Tuesday in November, but Illinois allowing mail-in ballots to be received and counted for up to two weeks after Election Day effectively extended Election Day and, because of that, they bizarrely claimed that votes on Election Day are “diluted by illegal ballots received in violation of the federal Election Day statutes.” Ballots from US Citizens exercising their Constitutional right to vote, Republicans claimed, somehow magically “diluted” other citizens’ votes, because—who know why?! It’s always best to not explore Republicans’ very weird fantasies. The case was dismissed by the District Court, not on merit, but because of a lack of jurisdiction. The Republicans appealed to the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals, but they upheld the District Court dismissal on August 21, 2024. This means the 14-days after Election Day deadline remains—for now.

Meanwhile, Republicans also targeted Mississippi’s law, which has a deadline of 5 business days after Election day for mail-in ballots to be received. On January 26, 2024, the Republican National Committee (RNC), along with local Republicans, filed a suit, Republican National Committee v. Wetzel, making the same arguments they made in the Illinois case, but they also claimed that the extended deadline for mail-in ballots to be received somehow magically violated their right to vote under the 14th Amendment, because, Republicans, or something. A summary judgement on July 28, 2024 reaffirmed the exisiting Mississippi deadline.

The Republicans then announced their intention to appeal to the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, the most conservative—and arguably the most MAGA—in the entire country. We know the RNC did this precisely so that whichever way the court ruled, the loser—either the RNC or the Republican officials in Mississippi if they lost—could ultimately appeal the case to the Republican US Supreme Court, with the (probably) justified hope that the far-right Republican Majority will rule to help their shared party by outlawing the long-established precedent of counting mail-in ballots received before the state’s legislated deadline. In fact, the Republican-controlled Mississippi state legislature offered to repeal the law, but the RNC ordered them not to do that so they could get their Supreme Court to help them.

If the Republican Supreme Court does outlaw the counting of mail-in ballots received after Election Day, it, together with Republicans’ attempts to destroy the US Postal Service, will directly affect overseas voters like me. That’s because the attacks on the postal service mean it’s questionable whether a mail-in ballot sent from overseas has any chance of arriving by, let alone before, Election Day (no matter when it’s posted), so taking away the extra days many states permit may make it even more likely that the votes of overseas citizens won’t be counted—which is exactly what the Republican Party and its Dear Leader want.

There are a handful of other options for US citizens overseas long-term. Some states allow other means of submitting ballots, including sending them by fax or other electronic means (Republicans will definitely challenge those methods, too). Overseas citizens can drop off their ballots to a US diplomatic post, providing the envelope has the correct postage on it, and the staff will put the ballots in a “diplomatic pouch” to send to the USA, where they’ll be sent to the postal service. This method may cut a few days off the mailing time, however, it could mean a special trip. For example, NZ has two US diplomatic posts, the Embassy in Wellington, and the Consulate in Auckland, so I, too, might have to make a special trip (I’ve heard, though, that ballots can be couriered to a diplomatic post, though I haven’t personally verified that).

Another possible option might be to use a courier service to deliver the ballot, which Illinois law allows. However, it has special requirements, apparently around federal licensing, which usually means major companies. Of the ones I know are acceptable, the only one I know for sure is still operating in New Zealand is FedEx, but as far as I know their only facility in New Zealand is at Auckland International Airport, and there’s no option for collection from individuals. In the past, NZ Post had an arrangement with DHL, who were their US partner for document deliveries in the USA. I didn’t know that was no longer the case until 2020 when I went to send my ballot by courier, and the carrier was a company I’d never heard of. I know the ballot was delivered to Chicago, but I never got a confirmation email that it was counted, so I don’t know whether or not it was. On the other hand, maybe they stopped sending the emails after 2016.

So, regardless of what happens with the RNC’s court stunts, I have no idea whether my ballot will arrive in Chicago in time to be counted, or whether or not it will be counted if it does. This doesn’t matter in that Illinois is a solidly Democratic state, and Harris-Walz will carry Illinois—everyone knows that. There’s no US Senate election this year, so the only other federal office I got to vote for was US Representative, and the incumbent Democrat will win that race. My vote, then, technically isn’t needed—but it was never about that: It’s my duty to vote. It’s my values in action, and my commitment to democracy, neither of which would ever permit me to sit out this election—or to vote for anyone other than Harris-Walz. I hope most Americans are the same.

I also hope this isn’t the last election Americans will ever have, because if the Republicans win, it’s game over. Sorry I have no hopeful words, other than just one: Vote.

2Political Podcast 122 is available

Episode 122 of the 2Political Podcast is now available from the podcast website. There, you can listen, download or subscribe to the podcast, or leave comments on the episode. The five most recent episodes are also listed with links in the right sidebar of this blog.

Don’s personal plunge

Don has just reached a negative disapproval rating faster than ANY other person holding the office of president in recent decades. According to Gallup, yesterday Don hit a 51% disapproval rating, something he achieved in ONLY EIGHT DAYS!! Well, he did say he'd be amazing—we just didn't realise he meant amazingly bad.

The chart above if from Statista, which specialises in data visualisation and is neither political nor partisan. It compares Don's terrible performance with other recent presidents, and tells the story even more starkly than the words alone.

When President Obama left office, he had a strong 59% approval rating, which was among the highest for recent US presidents. Only Clinton (66%) and Reagan (63%) had higher final ratings, while Eisenhower (59%) and Kennedy (58%) were similar.

However, and like all presidents, President Obama had low times, too, and because of those low rating periods, he left office with an overall average job approval rating of 47.9%, and only Truman, Ford, and Carter had lower rating averages.

Approval ratings are, like all polls, snapshots, and the averages over time present once sort of portrait of a presidency. For as long as Don remains titular president, he'll have ups and downs, and he’ll probably sometimes have majority approval, too. Still, at the moment, he must be wistful about those heady days when he first assumed the title of president and was faced with an even split—45% approved and 45% disapproved of Don on Inauguration Day. Sure, that was record high disapproval ratings at the time, and his approval rating on Inauguration Day was by far the worst since Gallup started polling, but that means he can only go up, right?

Of course! On January 28, Gallup had him at a whopping 51% approval! Will that turn out to be the high point of his tenure? Personally, I doubt it, particularly as his gang manipulates events in ways that, they believe, will drive popularity. Maybe they’ll be right. Or, maybe Don has already seen the maximum height of his popularity and it’s all downhill from here. Which it turns out to be will ultimately determine how soon we’re rid of him, and which party controls Congress in 2018.

So, we can all be forgiven a bit of schadenfreude at Don’s miserable—yuge! bigly bad!—performance in the polls. We all hope it translates into stopping him and his agenda. That, however, requires more than gloating.

It’s time to get busy.