Mitt Romney: The president shapes the public character of the nation. Trump’s character falls short.

[Xelor]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...898adc28fa2_story.html?utm_term=.b65a61fc6dbf

Yesterday's op ed by Mitt Romney may signal that he may be Moby Dick to Trump's Ahab in the 2020 Republican primary. Romney already has a solid base & track record & a lot more money than Trump. (My apologies to the very late Herman Melville).

Importantly, Romney, unlike other GOP members of Congress, knows damn well he had plenty of public support before Trump, retained more than enough of it to sail to a win in his Senate race, and that he thus isn't beholden to Trump. Plenty of other Congress members have the same leverage as Romney, yet Trump's cowed them into disabusing themselves of whatever measures of princely manhood they may have and, in turn, refraining from availing themselves of their political capital.

I mean, really. How hard is it to stand on the right side of character? Not hard at all, yet craven Congresspersons daily don't.

They are purportedly concerned about being "primaried." Why? If they are indeed the best person for the role they have, they'll win their primary, and coming off that win, they will have shown that they can prevail without Trump's approbation. It's high time they test themselves rather than indolently trying to take the easy road, the "happy path" of non-confrontation. That's what strong, capable and confident people do.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Trump is unique in that his approval rating has never been higher than 44% or lower than 38%. That tells me he has his solid base which will never leave him and hasn't added at all to that base. It also tells me his approval is based on his character, personality, persona more than what he does or doesn't do as president or on his policies.

If policy based, issue based, one expects in good times, good news times for a president's approval to shoot way up, then go way down come bad times, bad news etc. Obama approval ranged during his first two years from 66% down to 43% depending on what was happening, the events, issues, legislation etc. A 23 point swing, issue based approval on Obama. G.W. Bush had a swing of 51% up to 90% in his first two years. The 90% was 9-11 based, but it shows how an event or issue, good news or bad news effect a presidential approval rating. Bush's first two years of approval was all issue based, not personality based as Trump is. Bill Clinton's range was 37% low 57% high during his first two years, once again issue and event based.

Trump in my opinion will never be able to get his approval based on events, issues, happenings, it's all personality, character. People dislike his unpresidential behavior, hence they think he's a bad president. Trump with his obnoxious and distasteful personality, character could bring peace to the world, his approval still wouldn't rise above 45%. His raunchy behavior has had that much effect on how he is viewed. My two cents anyway.

I’m about 90% with you on your assessment. Trump’s base has been pretty consistent so far, but what happens to that base if Trump fails to deliver on his wall promise? If he shows weakness and compromises with the Dems? Also, of those who make up his base, how many are hard core never gonna give up on Trump no matter what followers? As you rightly said, many of his followers support him because of his (foul) personality and will stick with as long as he continues the rhetoric they agree with however, there have been several polls showing his support slipping in a number of states that he won “bigly” in ‘16 and even some Republican officials are gaining enough courage to speak against Trump publicly. A possible downward trend? I’m not betting on anything yet, but with the Dems taking control of Congress today and Mueller’s report expected sometime soon, there’s real potential for change among Trump supporters IMO.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Importantly, Romney, unlike other GOP members of Congress, knows damn well he had plenty of public support before Trump, retained more than enough of it to sail to a win in his Senate race, and that he thus isn't beholden to Trump.

It also doesn’t hurt Romney that Trump’s popularity in Utah is sinking like a rock. That gives him a lot of latitude to speak out against Trump and stand in opposition of Trump’s many immoral statements and actions.

 

[cabse5]

I am an AmeriCAN; first, last and foremost from my first to my last breath. Trump's "nationalism" is a fiction.<--period. Trump's ONLY concern is what's best for trump. He ONLY feeds raw meet to his base to keep them in tow. He has NO thought for America or AmeriCANs.

You're globalist, don't care about the US and are rabid.

 

[Irwin Corey]

You're globalist, don't care about the US and are rabid.

Let's see, do I care about the opinion of someone who can't even form a proper sentence?

Why no, no I don't.

 

[Perotista]

I’m about 90% with you on your assessment. Trump’s base has been pretty consistent so far, but what happens to that base if Trump fails to deliver on his wall promise? If he shows weakness and compromises with the Dems? Also, of those who make up his base, how many are hard core never gonna give up on Trump no matter what followers? As you rightly said, many of his followers support him because of his (foul) personality and will stick with as long as he continues the rhetoric they agree with however, there have been several polls showing his support slipping in a number of states that he won “bigly” in ‘16 and even some Republican officials are gaining enough courage to speak against Trump publicly. A possible downward trend? I’m not betting on anything yet, but with the Dems taking control of Congress today and Mueller’s report expected sometime soon, there’s real potential for change among Trump supporters IMO.

I hear you. If Trump caves on the wall, you know he'll blame the Democrats. I think most of his avid supporters would buy into that. How many, what percentage, I don't know. For Trump's first two years in office, his approval rating among Republicans, only Republicans has ranged from 79% up to 90%. Perhaps we can take an educated guess. Question 47A shows 63% of all Republicans have a very favorable view of Trump. I'd classify them as avid Trumpers. 22% somewhat favorable. 85% total favorable.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/oijdv5i5r9/econTabReport.pdf

Cave on the wall, it's very possible those 22% somewhats could leave him. My impression on those is that they aren't in love with Trump, but their support for Trump has more to do with the R next to his name than anything else. Notice I used the word impression. Trump's undying loyalist make up the 63% very favorable. I assume he would probably lose some of those, not many, but some. Take a guess, 10%, 20%, certainly not anymore.

Caving in on the wall very well might drop his approval/favorable ratings among Republicans to 70%. Give or take a point or two. Even so, Trump would still have the support of most Republicans. Which could erode more as time goes by, especially among those Republicans who don't approve of his uncouth, unpresidential antics and behavior.

I don't know how Mueller will come down, no one else does either. Whereas caving on the wall could erode Trump's support among his avid Trumpers, his enthusiastic base, a negative report by Mueller could actually rally support among his base. Too many uncertainties to tell.

On the day Nixon resigned from office in 1974, he still had support from half of all Republicans. Half of all Republicans thought Nixon was railroaded out of office by political vindictive Democrats. 50% of all republicans wouldn't abandon Nixon, perhaps around the same percentage applies to Trump. Maybe higher as back in 1974 the political atmosphere was more bipartisan, less of a ideological gap between parties. No hate for the other party. Today, partisanship reigns, a huge gap in ideology and a lot of loyal, partisan members of both parties hate the other party. I suppose the bottom line is we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Mason66]

Oh here we go. Dem trolls pretending to be praising Romney.

3 things i need to know about mitt: 1. he's a carpetbagger. pick a state and stick with it. 2. he didn't have the spine to stand up to candy crowley during the debates & don't trust him to have a spine to defend and protect the american people. 3. no matter what he says now, he's a never-trumper and Trump has enough on his plate than to deal with another rino. This guy is a lightweight. & he hates PRESIDENT TRUMP because he beat the crap out of the bought establishment. He's nothing but a lying globalist traitor!

I think Romney would have moved the country farther left than cankles, he would have done it in a sneaky manner so it wouldn't have caused
as much outrage. But make no mistake, his political agenda is far closer to that of Clinton & BO than it is America first.

Mitt Romney's niece Ronna Romney McDaniel is the current Chair of the Republican National Committee; you would think he would be a little more prudent, more circumspect with his commentary for the good of the party instead of looking for a pat on the head from the likes of Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and the DNC.

Romney, Flake & Kasich three peas in the Globalist pod.
When he was governor of Mass? His health care bill was a precursor to Obamacare and before that he outsourced American jobs overseas.

This comment from Romney makes me think Romney doesn't know what country he is living in.

 

[slick]

Romney doesn't have a good enough record of hating brown skinned people imo, so that will cost him a lot of votes in any primary.

You're joking or ignorant or both. Romney who once stated he was 'severely conservative' what a remark. The truth is that he is 'severely Mormon'
He spent two-and-a-half years in France as a Mormon missionary & his college of choice was Brigham Young University.


It was Brigham Young, who adopted the policies that now haunt the church. He described black people as cursed with dark skin as punishment
for Cain’s murder of his brother. “Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane in him cannot hold the priesthood,” he declared in 1852.
Young deemed black-white intermarriage so sinful that he suggested that a man could atone for it only by having “his head cut off” and
spilling “his blood upon the ground.” Other Mormon leaders convinced themselves that the pre-existent spirits of black people had sinned
in heaven by supporting Lucifer in his rebellion against God. At the time of Romney's missionary work Young's policies were still in effect.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/opinion/sunday/racism-and-the-mormon-church.html

 

[RaleBulgarian]

On the day Nixon resigned from office in 1974, he still had support from half of all Republicans. Half of all Republicans thought Nixon was railroaded out of office by political vindictive Democrats. 50% of all republicans wouldn't abandon Nixon, perhaps around the same percentage applies to Trump. Maybe higher as back in 1974 the political atmosphere was more bipartisan, less of a ideological gap between parties. No hate for the other party. Today, partisanship reigns, a huge gap in ideology and a lot of loyal, partisan members of both parties hate the other party. I suppose the bottom line is we'll have to wait and see.

Some things never change. There will always be truly and utterly gullible people. On the day Nixon walked out of the White House he had an overall approval rating of just 24%. That means 76% of Americans were smart enough to realize Nixon was a crook and deserved to be removed. Hopefully we still have a majority today. We’ll see.

 

[Perotista]

Some things never change. There will always be truly and utterly gullible people. On the day Nixon walked out of the White House he had an overall approval rating of just 24%. That means 76% of Americans were smart enough to realize Nixon was a crook and deserved to be removed. Hopefully we still have a majority today. We’ll see.

That was back then in a much less partisan and a more cooperative atmosphere and era. Where both sides could recognize right and wrong. Now right and wrong isn't black and white, it's more in the grey area. Now each party tries to use every little thing to their political advantage. I really doubt you could ever get 76% of the nation against Trump regardless of what he did. You'll always have those that think it's partisan political vindictiveness against your guy. That the other party used underhanded, illegal, immoral ways to destroy your guy and drive him from office.

If Mueller does find some serious charges, crimes against Trump, most of the avid Trumpers will rally around him. Defend and protect. You'll always have those regardless of whom the charges or crimes are against, that believe it's everyone against their man. Their man is completely innocent. There's a certain percentage of folks that will never be convinced no matter what. Call it facts of life or political reality.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

That was back then in a much less partisan and a more cooperative atmosphere and era. Where both sides could recognize right and wrong. Now right and wrong isn't black and white, it's more in the grey area. Now each party tries to use every little thing to their political advantage. I really doubt you could ever get 76% of the nation against Trump regardless of what he did. You'll always have those that think it's partisan political vindictiveness against your guy. That the other party used underhanded, illegal, immoral ways to destroy your guy and drive him from office.

If Mueller does find some serious charges, crimes against Trump, most of the avid Trumpers will rally around him. Defend and protect. You'll always have those regardless of whom the charges or crimes are against, that believe it's everyone against their man. Their man is completely innocent. There's a certain percentage of folks that will never be convinced no matter what. Call it facts of life or political reality.

I’m not sure that politics was any less partisan than it is today. Most Republican officials stood by Nixon for as long as they could before finally folding under pressure from their constituents, the press, and mounting irrefutable evidence against the President (including audio recordings of him ordering crimes to be committed). A huge and very consequential difference between then and now in the political world is propaganda tools/methods. The ability to reach a larger portion of the electorate through various media and more sophisticated word wizardry have helped to increase that gray area so many now live in. Still, as with Nixon, if absolute irrefutable evidence is brought to light of Trump committing crimes, I believe many of his followers will wake up and join with the majority who are already against him.
Having said that, I agree that the most ardent supporters will convince themselves that it was all an evil plot against a good and decent man.

 

[veritas1]

Trump supported Romney for the Senate. Any criticisms Romney has should be delivered confidentially. Whether criticisms are offered publicly or privately distinguishes between those trying to protect the party and those out for themselves. Romney has backpedaled a bit and said he supports the wall, however.

 

[Perotista]

I’m not sure that politics was any less partisan than it is today. Most Republican officials stood by Nixon for as long as they could before finally folding under pressure from their constituents, the press, and mounting irrefutable evidence against the President (including audio recordings of him ordering crimes to be committed). A huge and very consequential difference between then and now in the political world is propaganda tools/methods. The ability to reach a larger portion of the electorate through various media and more sophisticated word wizardry have helped to increase that gray area so many now live in. Still, as with Nixon, if absolute irrefutable evidence is brought to light of Trump committing crimes, I believe many of his followers will wake up and join with the majority who are already against him.
Having said that, I agree that the most ardent supporters will convince themselves that it was all an evil plot against a good and decent man.

If those Republicans who view Trump very favorable, 63% are his ardent followers. He doesn't have to lose that many to get down to the 50% level ala Nixon. He'll lose approximately 20%, but still retain 80%. This is if my very favorable equates to avid or ardent Trumpers within the GOP. I'm sure the vast major of the somewhat favorable's will drop their support of him as their not as attached to the man, more to the R next to his name. It'll be much more important to retain control of the senate than to save Trump.

Such is what I believe happened in 1974. Republicans in congress decided saving their seats was more important than saving Nixon. Call it self preservation. Even throwing Nixon under the bus didn't work for them, the Republicans lost 48 house seats and 5 senate seats in November of 1974. That gave the democrats 295 house seats and 63 senate seats. A filibuster proof senate. Numbers not reached by either party since.

 

[tres borrachos]

Trump supported Romney for the Senate. Any criticisms Romney has should be delivered confidentially. Whether criticisms are offered publicly or privately distinguishes between those trying to protect the party and those out for themselves. Romney has backpedaled a bit and said he supports the wall, however.

Since when do criticisms have to be delivered confidentially?

 

[veritas1]

Since when do criticisms have to be delivered confidentially?

How many times did you see Democrats publicly criticizing Obama? Ever?

 

[tres borrachos]

How many times did you see Democrats publicly criticizing Obama? Ever?

I have no idea. And that doesn't have anything to do with my question anyway. I wasn't talking about Obama.

I'll ask again. Since when do criticisms have to be delivered confidentially?

 

[veritas1]

I have no idea. And that doesn't have anything to do with my question anyway. I wasn't talking about Obama.

I'll ask again. Since when do criticisms have to be delivered confidentially?

Have to? They don't have to. They simply should be.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

If those Republicans who view Trump very favorable, 63% are his ardent followers. He doesn't have to lose that many to get down to the 50% level ala Nixon. He'll lose approximately 20%, but still retain 80%. This is if my very favorable equates to avid or ardent Trumpers within the GOP. I'm sure the vast major of the somewhat favorable's will drop their support of him as their not as attached to the man, more to the R next to his name. It'll be much more important to retain control of the senate than to save Trump.

Such is what I believe happened in 1974. Republicans in congress decided saving their seats was more important than saving Nixon. Call it self preservation. Even throwing Nixon under the bus didn't work for them, the Republicans lost 48 house seats and 5 senate seats in November of 1974. That gave the democrats 295 house seats and 63 senate seats. A filibuster proof senate. Numbers not reached by either party since.

Okay, let’s say Trump loses enough Republican followers to bring him down to 50% approval, considering his current overall approval rating, that could possibly result in a lower overall approval rating than Nixon. Wow.

Maybe I’m a bit too cynical, but I believe politicians are no better or worse than any other time. They all tow the partisan party line until it jeopardizes their own security, then it’s everyone for themselves. They paid the price for Nixon, how many do you think are willing to do the same for Trump?

 

[tres borrachos]

Have to? They don't have to. They simply should be.

Okay. Why "should" they be?

 

[Perotista]

Okay, let’s say Trump loses enough Republican followers to bring him down to 50% approval, considering his current overall approval rating, that could possibly result in a lower overall approval rating than Nixon. Wow.

Maybe I’m a bit too cynical, but I believe politicians are no better or worse than any other time. They all tow the partisan party line until it jeopardizes their own security, then it’s everyone for themselves. They paid the price for Nixon, how many do you think are willing to do the same for Trump?

Yes, but remember Nixon's resignation came in August of 1974, a bit over two months prior to the midterm election in November. That November Democratic congressional candidates received 58% of the total congressional vote to 40% for the republicans. That's more than landslide proportions.

I think the closeness of the election to the resignation had a lot to do with the huge margin of victory for the democrats. In 1972 the democratic margin was 52-47. I have no information on how independents voted in 1974, but I assume it was overwhelming Democratic. Here the list of presidents with their highest, lowest and average approval ratings.

Trump Highest 46% Lowest 37% Average 41%
Obama Highest 69% Lowest 38% Average 47.9%
Bush (G.W.) Highest 90% Lowest 25% Average 49.4%
Clinton Highest 73% Lowest 37% Average 55.1%
Bush (G.H.W.) Highest 89% Lowest 29% Average 60.9%
Reagan Highest 68% lowest 35% Average 52.8%
Carter Highest 75% Lowest 28% Average 45.5%
Ford Highest 71% Lowest 37% Average 47.2%
Nixon Highest 67% Lowest 24% Average 49.1%
Johnson Highest 79% Lowest 35% Average 55.1%
Kennedy Highest 83% Lowest 56% Average 70.1%
Eisenhower Highest 79% Lowest 48% Average 65.0%
Truman Highest 87% Lowest 22% Average 45.4%
Roosevelt Highest 84% Lowest 48% No average available as approval ratings began in 1937 and FDR took office in March of 1933.

It's interesting to note that the second Bush came darn close to setting the record for the highest and lowest approval ratings ever. He missed out on the lowest. Truman whom most of us consider a near great president had the lowest approval rating of all presidents. His average approval rating is right down near the bottom also. It just goes to show how time can effect how the public and historians view the presidents differently than when they were in office.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Yes, but remember Nixon's resignation came in August of 1974, a bit over two months prior to the midterm election in November. That November Democratic congressional candidates received 58% of the total congressional vote to 40% for the republicans. That's more than landslide proportions.

I think the closeness of the election to the resignation had a lot to do with the huge margin of victory for the democrats. In 1972 the democratic margin was 52-47. I have no information on how independents voted in 1974, but I assume it was overwhelming Democratic. Here the list of presidents with their highest, lowest and average approval ratings.

Trump Highest 46% Lowest 37% Average 41%
Obama Highest 69% Lowest 38% Average 47.9%
Bush (G.W.) Highest 90% Lowest 25% Average 49.4%
Clinton Highest 73% Lowest 37% Average 55.1%
Bush (G.H.W.) Highest 89% Lowest 29% Average 60.9%
Reagan Highest 68% lowest 35% Average 52.8%
Carter Highest 75% Lowest 28% Average 45.5%
Ford Highest 71% Lowest 37% Average 47.2%
Nixon Highest 67% Lowest 24% Average 49.1%
Johnson Highest 79% Lowest 35% Average 55.1%
Kennedy Highest 83% Lowest 56% Average 70.1%
Eisenhower Highest 79% Lowest 48% Average 65.0%
Truman Highest 87% Lowest 22% Average 45.4%
Roosevelt Highest 84% Lowest 48% No average available as approval ratings began in 1937 and FDR took office in March of 1933.

It's interesting to note that the second Bush came darn close to setting the record for the highest and lowest approval ratings ever. He missed out on the lowest. Truman whom most of us consider a near great president had the lowest approval rating of all presidents. His average approval rating is right down near the bottom also. It just goes to show how time can effect how the public and historians view the presidents differently than when they were in office.

Really bad timing for those guys. Maybe if they’d turned on Nixon sooner some of those voted out may have been able to save their seats. I’ll bet that thought went through the minds of many of them. Coulda woulda shoulda.

I’ve seen the presidential polling numbers before. It is interesting to see how the public viewed their president during those times and informative of how perspectives can dramatically change over years. I wonder if the same polling were done on every president how Buchanan would’ve placed.

 

[Perotista]

Really bad timing for those guys. Maybe if they’d turned on Nixon sooner some of those voted out may have been able to save their seats. I’ll bet that thought went through the minds of many of them. Coulda woulda shoulda.

I’ve seen the presidential polling numbers before. It is interesting to see how the public viewed their president during those times and informative of how perspectives can dramatically change over years. I wonder if the same polling were done on every president how Buchanan would’ve placed.

I don't know. I found it interesting to see how presidents moved up or down as the years go by in their presidential rankings. Couple of quick examples, Eisenhower started off at 21 and now has moved up to 8th. G.W. Bush 23rd dropped to 32nd. If you're interest in polling prior to an election, here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_United_States_presidential_elections

Also Nixon started out as 34th and is now 33rd although 6 more president's have been added. That is 34th out of 39 presidents, today he is 33rd out of 45 presidents. IKE, was 23rd out of 34, today 8th out of 45. Quite interesting.