Finger On The Button

Political Cartoon is by Jimmy Margulies at jimmymargulies.com.

Can Donald Trump Win Over The American People ?

(This cartoon image is by Australian John Graham at cagle.com.)

Donald Trump is the most unpopular modern candidate to be elected president. He is viewed unfavorably by more people than view him favorably, and lost the popular vote by about 2.8 million votes. That presents a real problem for his impending presidency. He needs to win over a significant majority of Americans to enact his agenda and have a successful presidency.

Can he do it? I don't think so. George C. Edwards III (in The Washington Post) doesn't think so either, and he is why he thinks that. He writes:

Public support is a key resource that modern presidents have typically sought for themselves and their policies. They seek to leverage public opinion to garner support in Congress.

New presidents, basking in the glow of victory, often assume that they can move the public. After all, they have just won the biggest prize in American politics because they persuaded enough voters to support their candidacy. Why shouldn’t they be able to persuade Americans to support their policies?

Campaigning is different from governing, however. To win an election, a candidate need only convince voters in the short term that he or she is a better choice than the few available alternatives. In addition, someone always wins, whether or not voters support the victor’s policy positions.

Governing, on the other hand, involves deliberation, negotiation and often compromise over an extended period. The president’s policy is just one of a wide range of alternatives. To succeed, the president frequently needs to increase public support beyond his electoral coalition.

This brings us to Donald Trump. Is President Trump likely to enjoy broad public support to revolutionize public policy? Here are four questions to predict this critical aspect of his presidency.

Did Trump receive a mandate from the people?

It is a great advantage for a president to start his tenure with broad public support. Trump is following a long tradition of new presidents claiming a mandate from the people, a widespread endorsement by the public for a candidate’s policy proposals. The perception of an electoral mandate adds legitimacy and credibility to the new president’s proposals and encourages members of Congress to support the president. Indeed, major changes in policy, as in 1933, 1965 and 1981, rarely occur in the absence of such perceptions. Mandates can be powerful symbols in American politics.

Despite the claims from Trump Tower, however, the president-elect did not receive a mandate. He received only 46 percent of the vote, hardly a landslide. Moreover, he did not win even a plurality of the votes, receiving nearly 3 million fewer than Hillary Clinton.

In addition, pre-election polls found that no candidate since 1980 has had a lower percentage of voters saying they planned to cast a vote for their candidate. In late October, most Trump voters were voting against Hillary Clinton rather than for him. Immediately after the election, 43 percent of the public had a positive response, but 52 percent were upset or dissatisfied.

Approval of his transition has been unusually low, as have expectations of his presidency. The president-elect’s favorability ratings have also been historically low and have not increasedduring the transition.

Finally, Trump did not emphasize many specific policies during the campaign. Instead, he stressed general aspirations, such as making America great again. So there is little evidence to support claims of a mandate.

The public seems to agree. After the election, just 29 percent said Trump had a mandate to carry out the agenda he presented during the campaign, while 59 percent thought he should compromise with Democrats when they strongly disagreed with the specifics of his policy proposals.

Do Americans support the general direction of Trump’s policies?

To bring about change, presidents generally require broad public support for the general direction of their initiatives. Everyone supports peace and prosperity in campaigns, but presidents have to govern with more specificity. Most Americans like tax cuts (except for the wealthy), rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure and improving veterans’ services.

Trump’s policies often have been unclear, however, and they contain numerous contradictions, such as those between tax cuts and increased spending. We know the public does not support his general approach to immigration, trade and environmental protection. Opinion is more divided on health care, an issue on which he has been especially vague.

How polarized is public opinion?

In the absence of large majorities in Congress, enacting major changes in public policy usually requires expanding public support beyond those who identify with the president’s party. The degree of partisan polarization will influence the prospects of doing so.

Is it possible to reach out to the center and add those who might be sympathetic to Trump’s policies to his coalition? Not really. The United States has very high levels of partisan polarization, and the policy divide between the Democratic and Republican electoral coalitions now encompasses a wide variety of issues, including both economic and social concerns.

Earlier this year, the Pew Research Center found that 45 percent of Republicans said that Democratic policies were not only wrong but “threaten the nation.” Forty-one percent of Democrats viewed GOP policies in equally stark terms.

Trump is highly polarizing, and he has focused on emotionally laden issues such as those dealing with ethnicity, race and gender. Bridging the partisan divide will be one of his greatest challenges.

How malleable is public opinion?

Can the president persuade non-supporters to change their minds and support his initiatives? There are many impediments to leading the public, including:

• the difficulty of obtaining and maintaining the public’s attention
• the dependence on the media to reach the public
• the distrust of the White House created by partisan media
• the need to overcome the public’s policy and partisan predispositions (which are reinforced by partisan media)
• the public’s misinformation and resistance to correction
• the public’s aversion to loss and thus wariness of policy change

Although Trump seems to enjoy an extraordinary rapport with his most enthusiastic supporters, the question is whether he can change the views of those who do not support him. The evidence is clear that his efforts are unlikely to succeed. Indeed, presidents find it difficult even to change the views of their fellow partisans who happen to disagree with them on an issue.

There’s no silver bullet.

President Trump is unlikely to enjoy broad public support. He begins from a weak position and faces a highly polarized public. Moreover, he has little chance of changing many minds, not because he lacks persuasive skill but because of the nature of public opinion. Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama all failed to do so.

Nevertheless, it is critically important for presidents to assess accurately the potential for obtaining public support. Presidents who fail to do so are prone to overreach and political disaster.

Looks Different

Political Cartoon is by Pat Bagley in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Simple Concept

Unfair And Harmful

Far Too Many Americans Believe Conspiracy Theories

(Cartoon image is by Joe Heller at hellertoon.com.)

This survey should remove any doubts you may have had that the United States has millions of gullible idiots. It is the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between December 17th and 20th of a random national sample of 1,376 adults, with a margin of error of 3.3 points.

Here are some common (and rather ridiculous) conspiracy theories, and the percentage of people believing they are true (or probably true).

Vaccines have been shown to cause autism. 

31%

The U.S. government helped plan the attacks of 9/11. 

25%

Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the invasion of Iraq in 2003 that the U.S. never found.

53%

The financial crash of 2008 was secretly orchestrated by a handful of Wall Street bankers. 

52%

President Obama was born in Kenya. 

36%

Leaked email from some of Hillary Clinton’s campaign staffers contained code words for pedophilia, human trafficking and satanic ritual abuse - what some people refer to as ’Pizzagate’.


38%

Millions of illegal votes were cast in the election. 

46%

Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected President. 

37%

Mad Baby

Political Cartoon is by Mike Luckovich in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Conservative Newspaper Blasts Trump's Failure To Divest

Many of his most rabid supporters may not realize the trouble Donald Trump is creating for himself by refusing to divest himself of his business interests (and putting his stocks in a blind trust), but many conservatives do understand. And that includes some reliably conservative newspapers.

This is from the editorial board of the traditionally conservative Dallas Morning News:

Donald Trump's refusal to draw lines between his businesses and the presidency continues to pose new appearances of conflicts of interest. And the man doesn't take the oath of office until next month.

So far the president-elect has refused to release his tax returns and reneged on a promise to tell the world how he would prevent his vast private holdings from appearing to influence his presidency.  Now his sons,  Eric and Donald Trump Jr., are scrambling to distance themselves from the Opening Day Foundation, a newly formed Dallas-based charity, after questions over whether the nonprofit is peddling access to their father during inauguration activities.

There is a certain irony to this latest kerfuffle. As a candidate, Trump assailed Hillary Clinton for the appearance of pay-to-play ties between contributions to the Clinton Foundation and access to the former secretary of state. 

How is the Opening Day Foundation much different? Created by Trump supporters Tommy Hicks Jr., the eldest son of Dallas billionaire Tom Hicks, and Dallas hedge fund manager Gentry Beach, the conservation charity, while legal, had troubling signs of a quid pro quo. Donors who give $1 million would have a private reception with the new president and a hunting or fishing trip with Eric or Donald Jr. 

In response to public backlash, Trump's sons have moved to excise their names from the charity registration documents. Separately, Eric Trump has pledged to stop soliciting contributions for his own unrelated charitable foundation, which supports causes like the fight against childhood cancer, to avoid pay-to-play allegations.

Still, Trump family business and the presidency remain a potentially toxic brew. Ivanka Trump was forced to stop marketing the 18-karat diamond piece she wore during an appearance on 60 Minutes to ease concerns that she was cashing in on her father's pending presidency. And it remains disturbingly unclear why Trump family members attended the president-elect's first meeting with a foreign head of state and a recent meeting with U.S. technology executives in his office. 

The motivations behind the decisions that Trump makes as president will remain suspect — and subject to endless rumor and speculation — until he liquidates his foreign and domestic holdings.  Like Democratic and Republican presidents before him, he needs to put stocks, bonds, real estate and other assets into blind trusts run by independent managers to minimize conflicts of interest. 

Otherwise, suspicion will undermine his every decision, every action his administration pursues. Did he do what he did for the good of the country? Or for the good of the Trump family coffers? 

The office of the president shouldn't be so cheapened. 

Trump owes the American people more than a vague promise to do the right thing. He needs to show us that he's doing the right thing. Now.    

Idiots Still Waiting

Political Cartoon is by Nick Anderson in the Houston Chronicle.

Food Stamp Myths

It Matters

Greedy

Political Cartoon is by Daryl Cagle at cagle.com.

Most Say Country Will NOT Be Better Off In Four Years

This chart was made from information in a recent Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between December 17th and 20th of a random national sample of 1,376 adults, with a 3.3 point margin of error.

It shows just how out-of-step the Trump voters are compared to the general population of the United States. About 75% of Trump voters say the country will be better off in four years, while only 15% say it will be the same or worse. That's a far more optimistic attitude than most Americans have. Only 37% of the general population thinks the country will be better off, while 45% say it will be the same or worse.

It's pretty much the same picture when respondents were asked if their family would be better off in four years, with only a slightly more optimistic view by the general public. About 41% say they will be better off, while 44% say it will be the same or worse. Among Trump voters, about 63% say they will be better off, while 29% say it will be the same or worse.

I think the Trump voters are living in a dream world -- and they're in for a rather big surprise.

A Tough Year

Political Cartoon is by Bruce Plante in Tulsa World.