I imagine Trump’s popularity amongst those that matter (US citizens in demographics with high voter turnout) is higher than we think it is. It doesn’t matter what non-citizens, youth and most POP think, as they either can’t or decline to vote.I think trump is more popular now then when he got elected..
Wasn't his approval ratings in the 30s before he won?
Donald Trump commands a remarkable level of support from virtually every elected official in his party and almost all voters likely to vote for his party. In this respect, he stands alone among presidents in modern history. The question arises: Why shouldn’t he try to hold that base, drive his approval rating high above 50 percent and win a big national victory in November 2020?
The answer is that in this century the Electoral College system strongly encourages candidates of both parties, and particularly any Republican candidate, to ignore the national popular vote. That’s especially true for President Trump: The system rewards him for focusing on a handful of states, located mostly in the Great Lakes region, with policies, promises and programs that may not resonate or even be consistent with the interests of all Americans.
To uncover statistical proof of this incentive, our nonprofit Making Every Vote Count built a model of the upcoming election based on the history of voting in previous elections in the modern era. Our conclusion is that even if the general population prefers the Democratic nominee by much more than was the case in 2016, Mr. Trump has almost a one-third chance of winning the Electoral College while ignoring the national vote but only about a one-fifth chance of winning the national popular vote as a route to winning the Electoral College.
With those odds, any rational strategist would tell Mr. Trump to campaign for victory in the swing states that hold the electors necessary to get to the magic 270 number, even if the message, the visits and the focus might turn off voters in the rest of the country. This sort of campaign and this type of presidency might not be best for the economy or society as a whole. But it is the way to win.
Specifically, we assumed that the national preference for the Democrats went from the two percentage points popular vote margin won by Hillary Clinton in the November 2016 election to a 7 percentage points margin. On average, that general approval rating for the Democratic nominee would translate to a eight to nine million vote victory for the Democratic nominee in November 2020. We chose it to test our hypothesis.
With such a high approval rating, the Democratic nominee would probably win the national popular vote. But that is not guaranteed. The first reason general approval might not match actual voting results is that only a little more than half of the electorate turns out to vote for president.
In the five elections in this century, participation ranged between 54 percent and 62 percent of the eligible voting population. There are many reasons for this: Some states make early voting easy, some make mail ballots widely available, some have many voting places and others few, weather can be inviting or keep people at home, registration can be an issue, and so forth. However, a huge factor is that the Electoral College system leads both parties to abandon campaigning in as many as 40 states — containing more than 80 percent of eligible voters — soon after Labor Day.
The New York Times has defended its wedding announcement for Donald Trump's senior adviser Stephen Miller after the newspaper faced a backlash from readers.
Mr Miller married Vice President Mike Pence's press secretary, Katie Waldman, on Sunday evening at the president's Trump International Hotel in Washington DC. The president attended the wedding and even gave a speech joking about Mr Miller's decision to get married over President's Day weekend, according to a Real Clear Politics reporter.
Details about the senior adviser's nuptials were then published in the New York Times, a move that angered some readers.
One of the frustrations expressed was the announcement not mentioning Mr Miller's alleged ties with white nationalism.
"Does the NYT not talk about Stephen Miller being a white supremacist because it would be gauche?" Democratic strategist Adam Parkhomenko tweeted after the announcement was published.
Other readers accused the newspaper of "fascism" for its decision to publish the announcement and "ignore" Mr Miller's controversial policies within the Trump administration.
“The New York Times just ran an announcement of Miller’s wedding as though he’s an esteemed statesman," politician Saira Rao wrote. "This is how mainstream media supports fascism."
A spokesperson for the paper said in a statement, "We publish wedding announcements from a broad range of people, showing the breadth and diversity of America and also registering unions of note, which we think will be of interest to readers."
Included with the statement were links to past wedding announcements to show the range of people covered by the department.
In the New York Times' announcement, Mr Miller was referred to as Mr Trump's senior adviser who also has influence over immigration, "directly shaping policies that aim to restrict the number of immigrants coming to the country", the newspaper wrote.
The line in the article included a hyperlink to a previous article mentioning released emails that showed Mr Miller citing white nationalist websites when working as a young Senate aide.
Another hyperlink included in the announcement directed readers to a New York Times article about emails with website links demonstrating Mr Miller's anti-immigration views.
Huffington Post reporter Elise Foley noticed the links shared by the paper in the announcement. She tweeted: "Gotta be awkward when your wedding announcement has to link to stories about white nationalism.”
Publications such as the New York Post and the Associated Press also covered Mr Miller's wedding, with both mentioning his controversial history working for the White House.
The Associated Press called Mr Miller "combative" and "one of the White House's most conservative and influential voices in pushing moves that Trump has taken to curb immigration". The New York Post listed the different immigration policies Mr Miller helped spearhead, including family separations at the border and reportedly pushing to end birthright citizenship.
If I was Muslim and especially Iranian I'd not be traveling to the USA. We have no inherent right to enter the United States, they can detain you for any arbitrary reason.U.S. said wrongly detaining Iranian-born travellers was 'corrected' but it seems to still be happening
Shanifa Nasser · CBC News · Posted: Feb 21, 2020 5:00 AM ET
As she sat in an otherwise empty interrogation room face-to-face with a U.S. border agent, Shirin Fahimi found herself in a scenario she'd only ever seen in the movies.
A long table separated her from the officer. On the ceiling were four monitors. Her heart was beating fast.
"Are you Muslim?" Fahimi recalled the agent asking her.
"That was a shocking question for me," she told CBC News. "I don't know if any other Canadian at the border is being asked this question of what do you believe."
Fahimi, a 31-year-old Toronto-area artist, was born in Iran. Over the years, she said she's faced extra questioning in exchange for the freedom to travel the United States.
What was her position on the Iranian government, why did she move to Canada and why was her husband's name so long were some of the questions.
And he prefers to watch a movie that has long been criticized ... "Gone With the Wind, which tells the story of the daughter of a Georgia plantation owner during and after the civil war, has long been criticized for its depiction of relationships between black slaves and their white masters. The novel from which the film is adapted described the Ku Klux Klan as a “tragic necessity” and made such free use of derogatory slurs for black people that the NAACP got involved with the production of the movie. The producers deleted the racial epithets after the black actors in the film – Hattie McDaniel made history as the first black person to win an Oscar for her role – complained."Donald Trump jabs at Parasite's Oscar win because film is 'from South Korea'
Vivian Ho in San Francisco
Fri 21 Feb 2020 09.19 GMT
Donald Trump has taken a jab at the Oscars for awarding this year’s best picture honor to Parasite, because the film is South Korean.
“How bad were the Academy Awards this year?” Trump asked a rally in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The crowd responded with loud boos.
“The winner is a movie from South Korea, what the hell was that all about?” Trump asked. “We got enough problems with South Korea with trade and on top of it, they give them the best movie of the year.”
President says US has trade problems with South Korea and wonders if ‘we can get Gone With the Wind back’www.theguardian.com
Who knows what movies Trump really likes, but he knows and appeals to his base.And he prefers to watch a movie that has long been criticized ... "Gone With the Wind, which tells the story of the daughter of a Georgia plantation owner during and after the civil war, has long been criticized for its depiction of relationships between black slaves and their white masters. The novel from which the film is adapted described the Ku Klux Klan as a “tragic necessity” and made such free use of derogatory slurs for black people that the NAACP got involved with the production of the movie. The producers deleted the racial epithets after the black actors in the film – Hattie McDaniel made history as the first black person to win an Oscar for her role – complained."