Poll: 82 Percent of Trump Voters Say They'd Do It Again

[mystery-ak]

By Mark Swanson    |   Thursday, 09 Nov 2017 07:55 AM



The vast majority of Americans who voted for President Donald Trump would do it all over again, according to the latest Politico/Morning Consult poll.

At the one-year anniversary of Trump's election, 82 percent of those who voted for the winner said they would vote for him again.

More results, according to Politico's survey:

    7 percent of Trump voters would vote for someone else.
    78 percent who voted for Hillary Clinton would vote for her again.
    76 percent of Trump voters would vote for him again in 2020.
    74 percent of Republicans would vote for Trump in 2020.
    17 percent of Republicans are undecided about who they would vote for in '20.
    40 percent of Independents would vote for the Democrat in 2020.

Overall, any Democrat leads Trump in a head-to-head 2020 election, according to Politico:

more
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/poll-trump-voters/2017/11/09/id/825064/

[Suppressed]

More than 11,000,000 votes he wouldn't have gotten.

Are there more than 11 million others who've decided they made a mistake by not voting for him?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

That's actually not a good thing. I'd wager he's gonna need near 100% of everyone who voted for him last time to vote for him again to win.

[DiogenesLamp]

I would do it again.   A choice between a boor and pure evil is not a difficult decision.   

[Concerned]

That's actually not a good thing. I'd wager he's gonna need near 100% of everyone who voted for him last time to vote for him again to win.

Yes.  He managed 46.1% of the electorate last year.  It’s hard for me to paint a picture that he’s on a path for expanding that.  He certainly seems to have energized “The Resistance” from the other side and has done little to nothing to expand support beyond his core base IMO.  I think losing any significant chunk of his former voters would be catastrophic to his re-election chances (which I have low anyway).

[roamer_1]

I would do it again.   A choice between a boor and pure evil is not a difficult decision.

Right... Same thing.
So neither.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes.  He managed 46.1% of the electorate last year.

I do not *GIVE* a sh*t about California,  New York,  and Washington states.   I do not consider them "the electorate",  I consider them nutball insane kooks who should not even be allowed to vote.   


I do not believe in buying in to liberal propaganda citing the "popular vote"  because the election system of the United States is an electoral college system,  not a "popular vote" system.   


The "popular vote"  does not win the election.   It has to be the majority vote in a sufficient number of states to win the electoral votes.    Trump did not waste any time on the nutball states,  he only worked on the ones that mattered.   

[DiogenesLamp]

Right... Same thing.
So neither.

Not same thing.  Is murder and death and vile evilness on the one hand,  and bitching about "tweets"  on  the other.   


I don't condone murder death and evil,  so I had to vote against Hillary.     Would have voted for Jimmy Carter to keep that witch hag away from power. 

[roamer_1]

Not same thing.  Is murder and death and vile evilness on the one hand,  and bitching about "tweets"  on  the other.   

Exactly the same thing.

I don't condone murder death and evil,  so I had to vote against Hillary.     Would have voted for Jimmy Carter to keep that witch hag away from power.

Knock yourself out.

[DiogenesLamp]

Exactly the same thing.

No, you see,   murder and death and vile evilness is a lot worse that "tweets".    It really is.   

[roamer_1]

No, you see,   murder and death and vile evilness is a lot worse that "tweets".    It really is.

No it really isn't - And you aren't fooling anyone with your "tweets".

[jmyrlefuller]

I do not *GIVE* a sh*t about California,  New York,  and Washington states.   I do not consider them "the electorate",  I consider them nutball insane kooks who should not even be allowed to vote.

Speaking of nutball insane kooks… doesn't that disqualify New York resident Donald Trump?

[Mesaclone]

No it really isn't - And you aren't fooling anyone with your "tweets".

.
You may need to grab a dictionary and look up "evil". After that, go look up "tweets".

More importantly, the choice of neither is a mirage...as you are going to get one or the other in office as President. Choosing neither, simply facilitates the truly evil candidate. A simple analogy for you...you can go to Purgatory or Hell...and picking "neither" simply puts you in Hell. Sadly, in this scenario you've not earned heaven so its not an option available to you. What would anyone with an ounce of intelligence do in such a situation?

[Concerned]

I do not *GIVE* a sh*t about California,  New York,  and Washington states.   I do not consider them "the electorate",  I consider them nutball insane kooks who should not even be allowed to vote.   


I do not believe in buying in to liberal propaganda citing the "popular vote"  because the election system of the United States is an electoral college system,  not a "popular vote" system.   


The "popular vote"  does not win the election.   It has to be the majority vote in a sufficient number of states to win the electoral votes.    Trump did not waste any time on the nutball states,  he only worked on the ones that mattered.   

Of course the electoral vote is what wins the Presidency.  My point is that the 2016 election was extremely close.  For example, Trump won PA by 0.7%, MI by 0.2%, WI by 0.8%, and FL by 1.1%.  Although we don't have the OP poll data by state, I fail to see how he wins these states if only 82% of his voters will vote for him.  He's obviously energized "The Resistance".  I expect the Dems will be VERY motivated in 2020 (just as they apparently were earlier this week).  Trump is doing little to expand support outside of his base.  Sure, it's still early, but none of this bodes well for re-election IMO.  If Trump doesn't change his approach (and I don't expect he will), I don't anticipate 2020 will be nearly as close as 2016.  I think it'll likely be a clear Democratic victory.  All the current math points to that IMO.

[DiogenesLamp]

No it really isn't - And you aren't fooling anyone with your "tweets".

"Tweets"  is what I hear the most bitching about.   Is there something else he has done that is worse than "tweets"?     


I don't know what that would be. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Speaking of nutball insane kooks… doesn't that disqualify New York resident Donald Trump?

I was speaking collectively.    But pat yourself on the back for working your deliberate Trump insult into the conversation. 


While i'm  on the topic,  not all of New York,  California and Washington are insane.   Just the majority. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Of course the electoral vote is what wins the Presidency.  My point is that the 2016 election was extremely close.  For example, Trump won PA by 0.7%, MI by 0.2%, WI by 0.8%, and FL by 1.1%. 

My recollection is that all elections hover around the 50% mark,  and it is few states that give overwhelmingly lopsided margins to the victor.   


Bush W.  lost Pennsylvania in 2000 by 4.2%.    Bush W.  lost Michigan by 5.2%.   Bush W.  lost Wisconsin by .22%.    Bush W.  won Florida by .009%.     

Although we don't have the OP poll data by state, I fail to see how he wins these states if only 82% of his voters will vote for him. 

A poll taken a year after the election and a year after a constant media barrage designed to damage him in the eyes of voters for the next election,  can hardly be seen as a reliable measure of what will happen in 2020.   That 18% of his voters will come back if he does well in the intervening 3 years left,   and that's if this is a real poll anyway.   The media lie.  They lie constantly.   They create "push polls"  designed to elicit the response they want,  and then they trumpet the results they sought in the first place. 

[roamer_1]

More importantly, the choice of neither is a mirage...

No, the mirage is that you have a choice at all if all you have to vote for is evil and the lesser evil (evil).

Like I said. Go head. Knock yourself out. Just don't cry and give me excuses when you get exactly what you voted *for*.

[aligncare]

Of course the electoral vote is what wins the Presidency.  My point is that the 2016 election was extremely close.  For example, Trump won PA by 0.7%, MI by 0.2%, WI by 0.8%, and FL by 1.1%.  Although we don't have the OP poll data by state, I fail to see how he wins these states if only 82% of his voters will vote for him.  He's obviously energized "The Resistance".  I expect the Dems will be VERY motivated in 2020 (just as they apparently were earlier this week).  Trump is doing little to expand support outside of his base.  Sure, it's still early, but none of this bodes well for re-election IMO.  If Trump doesn't change his approach (and I don't expect he will), I don't anticipate 2020 will be nearly as close as 2016.  I think it'll likely be a clear Democratic victory.  All the current math points to that IMO.

I’m surprised Trump came that close considering the unprecedented attacks, lies and smears on his character that Trump had endured from both left and right establishment pundits and politicians, political news media – foreign and domestic , entertainment media, and even sports media.

If Trump had been treated fairly, his margin of victory would have been huge.

[Applewood]

I would do it again.   A choice between a boor and pure evil is not a difficult decision.

Except his boorishness is not allowing things to get done.  He's wasting time and effort on petty squabbles and not keeping the promises he made to those who voted for him.  He can try to blame congress for his failures, but they are his failures too. 

He won't make any effort to deal effectively with congress and that leads me to believe that he, like the Republicans in congress, really has no intention of keeping his promises to the voters. And in my eyes, that makes Trump another lying con man. 

So the choice is between a lying con man and pure evil.  Can't say one is better than the other. 

[roamer_1]

unprecedented attacks, lies and smears on his character that Trump had endured [...]

What character?

If Trump had been treated fairly, his margin of victory would have been huge.

Treated FAIRLY? His entire campaign was built upon incorrigible slander. The basest of lies. And you want FAIR?

[Concerned]

A poll taken a year after the election and a year after a constant media barrage designed to damage him in the eyes of voters for the next election,  can hardly be seen as a reliable measure of what will happen in 2020.   That 18% of his voters will come back if he does well in the intervening 3 years left,   and that's if this is a real poll anyway.   The media lie.  They lie constantly.   They create "push polls"  designed to elicit the response they want,  and then they trumpet the results they sought in the first place.

If a year of "constant media barrage designed to damage him in the eyes of voters for the next election" impacted these poll results, I wonder what 3 and a half years of constant media barrage" will do?    Perhaps your unsupported assertion that those "18% of his voters will come back if he does well" is indeed true, but I know several Trump voters who are completely fed up with his childish antics, and have indicated they'll never vote for him again.

Are Democrats likely to be more energized in 2020 than 2016 or less?  I think they'll be more energized, likely much more.  Trump isn't doing much if anything to expand beyond his base.   This can certainly change, but the President doesn't seem overly interested in changing his approach IMO.  I'm sure many Trump supporters hope he'll win in 2020.  If they have evidence or data to support this "hope", I look forward to seeing it because the data and evidence I've seen isn't encouraging especially given the 2016 results, his current approval ratings, the softness in 18% of his voters, and his desire to appeal largely to his core base. 

[Oceander]

As the saying goes: stupid is as stupid does. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Except his boorishness is not allowing things to get done.

Don't fool yourself.   His boorishness has nothing to do with our Congress stabbing us in the back.   They just use that as an excuse to not do what they don't want to do anyway. 

He's wasting time and effort on petty squabbles and not keeping the promises he made to those who voted for him.

And which promises are those?     

He can try to blame congress for his failures, but they are his failures too. 

No,  they really are the failures of congress.   Obamacare repeal?  Something they voted in favor of something like 50 times back when they knew Obama would veto it? 


They were just lying.   Now they've been forced to reveal how they really feel,  and now we get to see that the people who we thought were on our side,  were really not on our side. 

He won't make any effort to deal effectively with congress and that leads me to believe that he, like the Republicans in congress, really has no intention of keeping his promises to the voters. And in my eyes, that makes Trump another lying con man. 

Because if Trump would just play kissy face with them and flatter them,   they would do their f***ing jobs?   Why would you believe being nice to them would get a different result?   

[DiogenesLamp]

If a year of "constant media barrage designed to damage him in the eyes of voters for the next election" impacted these poll results, I wonder what 3 and a half years of constant media barrage" will do?   

Possibly no more than the last one did.  It depends on the circumstances in which we find ourselves three years hence. 

Perhaps your unsupported assertion that those "18% of his voters will come back if he does well" is indeed true, but I know several Trump voters who are completely fed up with his childish antics, and have indicated they'll never vote for him again.

I do not doubt that there are such silly people in the world.    The world is full of silliness now.    I think the nation will come utterly apart if we get another Democrat president,   but of course that is the lesser of two evils when compared to the horror that is Trump's  "antics."   

Are Democrats likely to be more energized in 2020 than 2016 or less?  I think they'll be more energized, likely much more. 

Well if the f***ing attorney general would start putting a bunch of their leadership in prison where they deserve to be,   I think the Democrat base might be a little demoralized in three years.   Sessions has turned out to be one of Trump's worst decisions. 

Trump isn't doing much if anything to expand beyond his base.   This can certainly change, but the President doesn't seem overly interested in changing his approach IMO.  I'm sure many Trump supporters hope he'll win in 2020.  If they have evidence or data to support this "hope", I look forward to seeing it because the data and evidence I've seen isn't encouraging especially given the 2016 results, his current approval ratings, the softness in 18% of his voters, and his desire to appeal largely to his core base.

Well look at where you are going to find this "evidence".    So long as you solicit the opinions of his enemies,  they will always tell you that he shall come to ruin,  and they will also do everything they can to make it into a self fulfilling prophecy.