By Matt Underwood It seems there’s a prevailing sentiment, as articulated by Representative Schiff, that the public’s perception of Donald Trump has significantly shifted, and a broad segment of the populace has indeed turned against him. This perspective suggests that the electoral outcomes since his initial election have consistently shown a swing away from his influence. The idea is that Trump’s ego, reportedly unable to withstand another defeat, makes him a unpredictable figure, and thus, preparation for potential negative actions is crucial. However, the effectiveness of Congress in this preparation is questioned, particularly concerning Republican senators who are perceived as largely unwilling to stand against him.
This notion that the public has turned against Trump is echoed by many, though some argue that this sentiment has always been present. There’s a feeling that the educated public, in particular, has consistently held negative views of Trump, and recent events and revelations have only solidified this stance. The continuous discussion around his alleged involvement in the Epstein affair, along with past accusations and his public behavior, is seen by some as having had a tangible impact on his support base, eroding it further.
The point is made that Trump’s own actions, like his rhetoric about potentially interfering with elections, are deeply alarming and align with expectations of his behavior, and crucially, with the willingness of a significant portion of the Republican party to go along with such actions. The suggestion is that figures like Stephen Miller are instrumental in creating the chaos associated with the “regime,” and their removal is seen as a direct path to reducing the pressure applied to the public.
Despite this, the argument continues that the cracks in Trump’s support are becoming more visible, even if some loyalists remain somewhat disconnected from reality. It’s suggested that even “moderate” Republicans, who may not be as moderate as they appear, are increasingly uncomfortable with the situation. This indicates a subtle but growing unease within his own party, driven by a multitude of factors that are finally starting to outweigh fervent loyalty for some.
Interestingly, some believe that the public has *always* been against Trump, with the current shift being more about the MAGA fanbase experiencing “voter’s regret.” There’s a sentiment that apologies are not being accepted, and the underlying issues that propelled him into office, perhaps influenced by external factors like Russian interference, are still at play. This suggests a long-standing disapproval that has only intensified.
A strong critique emerges regarding the Democratic leadership’s strategy, which some perceive as being too passive, opting to wait for Trump to become even more unpopular. This approach is seen as frustrating, especially considering the “irreparable harm” allegedly inflicted upon America during his tenure. The isolation of America on the global stage, the erosion of alliances, the implementation of concerning domestic policies like “masked men asking for papers,” the exacerbation of wars, and the redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich are all cited as consequences of his leadership.
The effectiveness of repetitive talking points, like those concerning Hillary Clinton’s emails or Hunter Biden’s laptop, is acknowledged as a strategy that could have been employed more forcefully by Democrats. The argument is that every public engagement should have begun with reminders of stolen Supreme Court seats and the ongoing controversies surrounding Trump, including his alleged sexual assault liability, cover-ups related to the Epstein files, and past comments about children. The call is for a more aggressive and persistent communication strategy to counter what is perceived as a threat to democracy.
Conversely, there are voices that find the notion of the public turning against Trump to be a delayed realization. The argument is made that the “educated public” has always been against him, and that recent events, including revelations about his past, his perceived senility, and his bigotry, have had an impact. However, a significant counterpoint is that even with this realization, the long-term impact of his time in power makes recovery difficult, and the question remains whether politicians will act decisively.
The idea that it was “extremely odd for any public to support him in the first place” is a recurring theme. Yet, a significant portion of the public, estimated between 40% and 45%, still supports him, and there’s doubt about whether this “spell” can be broken. Some commenters assert that the majority of people have always opposed him, referring to him colloquially and expressing frustration with the slow pace of change.
Furthermore, the narrative that Trump “turned against the public” is presented, with the loss of the popular vote being highlighted. The suggestion is that these votes were subsequently nullified through various forms of Republican “cheating,” including voter suppression tactics. This paints a picture of a leader who was never truly supported by the majority and whose presidency was a consequence of systemic issues rather than genuine widespread public endorsement.
The notion that Trump was a “lame duck on day 1” is reinforced, suggesting that public opinion has consistently been against him, and the question of public support is almost irrelevant when dealing with an “authoritarian.” The call for Congress to act while they still have the opportunity is a direct appeal for decisive political intervention, implying that Schiff’s current observations are merely the beginning of a critical moment.
However, the sentiment that this shift is “too little, too late” is also prominent. The observation is made that the public has historically disliked Trump, and the current political landscape requires more than just pronouncements. There’s a yearning for substantive action from Democrats rather than continued commentary. The question arises: has enough of the Republican party and corporate Democrats truly turned against Trump to effect meaningful change?
The frustration is palpable, with some expressing that they are “fed up” with Schiff and that the focus should be on Democrats taking concrete actions rather than engaging in commentary. The idea that Trump’s perceived greatness is beyond comprehension and therefore makes people uncomfortable is a fringe perspective, but it exists. More commonly, however, the view is that “both sides are shit” and that the current state of affairs is a collective failure, with blame cast upon those who allowed the situation to develop and those who are perceived as ineffective.
Ultimately, the core message from many is that the public, or at least a significant and consistent majority, has never been truly *with* Trump. The challenge now, from this perspective, is whether the political establishment will finally heed this sentiment and translate it into meaningful action, or if the window of opportunity will close, leaving the country to grapple with the lasting consequences of his influence.