By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The article observes a prolonged slump in President Trump’s approval numbers, currently hovering around 38% approval and 58% disapproval, a level not seen in his second term. This significant downturn challenges the political consensus on the stability of approval ratings, as his typically reliable base of support appears to be eroding. A decline in approval among white voters without college degrees, a shift back to the left by young and nonwhite voters, and a decrease in independent support all suggest that the coalition that propelled Trump into office is fracturing, making a recovery more challenging.
Read the original article here
The remarkable aspect of Donald Trump’s poll numbers, particularly when they appear to be “cratering,” is not the decline itself, but rather how long it took for them to reach such a point. For a considerable period, his support has remained surprisingly high, defying what many observers would consider a constant barrage of perceived incompetence and outright contempt for even his most ardent followers. This sustained resilience in his numbers, despite numerous controversies, is what truly stands out.
A significant portion of this phenomenon can be attributed to the nature of the coalition that has supported Trump. It appears to be a combination of those clinging to survival, perhaps feeling left behind by societal changes, and a fervent cult of personality. This group isn’t necessarily united by a cohesive ideology; their common ground seems to be a shared understanding that their particular brand of political discourse is becoming obsolete in the modern era, coupled with a certain immaturity and a penchant for the dramatic.
Moreover, there’s a palpable sense that Trump’s cognitive faculties have been in a continued state of decline. His supporters have, for a long time, been willing to engage in a significant capacity for denial, overlooking his evident struggles. This reliance on their willingness to overlook what is plainly visible has been a cornerstone of his political longevity, allowing him to navigate situations that might have ended the careers of others.
However, there’s an argument to be made that this capacity for denial is now being severely tested. The assertion is that Trump’s mental faculties are now so compromised that he appears utterly incoherent, even by his own previous standards. This deterioration, coupled with an inability to deliver on core policy promises—in fact, often doing the opposite, such as contributing to rising prices and engaging in foreign conflicts—is stretching the elastic limits of his supporters’ delusion to its breaking point.
Adding to this strain is Trump’s apparent lack of interest in building or nurturing his political coalition beyond his immediate inner circle. He has consistently eschewed the development of a stable cadre of lieutenants, instead opting for a rotating cast of figures often described as unpleasant sycophants. These individuals, by many accounts, are not only disliked by the wider public but seem to be a liability even to his core supporters, perceived as unsavory and unlikable.
The underlying reason for this preference for less-than-likable individuals appears to stem from Trump’s own insecurities. Anyone who displays even a modicum of likability might be perceived as a threat to his absolute dominance, a dynamic he seems incapable of tolerating. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle where the people closest to him are, by his own design, not those who can inspire broad appeal or offer genuine alternative leadership.
Consequently, the situation is increasingly being viewed as a personality cult atop a crumbling foundation. The edifice, which has been precariously balanced and propped up by devoted followers, is now showing signs of imminent collapse. Those who have been supporting it are beginning to look around, realizing there is no clear successor, no safety net, and no underlying policy substance to rely on. The current leadership appears to be a figurehead whose capacity is severely diminished, leaving a void in terms of direction and sustainability.
Ultimately, the projection is that Trump will deliver what he always has: promises that remain unfulfilled, built upon a base of those who are easily swayed, leading inevitably to a state of decline and potential bankruptcy. The “cratering” poll numbers, in this context, might be less about a decisive shift in support and more about a gradual acknowledgment that the Emperor has no clothes, even if a significant portion of his base remains stubbornly devoted, willing to follow him “into the lowest depths of hell” and blame external forces for any perceived misfortunes.
The idea that Trump’s poll numbers are “cratering” is, for many, a point of contention in itself. The reality is often that his support, while perhaps fluctuating, remains remarkably stable within a certain demographic. The enduring strength of his base, often described as a “cult,” means that even significant drops in broader public opinion may not translate into a fundamental loss of his core following. This unwavering loyalty, even in the face of overwhelming criticism, is what makes the narrative of “cratering” seem less impactful to those who observe his consistent, albeit diminished, support.
The notion that his popularity has somehow “cratered” is often met with skepticism, as his numbers frequently appear to plateau rather than plummet. The perceived stability of a third of the American electorate’s approval, even in challenging circumstances, suggests that the term “cratering” might be an overstatement or a mischaracterization of a more complex, resilient support system. The underlying sentiment is that his base is so deeply entrenched that significant shifts are unlikely, regardless of external events or media narratives.
Furthermore, there’s a critique of the media’s framing of these numbers, with accusations of deceptive clickbait. The argument is that the narrative of “cratering” is often employed without a significant corresponding drop in his actual support. When polls consistently show a similar percentage of approval, the repeated assertion of a dramatic decline is seen as misleading. The call is for a more accurate representation of his standing, rather than sensationalized headlines that do not reflect the enduring reality of his voter base.
The sheer persistence of a significant portion of the population supporting Trump, even as his poll numbers allegedly decline, is what many find truly remarkable. It raises questions about the depth of this support, the factors that sustain it, and the implications for the broader political landscape. The continued approval of a substantial minority, often labeled as a “cult,” suggests a level of ideological entrenchment that transcends typical political fluctuations.
When considering Trump’s impact, it’s crucial to acknowledge that for many, he represents a specific appeal that transcends traditional political labels. The idea that his supporters might be characterized as “pedophile fascists who hate America” highlights a perception of his base as being deeply disconnected from mainstream values, underscoring the unusual nature of his continued appeal. This stark division underscores why his numbers, even if declining, remain a subject of intense discussion and bewilderment.
The effectiveness of Trump’s political strategies, even when his approval ratings are low, is a complex issue. The assertion that his command of money and influence might be more significant than his approval rating suggests a different mechanism of power at play. This perspective challenges the conventional understanding of political success, proposing that financial clout and strategic maneuvering can outweigh public opinion, especially when operating within a system that can be influenced by wealth.
The disconnect between Trump’s rhetoric and the economic realities faced by many Americans is also highlighted as a reason for his declining numbers. When he fails to acknowledge or address the negative economic impacts of his policies, particularly on issues like inflation, it erodes the trust of voters who are experiencing financial strain. The inability or unwillingness to admit that his policies might be making life harder for ordinary citizens is seen as a critical misstep that alienates even some of his former supporters.
The frustration directed at “MAGA Republicans” for their continued support of Trump, even amidst what is perceived as chaos and a disregard for their well-being, points to a deeper disillusionment. The idea that constant hostility, pandering to questionable ideas, and a daily dose of chaos would eventually wear down even the most devoted followers is a logical progression. The absence of “adults” in the party, replaced by a subservient adherence to Trump’s will, further contributes to this sense of political dysfunction.
The fact that Trump’s poll numbers did not “crater” sooner, even as far back as 2017, is seen as a missed opportunity for accountability. His popularity, often perceived as having been artificially inflated or “forced upon” the electorate, suggests a narrative of prolonged political maneuvering rather than genuine widespread appeal. This retrospective view implies that the current decline, while noted, is perhaps long overdue and does not negate the initial period of inflated support.
The consistent presence of Trump’s support above a certain threshold, often cited as around 35%, leads some to dismiss the notion of “cratering” as mere media exaggeration. The argument is that as long as this core support remains, the term “cratering” is inaccurate and misleading. This perspective emphasizes the resilience of his base and suggests that the media narrative often fails to capture the underlying stability of his political standing within his loyal demographic.
The remarkable aspect of Trump’s situation is not necessarily the decline in his poll numbers, but rather the enduring strength of his support among a significant portion of the electorate. The assertion that “80% support among Republican voters is hardly ‘cratering'” highlights the deep entrenchment of his influence within his party. This suggests that his base is exceptionally loyal and resistant to external pressures, making the term “cratering” an inadequate descriptor of his ongoing political strength within certain circles.
The characterization of his base as “pedophile fascists who hate America” reflects a deep-seated animosity and confusion about the motivations behind his supporters. The sheer number of people who continue to align with him, despite these perceived negative attributes, is a source of astonishment for many observers. This perplexity stems from the difficulty in reconciling such strong support with what are seen as fundamentally destructive or un-American ideologies.
The narrative that Trump is out of touch with the economic concerns of most Americans is a significant factor in understanding his poll numbers. When a large percentage of Republicans themselves believe the economy is worsening, and yet Trump refuses to acknowledge this reality, it creates a disconnect. This refusal to admit that his policies might have negative consequences for Americans experiencing financial hardship is seen as a major reason why voters might finally be seeing the “light,” especially at the gas pump.
The argument that Trump doesn’t genuinely care about the impact of his policies, and that his political opponents also share this indifference, suggests a cynical view of the political class. This perspective implies that regardless of electoral outcomes, those in power are not genuinely committed to improving the lives of ordinary citizens. This lack of genuine concern, coupled with their perceived unwillingness to leave their positions of power, paints a bleak picture of political motivation.
The perception that Trump’s poll numbers are not truly “cratering” but rather have plateaued at a consistently low level suggests a stable, albeit diminished, support base. The argument that his net approval has remained around -19% since February or earlier implies a floor beneath which his support does not typically fall. This stability, rather than a dramatic decline, is what some find noteworthy, indicating a consistent level of disapproval that has persisted.
The idea that polls are inherently unreliable and that the focus should be on tangible actions like voting underscores a distrust in predictive data. The statement “the 2024 election taught me is that there are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and poll numbers” encapsulates this skepticism. This viewpoint suggests that while polls may offer a snapshot, they do not necessarily reflect the ultimate outcome or the true sentiment of the electorate, especially when manipulated or misinterpreted.
The persistence of “Fox News views” and similar media outlets that maintain an unwavering positive portrayal of Trump, framing him as a savior, is seen as a significant factor in sustaining his base. This creates a counter-narrative to broader public criticism, allowing his supporters to remain insulated from dissenting opinions. Unless polls specifically ask about voting for a MAGA candidate, the argument is that other poll data becomes less meaningful, given the polarized media environment.
The observation that Trump’s sycophants are fleeing, anticipating negative consequences after the midterms, suggests a pragmatic calculation within his political circle. This “getting out fast” mentality implies a recognition of potential future repercussions, leading some to distance themselves from the sinking ship. This perceived self-preservation among his allies further reinforces the notion of instability within his broader political apparatus.
The notion that Trump is no longer serving the people but rather using them as “useful idiots” to achieve his own ends is a cynical interpretation of his presidency. This perspective suggests that once he attained power, his need for popular support diminished, and his focus shifted away from the electorate. The implication is that his current actions and approval ratings are less relevant because his agenda is no longer driven by the will of the people he once courted.
The assertion that polls are irrelevant because Trump controls various branches of government, the executive branch, and even a “secret police force,” highlights a deep-seated concern about authoritarianism. This viewpoint suggests that his power extends beyond public opinion, encompassing a more comprehensive system of control that renders electoral polls insignificant. The claim of purging the military to install loyalists further amplifies this fear of a consolidated, undemocratic regime.
The observation that “low poll numbers don’t seem to matter a whole lot” when coupled with the need for systemic change suggests a frustration with incremental political processes. The idea that protests are less effective than disrupting the system until the “regime is ousted” reflects a desire for more radical action. This perspective implies that the current political structure is too entrenched to be influenced by conventional means, necessitating more drastic measures for meaningful change.
The debate over whether Trump’s numbers are truly “cratering” or have simply plateaued at a consistently low point is a nuanced one. The argument that a number that has been “rolling along the floor unchanging for months” ceases to be a “crater” implies a distinction between a sharp decline and a persistent low. This perspective suggests that the terminology used to describe his poll performance might be misrepresentative of the actual trends.
The idea that people are “pulling a Bush” by regretting their vote and being unwilling to admit it in the future suggests a potential for future shifts in public perception. If past behavior is any indication, there might be a period after a presidency where supporters become less vocal about their past allegiance. This phenomenon, if applicable to Trump, could explain why his current poll numbers might not fully reflect a future sentiment of regret or disillusionment.
The assertion that Trump does not lean left or right but rather “lists to Trump profit” suggests a self-serving political ideology driven by personal gain rather than any consistent political philosophy. This perspective implies that his actions and affiliations are dictated by what benefits him financially and politically, irrespective of traditional ideological alignments. This transactional approach to politics makes his appeal less about policy and more about personal benefit for his supporters.
The remark that “people who lean right figured out Trump is not conservative nor does he lean right, he lists to Trump profit” echoes the sentiment that his political identity is fluid and centered on personal advantage. This realization by some on the right, that Trump’s primary allegiance is to himself, rather than to conservative principles, is seen as a significant factor in the potential erosion of his support, even within his traditional demographic.
The core of the remarkable nature of Trump’s poll numbers, when they appear to be “cratering,” lies not in the decline itself, but in the preceding period of surprising resilience. The sustained high numbers, despite numerous controversies, and the prolonged capacity for denial among his supporters, represent a truly extraordinary aspect of his political career. It’s a testament to the unique dynamics of his appeal and the deep-seated loyalty he commands, even as the cracks in that foundation begin to show more prominently.