Mediaboss Marketing

Already in the basement, President Donald Trumps approval rating dug a little deeper into the cellar this week. But, in a small bit of good news,its still not as bad as the worst-ever rating for former President George W. Bush, the last Republican president.

Trumps approval rating among votersstood at just 34 percent, according to a new survey this week fromQuinnipiac University. That marked the lowest point yet for the president in the universitys survey.Fifty-seven percent disapproved of his job performance in the White House.

The poll was full of bad news for Trump. Forty percent of voters said they thought Trumps advisers did something illegal in their dealings with Russiawhich the intelligence community assessed had worked to get the GOP candidate elected through online hacks and a so-calledinfluence campaign. Sixty-eight percent of voters were either very concerned or somewhat concerned about Trumps relationship with Russia. Sixty-eight percent of voters said they thought Trump isnt levelheaded, including 32 percent of Republicans.

Subscribe to Newsweek from $1 per week

There is zero good news for President Donald Trump in this survey, just a continual slide into a chasm of doubt about his policies and his very fitness to serve, said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, in a statement.If this were a prizefight, some in his corner might be thinking about throwing in the towel. This is counterpuncher Donald Trumps pivotal moment to get up off the mat.

Trumps 34 percent is far from stellar, but it could get worse, as its still a few percentage points betterthan Bushs lowest mark. In May 2008,Quinnipiac found Bush had an approval rating of just 28 percent, while 67 percent disapproved. Of course, that came toward the end of Bushs eight years in office, and amidtwo unpopular wars anda struggling economy. Former President Barack Obama, meanwhile, never dipped as low as Trump, the 44th president going only as low as 38 percent in 2013.

Its worth noting that early in their respective tenures, presidents typically experience a grace period of sorts when it comes to approval from the American people. At about this point in his first term, for instance, Bushs approval rating stood at 55 percent in the Gallup tracking poll.

Trumps approval this week did rise abovewhere former President Bill Clintons rating stood at the same point in his first term, but that seems like it could shift in the coming days. Clintons approval rating shot back up to the mid-40s by the end of June, but there have been no real signs of aturnaround for Trump.

The latestQuinnipiac survey interviewed 1,361 voters from May 31 through June 6. It had a margin of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.

Here is the original post:
Donald Trump's Approval Rating Is Better Than Bush's Worst (but They're Getting Closer) - Newsweek

On Wednesday Voxs Ezra Klein publisheda long pieceabout the current crisis in our government. He wrote that our president lacks legitimacy, our government is paralyzed, our problems are going unsolved. I would say that legitimacy, the first of those issues,is the source of all the others.

Donald Trumps legitimacy problem is not just a matter of losing the popular vote. Other presidents have assumed office after such an outcome. In 1824 John Quincy Adams became president after the election was thrown into the House of Representatives. In 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes became president after losing the popular vote to Samuel Tilden by more than 250,000 although corruption was so rife in that election its fair to say no one will ever know for sure who got the most votes. In 1888 Benjamin Harrison won 233 electoral votes to Grover Clevelands 168, but lost the national count by about 90,000 votes. It didnt happen again for 112 years when George W. Bush was installed by the Supreme Court after a virtual tie in Florida and a dubious vote count. And then just16 years later, it happened again.

Throughout that last 16 years questions have been raised about our democracy, including the workings of the anachronistic Electoral College, the fact that every locality and state seems to have a different system andthe way Republicans have systematically disenfranchised voters they believe would be likely to vote for their opponents. There has been underlying doubt about the integrity of Americas electoral system simmering for a long time. This year it has come to a boil.

For at least a year weve been aware of social-media propaganda and foreign actors hacking the systems of various arms of the Democratic Party in order to influence the presidential campaign. The experts tell us that the Russian government has directed a number of similar cyber operations around the worldand that this one was their most sophisticated. Evidently, the idea was to sow chaos and undermine Americans already sorely tested faith in our electoral system.

According toa highly detailed investigative reportby Massimo Calabresi of Time, the evidence suggests that Russias President Vladimir Putin had a particular ax to grind against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for what he termed a signal she sent in 2011, which he claimed sparked protests against him. The extent to which Putin truly favored Donald Trump is still unknown, and the question of whether there was any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government is now the focus of various investigations of Congress and a Justice Department special counsel. The odd behavior of Trumps close associates as well as his obsession with shutting down the investigation certainly raise suspicions. But at this point it is pure speculation to think about what kind of deal might have been made.

This weeks story byThe Intercept,reporting on an National Security Agency document that showed evidence the Russian military had made serious attempts to infiltrate voter information rolls around the country, suggests, however, yet another way the goals of Donald Trump and the Russian government were the same. Former FBI counterterrorism officer and cybersecurity expert Clinton Watts (best known for his quip follow the bodies of dead Russians in testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee) raised some additional questions ina piece for the Daily Beast this week.He believes that the main objective of this operation was not to alter the vote count but rather to instill more doubt about the process.

Wattswrote, I noticed a shift in Kremlin messaging last October, when its overt news outlets, conspiratorial partner websites, and covert social-media personas pushed theories of widespread voter fraud and hacking. He cited aReuters articleindicating that a Kremlin-backed think tank report drafted in October and distributed in the same way, warned that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was likely to win the election. So it would bebetter for Russia to end its pro-Trump propaganda and instead intensify its messaging about voter fraud to undermine the U.S. electoral systems legitimacy and damage Clintons reputation in an effort to undermine her presidency.

Its interesting to note that at the same moment the operation shifted in that direction, Trump himself was relentlessly flogging exactly the same accusation, saying in every rally from October on that Clinton and her campaign had rigged the system in her favor. Over and over againhe would suggestthat the outcome was predetermined:

When the outcome is fixed, when the system is rigged, people lose hope they stop dreaming, they stop trying

He routinely told his followers stories likethis:

One of the reasons Ive been saying that the system is so corrupt and is so rigged, is not only what happens at the voters booth and you know things happen, folks.

He passed alongtweets like this:

Trumpeven made bizarre accusations that John Podesta rigged the polls by oversampling and notoriouslyrefused to saywhetherhe would abide by the results if Clinton won. It was obvious that Donald Trump was planning to challenge her legitimacy.

In fact, Trump did more to create mistrust and doubt in the U.S. electoral system than the Russian governments highly developed hacking and misinformation campaign. Whether they were working together is still unknown but they were definitely rowing in the same direction. As much as the president likes to whine and complain about the Democrats being sore losers, the irony is that Trump himself played the greatest role in undermining the legitimacy of his win.

View original post here:
Vladimir Putin, Hillary Clinton and the true cause of Donald Trump's legitimacy crisis his own actions - Salon

What distinguishes All in the Family, which had 60 million viewers during the 1970s, from political satire today?

Donald Trump (AP Photo / Matt Rourke)

Norman Lear, who created All in the Family, reflects on why it succeeded in the Age of Nixonand on what is different about political satire in the Age of Trump.

Plus: The Nations Zo Carpenter reports on Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, who has taken the lead in fighting for an alternative to the GOPs repeal and replacement of Obamacare.

And: Amy Goldstein of The Washington Post discusses what happened when Paul Ryans hometown lost its GM plant. Her new book is Janesville.

Zo Carpenter: Jeff Merkley Is the Antithesis of Donald Trump

Amy Goldstein: What Happened When Paul Ryans Hometown Lost its GM Plant?

Subscribe on iTunes, Stitcher, and SoundCloud for new episodes each Thursday. Start Making Sense is hosted by Jon Wiener and co-produced by the Los Angeles Review of Books.

Read the original post:
Norman Lear: Donald Trump Is the Middle Finger of the American Right Hand - The Nation.

But the current era of political obscenity also must be put in historical context. Privately, presidentsranging from Abraham Lincoln to Richard Nixonwere prone to use off-color language. But in public, their political rhetoric was loftier, aiming to be more sacred than profane. When America was on the cusp of the Civil War, Lincoln in his inaugural address evoked the better angels of our nature and the mystic chords of memory. Behind closed doors, though, Lincoln could be as coarse as anyone,and had a predilection for potty humor.

The novelist Norman Mailer was a pioneer in breaking down the division between private language and political speech. In 1969, he ran for New York mayor under the slogan No More Bullshit. He lost, but his political career shouldnt be dismissed as a Quixotic gesture. As a writer, Mailer was attuned to the fact that culture was changing. In his first novel,The Naked and the Dead (1948), he had to replace fuck with the euphemism fug. (According to a famous butapocryphalstory, Dorothy Parker asked Mailer if he was the young man who couldnt spell fuck.) By the late 1960s, due to the weakening of censorship laws, Mailer was allowed to swear all he wanted in his novels. Mailer concluded, accurately although prematurely, that foul language would soon have a place in politics.

The release of the Watergate tapes in 1974 did much to discredit Nixon in the eyes of his conservative supporters,especially since the tapes were littered with four-letter words rendered by newspapers as expletive deleted.The Chicago Tribune, which had long championed Nixon and then called for his resignation, lamented, He is devious. He is vacillating. He is profane.Yet the tapes seem to have opened the doors for greater acceptance of swearing in politics. Once it became know the f-bomb was commonplace in the Oval Office, politicians were freed from unrealistic expectations of public decorousness.Jimmy Carter ran as asqueakyclean alternative to the sordid Nixonian, but in 1979 hesaidof his political rival Ted Kennedy, Ill whip his ass.

The increasing obscenity in politics has a political salience. The word vulgarity is rooted in the Latin term for the multitude; to use coarse language is to speak in the tongue of the common people, and to reject the code of civility prescribedif not always followedby the political ruling class. Trump swore on the campaign trail to establish his populist bona fides and connect with the working class, while at the same timedistinguishing himself from typical Republicans like Jeb Bush, thehigh-minded WASP,or Mitt Romney, theprim Mormon. Trumps foul language showed his followers that he was serious about breaking the rules to upend the establishment.

Democrats use of profanity projects a comparable message. Foul words often come from politicians who are already populists or hope to be seen as such (Gillibrand, Sanders, Perez). And swearing has intensified as Democrats have become more recalcitrant in their resistance to the president. Just as Trump cursed as a way of rejecting the Obama-era politics of 2016, Democrats are now cursing as a way of rejecting the Trumpian politics of 2017. To call bullshit is to renounce compromise or a search for comity. It means you are raring for a fight. To yell obscenities at the president is to say that his politics are themselves obscene.

Excerpt from:
Democrats Should Swear More at Donald Trump - New Republic

UPDATED with video: You can feel the excitement in this room right now.Its the most magical night of the year because its Comey Testimony Eve! Late Shows Stephen Colbert told his audience Wednesday night.

Former FBI Director James Comeys testimony of his various meetings with President Donald Trump began Wednesday with his pre-xplosion of Thursday mornings prepared remarks to the Senate Intel Committee.

Tomorrow, bars in the capitol are opening early and offering drink specials like the Covfefe CocktailsPeople are calling Comeys testimony Washingtons Super Bowl. Animal Planet is even airing the Puppy Comey Testimony.

Colbert began to read Comeys seven pages of remarks, full of juicy details, because Comey wrote a memo after each of his interactions with Trump.

Dear Diary: I needed to write down my thoughts immediately, because that guy is so normal, the late-night host joked.

Comey, Colbert told his viewers, said he first met with Trump on January 6, to let him know about some salacious intelligence pee pee tape Colbert translated explaining he agreed to the meeting alone in order to minimize potential embarrassment to the President-Elect.

Remember this was back when we thought it was possible for him to feel embarrassment, Colbert reminded.

At one of their meetings, Colbert noted, Comey says Trump had told him he had nothing to do with Russia, had not been involved with hookers in Russia.

Comey also described a dinner he had with Trump just after his inauguration, in which he was surprised to discover the two of them were dining alone. Thats when Comey says Trump told him I expect loyalty from the director of the FBI.

Read more here:
Stephen Colbert Shares James Comey's Testimony About Donald Trump Meetings - Deadline