Trumpettes online few and far between

By October 13, 2017US Politics

It used to be that when you’d go online there’d be lots of triumphalism from Trump supporters (trumpettes) about how Hillary Clinton was a criminal and that Trump was going to put her in jail, and how the Mexicans were going to pay for the wall along the US southern border, how healthcare was going to be fixed and sundry other outlandish drivel. However, when you go online now, Trump supporters are very much thinner on the ground. Even some of the ardent supporters I have reported on in previous essays have crawled away1,2.

The funniest thing is that most of the people whom I know and socialise with, worked out that Trump was a narcissist very early on in the campaign. You’d think that the lies told about his inauguration crowd would have disabused his fans of any possibility that he was a person of integrity. If Trump had simply said that ‘Oh, well, what does it matter’, that would have shown him to be in touch with reality. My acquaintances also had reasonable enough memories so that they could actually remember speeches when he said precisely the opposite of what he had just said. Why his fans didn’t realise this is difficult to understand. Either their memories are severely lacking, or they simply could not make the connection between what was said and what it actually meant.

Sacked Trump adviser, Steve Bannon has stated that he thinks Trump has only a 30% chance of completing his full 4-year term3. I think that is optimistic. Trump’s approval rating has fallen in every state since he was elected and it currently stands at about 38% overall, while his disapproval rating is at about 56%. This is worse than any other president since the Second World War4.

If Trump is still hanging around by the time of the mid-term elections in November, 2018, where all 435 seats in the House of Representatives, and 33 of the 100 Senate seats will be contested5, the Republicans will be annihilated. They will be very keen to get rid of him before then.





  • Arthur Baker says:

    What you may not have taken into account is one of the three big differences between the USA and Australia: compulsory voting here versus optional voting there.*

    Because only a little more than 50 percent of those entitled to vote can be bothered to get off their fat idle arses and vote (many don’t even bother to register), the people who elected Trump number not much more than 25% of the adult population. And the Electoral College is (deliberately) rigged to favour voters in smaller states so that the populous states don’t dominate, so that also assisted in his election. Such a result could never occur in Australia.

    He doesn’t need the 50% approval rate required in Australia. Just a tad over 25% will do him just nicely thanks. The 30% who approve of him now would be mostly the same 25% rusted-on supporters who elected the dope, plus a few hangers-on. And they won’t be about to change their minds any time soon, because that would involve admitting to the rest of the country that they made a big bad error. They may experience some measure of post-purchase cognitive dissonance (possibly, some of the more intelligent ones), but I can’t see it changing their vote.

    The only thing which might turn the 2018 midterms into a Republican disaster would be the kind of phenomenon which occurred in this year’s UK election, in which lots of young people who hadn’t been bothered to vote in the Brexit referendum realised the error of their ways, registered, and voted for Corbyn and Labour in some considerable numbers. We need to hope their US equivalent come to a similar conclusion – that if you’re too darn lazy to vote, you’ll get a dingbat in the White House and Republican majorities in Congress and Senate.

    As for the 25% who elected Trump, I wouldn’t be expecting them to change their opinion of him any time soon. They are as impervious to facts as the people in Australia who refuse to believe the arrival of an asylum seeker without a visa is not illegal. You can spout facts at them until the top of your head blows off and your brains gush out, it makes no difference because for them, Trump’s rank indifference to factual accuracy is exactly what they like about him. The more outrageous his tweeted and unscripted sputterings, the more they say Donny, you’re our boy.

    Last I heard, as recently as last week (I’ll try to find some references), The Donald is well on track for a second 4-year term after the election of November 2020.

    * The other two big differences are health care and guns, but they’re not so critical to this issue.

    • admin says:


      Yeah, I used to think like that; optional voting gave the US George W Bush, and he was as thick as a fencepost, and I thought to myself ‘whew lucky we have compulsory voting’. However, some years later we elected Tony Abbott; and my thesis went down in flames. I don’t think Trump will last one term, let alone get a second.

      • Arthur Baker says:

        Yeah, but Abbott only got in because the ALP was a terminally in-fighting self-disabling rabble for several years leading up to 2013. As I think I may have commented previously on this blog, the Liberals could have elected the proverbial drover’s dog as their leader and still got in. Or an actual fencepost, as opposed to the human fencepost who is still my MP (nominally, when he’s not gallivanting round London addressing troupes of right wing nutjobs). Here’s five dollars says Trump will at least make it through to the end of his first term.

        • admin says:


          I agree that it was the infighting in the Labor party which got Abbott elected. Without that he may not have had a chance, but we will never know. However, the Labor Party suffered the same affliction as the current Liberal Party. Like Abbott, Rudd was also a narcissist and could never accept that he had been dethroned. Narcissism is a major problem in politics, because people with that disorder seem to be drawn to it. I’ll match your five, that Trump will not make it to the end of his nominal first term.

          • Arthur Baker says:

            OK, five bucks it is. Either way, it will be interesting to watch.

            Meanwhile, here’s a New Yorker magazine article outlining what we will get in Trump’s place if you’re right: It’s a long long read, about 13,000 words, and I haven’t had time to read more than about a third of it so far, but I will.

            In your favour, it depends on how twitchy and worried the GOP gets as we approach those midterms, and that in turn depends on how whacko Trump gets. And the degree of whacko seems, on the face of it, not to have any upper limit. Who knows, right now, just how deranged he can get? We may not have seen the half of it yet.

            In my favour, remember it took 22 months to get rid of Richard Nixon from the date of Watergate to his eventual resignation, and it was only that short because he caved in before anyone could start the long-winded process of impeachment. Trump won’t cave in. He’s just not that kind of guy. He would fight it with everything he’s got, to the bitter end, and would eventually have to be frogmarched kicking and screaming out of the White House, because he was brought up to believe you were a winner or a loser, no shades of grey anywhere. This could take a long, long, long time. But I can wait for my fiver 🙂

          • admin says:

            There have been a few minor elections to replace people Trump has appointed to various posts and for other reasons and there seem to have been a backlash against the Republicans. If things continue this way until the midterms they will suffer badly and could lose control of the house. They won’t want to risk that, so I suspect they will get rid of Trump before then using the 25th amendment. If they cannot, then if they lose control of the house to the Democrats, then Trump will probably be impeached.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.