Jump to content
270soft Forum

What all would you consider a public rebuke for a president?


What all would you consider a public rebuke for a president?  

12 members have voted

  1. 1. What all would you consider a public rebuke for a president? (Check all that apply)

    • Losing the electoral college in a reelection bid.
    • Never winning the popular vote.
    • Starting with control of the US Senate and the US House and losing control of both of them by the end of the presidency.
    • Never reaching 50% approval in an average national poll.
    • I would not consider any of these a public rebuke of a president.


Recommended Posts

New poll in light of the fact that Fmr Pres. Trump is the only president in US history to have accomplished all of these. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Berg2036 Would you respond the same if all of this had applied to Obama or Hillary Clinton? 

I consider any of these a rebuke. For instance, Obama has 1 of these 4 public rebukes, which isn't good for ones legacy, although he hasn't all of these as Trump has.

Jimmy Carter somehow managed only 2 of these--would have had 3 if Dems weren't so strong in Congress. 

Trump is the only one to never get 50% average popular approval, although I think some pre-poll presidents could have reached that. Candidates for that are Rutherford B Hayes, Chester A Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, Andrew Johnson, Millard Fillmore, and John Tyler.  I think Arthur and Harrison can best be argued out of this, but it isn't outside the realm of possibility that they'd never have reached it. They like would have been around 50%. Hayes immediately pissed off Republicans by promising to Compromise because of the close election, and Democrats wouldn't have liked him. Hayes did nothing to help his popularity and upset his base. He could have been under 50% the entire time. Fillmore was acceptable by some Democrats but his decisions to break immediately with Taylor might have undermined any sympathy boost Fillmore might have received. However, signing the Compromise might have given him a boost above 50%. I think Andrew Johnson and John Tyler are the likeliest to have never reached 50%. In many ways, Johnson and Tyler are Trump's peers also in temperament. If Johnson and Tyler did not receive a sympathy popularity boost when taking office, then there is basically no chance they reached 50% approval. Neither were trusted by their own party or by the other party. Tyler has the distinct honor of actually being hated by his own party. Johnson was hated by the opposition, but had the unique situation of having been nominated the VP by that opposing party. 

Biden has maintained an approval over 50%, and he wont he popular vote, so he won't be achieve all the public rebukes. The question is whether he will win reelection and if he loses both Houses of Congress. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say the same yes, the reason for my answer is that today we are so divided that I dont see there being a very strong unifying presence, certainly not Trump and definatly not Biden, the era of a JFK or Esienhower is over and as the country gets more divided so will the politics. One party is in power people get sick of that party vote for the oppositition and it keeps swinging back and forth. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Berg2036 said:

One party is in power people get sick of that party vote for the oppositition and it keeps swinging back and forth. 

Hasn't the pretty much generally been the case in the last 100 years, with the exception of Harding-Coolidge-Hoover, and FDR-Truman and Reagan-Bush? Seems we've generally gone back and forth for presidents, at least if we talk about only the electoral vote. If we talk about popular vote, Bush is the only Republican to win that in the 21st century (2004). In this sense, popularly, Democrats look like the dominate party -- won PV in 2000, 2008-2020. 

If we talk about the legislature, you may be more accurate. Democrats dominated from 1932-1994, and it's been back and forth since then. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vcczar said:

Hasn't the pretty much generally been the case in the last 100 years, with the exception of Harding-Coolidge-Hoover, and FDR-Truman and Reagan-Bush? Seems we've generally gone back and forth for presidents, at least if we talk about only the electoral vote. If we talk about popular vote, Bush is the only Republican to win that in the 21st century (2004). In this sense, popularly, Democrats look like the dominate party -- won PV in 2000, 2008-2020. 

If we talk about the legislature, you may be more accurate. Democrats dominated from 1932-1994, and it's been back and forth since then. 

While yes the democrats win the popular vote, that has no basis in our system other than being an interesting data point in terms of winning an election. If our electoral system was based on the popular vote, then yes I would say that the Democrats seem to be more dominate but that is not the case with how the system works. I am talking recently since I've been alive post 2000. I think that democrats are always going to win the popular vote because the biggest states California Texas, and the like will always vote Blue and again even if you win 75% in California you can not transfer that to like Ohio where you lose by 8 for example. I think it is brilliant the system the founders set up because as I see it, the American system is one built around the rights of the Minority versus the rights of the Majority. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Berg2036 said:

California Texas, and the like will always vote Blue

Texas hasn't voted Democrat in ages. I wish it would. I'm from Texas. 

15 hours ago, Berg2036 said:

the American system is one built around the rights of the Minority versus the rights of the Majority. 

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Texas hasn't voted Democrat in ages. I wish it would. I'm from Texas. 

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

Sorry, I have covid right now, but I meant California, and New York. I was meaning northeasrtern states, Republicans have Texas and FL locked for now, not permanently. Our system is built around protecting Minority rights, for example the fillibuster in the senate or for the fact that both houses of congress have built in powers, versus the parlimentary system, where if you are the minority you have no power what so ever you just are there waiting to return to power. The states are the Minority compared to the federal government and their power is enshrined in the constitution.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Berg2036 said:

Sorry, I have covid right now, but I meant California, and New York. I was meaning northeasrtern states, Republicans have Texas and FL locked for now, not permanently. Our system is built around protecting Minority rights, for example the fillibuster in the senate or for the fact that both houses of congress have built in powers, versus the parlimentary system, where if you are the minority you have no power what so ever you just are there waiting to return to power. The states are the Minority compared to the federal government and their power is enshrined in the constitution.

How has covid been treating you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Berg2036 said:

Sorry, I have covid right now, but I meant California, and New York. I was meaning northeasrtern states, Republicans have Texas and FL locked for now, not permanently. Our system is built around protecting Minority rights, for example the fillibuster in the senate or for the fact that both houses of congress have built in powers, versus the parlimentary system, where if you are the minority you have no power what so ever you just are there waiting to return to power. The states are the Minority compared to the federal government and their power is enshrined in the constitution.

Sorry you have Covid. I hope you recover quickly and strongly. I'll wait until you recover to continue this discussion. I have some counterpoints to what you are saying. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PoliticalPundit said:

How has covid been treating you?

Fine, I just have a fever and drowsy like no tomorrow. My 78 year old grandparents did much better than I am right now which is good. My grandma got the same drip that Trump did and got so much better than we all thought which is really good because they both had COPD. 

 

2 hours ago, vcczar said:

Sorry you have Covid. I hope you recover quickly and strongly. I'll wait until you recover to continue this discussion. I have some counterpoints to what you are saying. 

Hopefully I am on the mend I felt a bit better today. My fever has been gone for three days and my boyfriend is doing way better than me so that is good, so one of us can start functioning again XD

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Berg2036 said:

Fine, I just have a fever and drowsy like no tomorrow. My 78 year old grandparents did much better than I am right now which is good. My grandma got the same drip that Trump did and got so much better than we all thought which is really good because they both had COPD. 

 

Hopefully I am on the mend I felt a bit better today. My fever has been gone for three days and my boyfriend is doing way better than me so that is good, so one of us can start functioning again XD

Stay healthy! How do you think you got it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, PoliticalPundit said:

Stay healthy! How do you think you got it? 

My boyfriends works had a few cases so im thinking through that

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2021 at 1:10 PM, Berg2036 said:

I meant California, and New York. I was meaning northeasrtern states, Republicans have Texas and FL locked for now, not permanently. Our system is built around protecting Minority rights, for example the fillibuster in the senate or for the fact that both houses of congress have built in powers, versus the parlimentary system, where if you are the minority you have no power what so ever you just are there waiting to return to power. The states are the Minority compared to the federal government and their power is enshrined in the constitution.

@Berg2036 I've quoted your text above for your convenience. 

I forget specifically what I was going to say at the time, but I'll ask these questions: 

  1. At what point should the majority have its way? 
  2. At what point does a minority hold up too much progress desired by the majority?
  3. At what point is the fillibuster being abused?
  4. At what point should the minority have a say on foreign affairs?
  5. What should be done when you have multiple minorities? That is, let's say the majority wants a Light Green New Deal, and the larger minority wants no Green New Deal, but then there's a 2nd large minority that wants a Full Green New Deal, but they won't compromise with the majority?
  6. At what point does a US citizen have too much power? Consider Wyoming vs. California. A person from Wyoming has over 10x more influence than a person from California. 
  7. At what point are powers designed for a 1787 world outdated for a 2021 world?

I know we totally disagree on things, but I just want to see your level of thinking here. For my part, I'd abolish the EC. Expand the US Reps to 1 US Rep per 500,000 citizens. Expand the Senate so that the 1/3 largest states get 1 more US Senator, and the 1/3 smallest states get 1 less US Senator. I'd keep the filibuster and the 60% vote rule since the people would be better represented under this system. I'd add recall and referendum to all laws and amendments passed by Congress and any presidential vetoes. I'd add term limits to all federal officers -- us reps, senators, justices. I also have an idea for an Exception Clause/Opt out Clause for some federal legislation, which I think States Rights activists would like, but I also add that people I think people should generally have a say on what they want, but I also think that a minority of people shouldn't ruin the country for the majority. So it's kind of a trade off attempt to make both parties okay with my suggested reform.

Basically, I think some laws should pass if some states disagree with them. Those states don't have to join in with all the other states. For instance, Let's say 35 states sign on for Universal Healthcare, but 15 states don't. That's fine. Those states can do what they want. The US would try to encourage the other states to join by showing a great example with the 35 states that are on board, and maybe they can come around. Meanwhile, the 15 other states have an opportunity to create a system that might lead to improvements (based on ideas) of the federal universal healthcare. However, the Exception Clause or Opt-Out Clause would require the state coming up with their own reasonable version. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the above. Closest would be 50% in polling but nonresponse bias clouds that. Remember, Trump was at 50% Approval in the 2020 Exit Polls and was briefly net positive in the RCP average during the beginning of COVID.

(1) Receiving fewer total votes in a reelection bid (Carter, HW Bush did, maybe someone else). This is the most unquestionable repudiation.

(2) Not being viewed as the face of the national party.

(3) Contested primary in a re-election bid.

I think the point about house/senate is a bit dicey BTW. State legislatures were terrific relatively speaking for republicans during 2018 and 2020. Republicans gained many seats back in the House after 2018 losses, and only lost the Senate when Trump was no longer on the ballot for runoffs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Anthony_270 said:

What do you mean by 'public rebuke' - do you mean 'a rebuke by the public', i.e., the electorate?

Yeah, a rebuke by the public. 

14 hours ago, populist86 said:

None of the above. Closest would be 50% in polling but nonresponse bias clouds that. Remember, Trump was at 50% Approval in the 2020 Exit Polls and was briefly net positive in the RCP average during the beginning of COVID.

(1) Receiving fewer total votes in a reelection bid (Carter, HW Bush did, maybe someone else). This is the most unquestionable repudiation.

(2) Not being viewed as the face of the national party.

(3) Contested primary in a re-election bid.

I think the point about house/senate is a bit dicey BTW. State legislatures were terrific relatively speaking for republicans during 2018 and 2020. Republicans gained many seats back in the House after 2018 losses, and only lost the Senate when Trump was no longer on the ballot for runoffs.

I would consider these kinds of public rebukes. If this is how extreme your criteria has to be then we've had almost no presidents face a rebuke. 1) is almost impossible to achieve since the population increases each time there is a new election. 2) This hasn't happened since maybe Ford. If not Ford, you have to go back to Taft. 3) I mean Trump had competition, although not strong competition. Bush faced stronger competition, but it was a trifle. You have to go back to Carter for a real contested primary. 

I'm think you might be a little too strict one what qualifies as a rebuke by the public.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Never reaching 50% approval in an average national poll."

I wouldn't consider this a *rebuke* because it's ongoing, while a rebuke is temporally 'sharp'.

The Senate and House stuff is indirect. The Republicans gained seats in 2020 over the 2018 results, and the Senate was lost by 2 run-off elections where Trump wasn't on the ballot and even there it would be Republican controlled if there was a Republican Vice-President, so the sense of a rebuke here is more muddied.

The election results for him are of course a rebuke in some sense of that term - not winning the popular vote in both 2016 and 2020, but certainly losing as an incumbent both the popular vote and the EC are a rebuke. Trump picked too many fights, couldn't dial down the rhetoric, and couldn't pick a coherent strategy for responding to Covid, so he got rebuked. But even here, the EC loss was a squeaker - would we be talking about Biden being rebuked if a very small % had gone the other way in AZ, GA, and WI? Perhaps.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2021 at 1:08 PM, vcczar said:

@Berg2036 I've quoted your text above for your convenience. 

I forget specifically what I was going to say at the time, but I'll ask these questions: 

  1. At what point should the majority have its way? 
  2. At what point does a minority hold up too much progress desired by the majority?
  3. At what point is the fillibuster being abused?
  4. At what point should the minority have a say on foreign affairs?
  5. What should be done when you have multiple minorities? That is, let's say the majority wants a Light Green New Deal, and the larger minority wants no Green New Deal, but then there's a 2nd large minority that wants a Full Green New Deal, but they won't compromise with the majority?
  6. At what point does a US citizen have too much power? Consider Wyoming vs. California. A person from Wyoming has over 10x more influence than a person from California. 
  7. At what point are powers designed for a 1787 world outdated for a 2021 world?

I know we totally disagree on things, but I just want to see your level of thinking here. For my part, I'd abolish the EC. Expand the US Reps to 1 US Rep per 500,000 citizens. Expand the Senate so that the 1/3 largest states get 1 more US Senator, and the 1/3 smallest states get 1 less US Senator. I'd keep the filibuster and the 60% vote rule since the people would be better represented under this system. I'd add recall and referendum to all laws and amendments passed by Congress and any presidential vetoes. I'd add term limits to all federal officers -- us reps, senators, justices. I also have an idea for an Exception Clause/Opt out Clause for some federal legislation, which I think States Rights activists would like, but I also add that people I think people should generally have a say on what they want, but I also think that a minority of people shouldn't ruin the country for the majority. So it's kind of a trade off attempt to make both parties okay with my suggested reform.

Basically, I think some laws should pass if some states disagree with them. Those states don't have to join in with all the other states. For instance, Let's say 35 states sign on for Universal Healthcare, but 15 states don't. That's fine. Those states can do what they want. The US would try to encourage the other states to join by showing a great example with the 35 states that are on board, and maybe they can come around. Meanwhile, the 15 other states have an opportunity to create a system that might lead to improvements (based on ideas) of the federal universal healthcare. However, the Exception Clause or Opt-Out Clause would require the state coming up with their own reasonable version. 

1. The majority should have its way when it is consensus, so the founders had set up the Senate so all states had equal representation in one house and unequal representation in the House of Representatives because the nations ideals are close to being fairly represented. Thus, the filibuster is incredibly important, because anything the majority wants to pass in the house can move out of the house with a vote, it has to go to the senate where 60% of the senators must agree currently unless more states are added. In actuality the United States should not even have Political Parties as that was the intention from the beginning but human nature is to be a part of a group of like minded people certainly in this day and age. 

2.This goes to being apart of political parties progress for democrats is universal healthcare, in my opinion that is really not progress other than causing more debt. Progress is in the eye of the beholder and remember the Minority could be silenced in the Senate if the Majority was supported by a 60 seat plus majority caucus which would mean that they have over whelming support of the general public. 

3. I do not think that the filibuster can be abused, the Senate is for equal representation remember so each state has directly elected member of the senate to vote on and carry forward the interests of those states. We are United States that form the government not the government of the united states forming the nation. We are a conglomerate of states that while they may disagree they still have common causes that they want to work toward.  

4. Foreign Affairs is dictated by the head of State so the president, the most that they can do is change laws regarding use of force actions and the ability for a president to deploy troops. I do not see them really having much of any sway in that sphere other than talking about it on cable news shows or on social media. Ultimately as long as the president informs the gang of 8 its within his or her purview. 

5. Well unlike the Parliamentary system you have to comprise. You have to give some to get some unless you have an overwhelming majority. The Green New Deal, while I hate everything within it, I love the idea of it, but currently both sides most definitely want all or nothing, I do not see there ever being a third major party in the US because it would doom which ever party is closest to them. I think both parties need new majority leaders especially ones that focus on compromise because then everything would go better, but I am sure I'm preaching to the choir. 

6. While sure a voter in Wyoming has 10X more power in the Senate than the house though. In fact I think the system works great, the most important power which is that of the purse is in the hands of the House, where states have power based on population which helps them get the funding they deserve because it should be proportional to their population. I don't think that it is a problem with population having to much power as each side hating each other and unwilling to compromise, it has never been an issue until the democrat's started changing from their old version of the party to the new version of the party. I don't see a Democrat ever winning a seat in South Dakota for example until demographics or population changes drastically. 

7. The powers have stood the test of time for 234 years, with some changes along the way. Direct elections of Senators and things like the VRA, which is all good progress. There is a reason we have only once had a civil war and that i s the fact that the system works good whether you are in the Majority of the Minority. Democracy is messy and it will always be messy the thing that needs to remain true is how this country operates and the norms. The filibuster is not racist it has nothing to with race, sure southern Democrats used it to stop the VRA from passing but that was 50 years ago. Both sides need to tone it down but mostly the democrats, for the simple fact that not everyone you disagree is racist, or homophobic, or any other word they use to describe the other party. 

Your reforms are interesting, but there are just three that I think are really worth looking at, the first is term limits of course that is absolutely needed, but not in the judiciary because I worry that the judiciary would become even more partisan when it should be less partisan. Instead of abolishing the electoral college, because that is just wrong in my opinion because our head of state is chosen by the states not congress, we should instead adopt Maine or Nebraska plan but also change then how districts are drawn. My opinion personally would be to have a commission, with equal number of major party's on the commission, I am working under the assumption that most states are like Minnesota with a distinction between parties whether they are major or minor party's. The commission which is headed by the chief justice of the state supreme court then equal number of representatives from the major parties. I think that would make it fair maybe change the VRA to include that, I know the court struct down the oversight of the southern states but I think that is a compromise that would work. Because if you change how you reapportion the electors from each state then you have a much more fair election, because people are more represented in their votes which is what you want to achieve. Now of course that is my dream scenario because it is a decent compromise in my opinion. The popular vote matters more than it does now, but still retaining states right to choose the head of state.

My final point, the minority does not run the country, the majority does in house especially, but the senate is a special case, because the founders had two houses to create more compromise especially that house. The minority can stop legislation but then its on the majority to make it better, again we are not a parliamentary country, we are unique and that is what has caused us to be a shining country that all the world wants to come to. Sadly I see a lot of problems that are not going to fix themselves unless people who want real change are willing to stand up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Berg2036 said:

I do not think that the filibuster can be abused

I sadly don't have time to read all this at once, but I'll respond to each part from time to time. I want to respond to this right now though. 

The filibuster can be abused. What if one party, one faction of a party, or one politician continually issues a filibuster? I'm sure GOP voters would want to do away with the filibuster if the Senate was 56 Republican to 44 Democrat and the Democrats filibusters every piece of legislation that was even remotely partisan. Note: I wouldn't want Democrats to do this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

I sadly don't have time to read all this at once, but I'll respond to each part from time to time. I want to respond to this right now though. 

The filibuster can be abused. What if one party, one faction of a party, or one politician continually issues a filibuster? I'm sure GOP voters would want to do away with the filibuster if the Senate was 56 Republican to 44 Democrat and the Democrats filibusters every piece of legislation that was even remotely partisan. Note: I wouldn't want Democrats to do this. 

I think that it is within their right to filibuster any piece of legislation as they see fit being senators and want to change a specific part or the whole bill, as the whole premise of the Senate is to debate and come to an agreement with the other side. Keeping the filibuster as is is keeping the senate as was intended.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2021 at 4:58 PM, vcczar said:

Yeah, a rebuke by the public. 

I would consider these kinds of public rebukes. If this is how extreme your criteria has to be then we've had almost no presidents face a rebuke. 1) is almost impossible to achieve since the population increases each time there is a new election. 2) This hasn't happened since maybe Ford. If not Ford, you have to go back to Taft. 3) I mean Trump had competition, although not strong competition. Bush faced stronger competition, but it was a trifle. You have to go back to Carter for a real contested primary. 

I'm think you might be a little too strict one what qualifies as a rebuke by the public.

Carter, HW Bush and Obama all received fewer votes when running for re-election so it’s not too strict.  

I think the fact that Trump kept the margin so close in a poisoned chalice situation is impressive, but obviously I am disappointed in how he ran his campaign given the stakes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...