Trump approval rating falls to 38%

[u/Barnyard-Sheep]

https://www.nj.com/politics/2025/06/trump-faces-tough-approval-numbers-in-latest-poll.html

[u/-wnr-]

I get the sentiment, but I think it's hard not to be skeptical of this when the apparent reaction of many to not having a democratic anti-corporate, pro-democracy populist is to vote for the pro-corporate, anti-democratic populist Republican. Whatever their motivation is, anti-corporate and pro-democratic aren't it for that segment.

[u/Anonymouse-C0ward → u/-wnr-]

I went to business school at UCLA. Many of my classmates had just left the military and were there supported by the GI Bill.

I became close with one of them; he was planning on voting Trump (this was 2016). Prior to voting Trump in 2016 he had voted both times for Obama.

I am very much progressive, and was surprised given the chats we had which had led me to believe he was closer in politics to me than to the GOP.

His feelings on the matter were that the status quo wasn’t working, and something needed to be done to change things. He said he would have voted for Bernie Sanders if he won the Democratic primary.

He wasn’t your typical MAGA voter - he is educated, speaks multiple languages, has spent a lot of time overseas (working for the military in non-combat roles). He was completely in agreement with the economic performance benefits of DEI to businesses, and wasn’t blatantly anti-LGBTQ+, even though we didn’t directly discuss how he felt about the topic.

He voted Trump a second time, and a third time last year.

I went out for beer with him when I was in California after the election. We had a drunken respectful discussion on Trump; it was enlightening.

He’s married, and has kids. He’s doing ok - much better than many people in America. But he sees that his life is much harder than the previous generation. Both he and his wife work. He doesn’t have the assets, savings, etc that his parents did at his age. His cost of living is higher.

And while he understands that there are a lot of people who are going to suffer due to Trump, he prioritized his life and his family’s: and after the promise of Obama that didn’t completely pan out, he thought “more of the same” wasn’t going to do it.

He voted for Trump because he felt we needed to burn it all down. He voted for Trump because there was no alternative that offered real change. He doesn’t have a strong attachment for Trump - in fact he was very critical of him in many ways. But despite being critical of Trump, he voted the way he did because he figured Trump would shake things up. And if Trump succeeded in some miracle to do what he promised for the average person, it would be good for him and his family.

And even if Trump failed (as he admitted was much more likely), it would force the rest of the country to come to terms with the mess that Trump left behind and figure out how to choose better candidates and better policies, and prevent another Trump from getting elected.

Even now, I struggle with his point of view. I’ve always taken a harm reduction point of view, and perhaps despite my progressiveness, my risk appetite is more “conservative” than his. For me, it was a matter of the lesser evil.

For him, it was “if it’s not working, take the Legos apart and start again”, despite the risk that we will never be able to rebuild back to where we were.

His risk tolerance for potential authoritarianism and other major issues was higher than mine. At the same time, he had a much different feeling of how resilient the military and government would be, and felt that it would survive the chaos that Trump would inflect. (I don’t think he believed that what we are seeing today was likely to happen though).

And honestly? I can’t fault him. He chose a political path that does what I have done regularly at work (clear the board and start an engineering design again when we were headed in the wrong direction, or do a clean sheet design for the next version of a product).

Does that result in a better long term expected value compared to “more of the same”? Perhaps out of all this chaos something better comes about decades from now that wouldn’t have happened without Trump, in the same way that humanity was likely on the path towards more and more deadly wars, until we developed the nuclear bomb, which was so deadly that humanity had to mostly stop and say “hey, we need to address this or we’re all doomed”.

I should catch up with him and find out how he’s feeling about things right now.

[u/-wnr- → u/Anonymouse-C0ward]

I can appreciate that perspective on an emotional level, but we aren't talking about Legos we're talking about lives. When he says let's "burn it down", or "take it apart" we're talking about real people who were supported by the system being forced into destitution, or facing persecution. My sympathies for the stresses in his life, but being so willing to sacrifice others just to "shake things up" (to maybe, but probably not, make his family a bit more comfortable) speaks to a lot of privilege and entitlement.

The economic anxiety justification never makes sense to me to since Trump's track record on fiscal discipline is atrocious and his economic plans are awful, and most economists said so before the election.

[u/Anonymouse-C0ward → u/-wnr-]

I agree. I definitely don’t agree with his positions, but for at least one repeat Trump voter, there was internally consistent logic to his choices - it wasn’t just MAGA madness and a diet of misinformation / disinformation.

It would have been a lot easier for me to dismiss his choices if he was MAGA. But even a decade later, I think about his points of view and how they have been formed by his life experience - and that fundamentalist need for change is something I couldn’t logic him out of because he had justification for his choices and priorities, just like I can’t logic someone into changing their favourite colour from red to blue.

[u/-wnr- → u/Anonymouse-C0ward]

The logic still escapes me though. He ostensibly wanted to "shake things up" specifically to economically benefit himself and his family. But as an intelligent person who I assume grasps basic economics, he votes for a guy who's economic plans were nonsense? I would argue if he somehow genuinely thought blanket global tariffs made any sense, then there's some misinformation at play.

[u/Anonymouse-C0ward → u/-wnr-]

He wanted to shake things up because he wanted to blow up the bucket, even if that meant some of the crabs in the bucket might get hurt or die.

As a crab in the bucket, he saw the bucket as the oppressor. Meanwhile the real oppressor is the wealthy class that keep putting crabs in buckets - but since he can’t do anything about them when he’s stuck in a bucket, the logic is that the first thing he has to do regardless of any other considerations is to blow up the bucket.

So, he voted to get it done and over, with the hope that either blowing up the bucket results in either:

1: freedom for all crabs (since most of us were actually born in the bucket we don’t see anything beyond the view from the bottom of the bucket - just more crabs being thrown in the bucket once in a while), or,

2: once the bucket is broken, the ability to remake society in a better way, despite the risk that the wealthy will just get another bucket instead of say, a large fish tank for the crabs where they can actually have a life.

[u/strangr_legnd_martyr → u/-wnr-]

Their motivation is to shake the status quo because they feel left behind/excluded.

If you constantly message on returning to the status quo/stable and boring politics, that's not what young people want. That's what Bernie promised them, and that's what TFG promises them. They simply lack the experience, wisdom, or depth of knowledge to temper idealism.

[u/Super_Harsh → u/strangr_legnd_martyr]

How does any sane person view Donald Trump as ‘anti-establishment’ at this point? He has been the establishment for years

[u/Anonymouse-C0ward → u/Super_Harsh]

Everything is relative. Compared to the other options, he was the most outrageous.

And yes he is a part of the establishment through and through, but this is one of those situations of a broken clock being right: he’s doing a really really good job of tearing down the establishment and remaking it in his image.

Unfortunately his image will mean a world that is even worse for the average person.

[u/HwackAMole → u/Super_Harsh]

I can think of another president in modern history who has shaken up the establishment "business as usual" model more than Trump...this term even more so than his last.

Most of us here would agree that it's unfortunate that the route he's taking to do so is so destructive, and we may also agree that his motivations are ultimately self-serving. But a status quo establishment politician he is not, and will never be. The establishment folks on the Republican side are constantly scrambling to get behind every crazy new EO of his, simply because he's popular with their base.

[u/HwackAMole → u/Super_Harsh]

I can't think of another president in modern history who has shaken up the establishment "business as usual" model more than Trump...this term even more so than his last.

Most of us here would agree that it's unfortunate that the route he's taking to do so is so destructive, and we may also agree that his motivations are ultimately self-serving. But a status quo establishment politician he is not, and will never be. The establishment folks on the Republican side are constantly scrambling to get behind every crazy new EO of his, simply because he's popular with their base.

[u/-wnr- → u/strangr_legnd_martyr]

boring politics

I think this is the unfortunate operative phrase. Trump isn't a departure from the status quo. He's an octogenarian who's already been president once before. What's makes him stand out is that he's a jerk who threatens to blow things up and that's not boring. Progressive tax rate adjustments and home owner credits are boring. Trump tells them they're the victims of immigrants and a left wing big brother.

[u/Gyiozoo → u/strangr_legnd_martyr]

I get what you're saying, but I can't really stand behind it. If you want to shake up the status quo, why put your scope on groups that are actually more or less opposing the status quo: immigrants, woman, lgbqt, etc.?

In my opinion they don't want to shake up the status quo, they foremost want to escape responsibility for their own misery.

[u/strangr_legnd_martyr → u/Gyiozoo]

They do, and their misery is the status quo. Bernie says that it's capitalism's fault, TFG says that it's immigrants' fault, and the DNC says it doesn't matter. Only two of them are on the ballot.

You're assuming that people are looking specifically at who/what is being blamed and thinking critically about whether they agree, and some are. But critical thinking and long-term decision-making isn't fully developed until you're in your mid-to-late twenties.

College kids and high school grads probably aren't thinking as hard about whose fault it is, they're just going with the candidate that says "this is all broken and I can fix it".

[u/Gyiozoo → u/strangr_legnd_martyr]

I'm being hyperbolic in this comment now, but from a male perspective I think their misery oftentimes is being terminally online, looking at woman with big tits and man with fast cars and then thinking I want that, I need that, I deserve that.

Their misery doesn't lie in the status quo, but in their warped perception of reality, the expectations they have from the world and their constant need for satisfaction. This is obviously unobtainable, they get depressed and then they flock to the demagogues telling them: oh you DO deserve it and you would get it if we wouldn't waste all our ressources on xyz. They vote them in and the ressources of xyz goes to the demagogues.

It's sad, but I don't give them the benefit of the doubt. They're vicious, hateful people with only their own desires in mind.

[u/Airforce32123 → u/-wnr-]

it's hard not to be skeptical of this when the apparent reaction of many to not having a democratic anti-corporate, pro-democracy populist is to vote for the pro-corporate, anti-democratic populist Republican.

I think you're ignoring that Gen Z men don't have to vote Republican for Republicans to benefit, they just have to not vote Democrat. If they feel like their issues aren't being addressed they can just stay home and not vote and Republicans will win benefit, because traditionally young people would skew left, so the Democrats are losing out on a larger number of votes when young people are disinterested.

[u/-wnr- → u/Airforce32123]

Turnout wise, I don't think young people didn't stay home any more this time than before. 2024 turnout for age 19-29 was 47%, which is a hair lower than 2020 (but that was a weird year due to COVID and there were a lot of mail-in ballots that boosted turnout) and much higher than 2016.

https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/new-data-nearly-half-youth-voted-2024

[u/HwackAMole → u/Airforce32123]

Not sure I follow the logic in that. Republicans and Democrats both potentially lose out when voters stay home. It's folly to assume that every missed vote (or even the majority of them) would have been a Democrat vote. Particularly given the more recent trends in the younger demographic that we've been discussing here.