it should be. more than any other US political office, Presidents get more credit and blame for their actions. trying hard and good intentions never helped carter or even george h.w. .and while the President has little direct impact on the economy until after they has left office or deep into a second term, they tend to get blame and credit disproportionate to actions. the thing is, other than small business owners and the ultra wealthy, the economy, in spite o' statistical overall strength, has not improved for trump voters in particular. tariffs and commercial farm deregulation has had devastating impact on family farmers, and the average manufacturing sector wage slave has seen 0 noteworthy improvement in actual disposable income since 2011. income disparity and debt is at all-time levels and 'mongst the folks suffering worst is trump loyalists.
but again, try and fail 'cause o' opposition from opposing party or foreign powers or acts o' god has never been the salvation o' an unsuccessful President, and for a chief executive who had majorities in both houses for his first two years, trump's list o' accomplishments is historically anemic. nothing other than unilateral decisions and a hastily authored tax cut which did double the amount before estate tax would kick in, which no doubt is reason the guy working at the local mill is voting trump 2020.
deep state? have mentioned this before, but pre-trump, pretty much every deep state conspiracy were intimate tied to eisenhower warnings o' the military-industrial complex. big business. oil. defense contractors.
how the hell does the guy with the flowers become the face of deep state?
trump and fox managed to sell fear to folks most afraid. sold stoopid conspiracies to people least educated.
support for trump should be surprising. doesn't make sense in context o' US politics o' the last +6 decades. extreme polarization. complicit cable media. historic levels o' government distrust in spite o' absence o' major crisis.
HA! Good Fun!
ps there were a funny moment during the house judiciary committee circus today. matt gaetz asks john dean how he thinks a plan for universal health care should be paid. dean, confused by non-sequitur, asks for clarification. gaetz points out how as dean were testifying 'bout mueller report events he had no actual first hand knowledge, why should he not also testify 'bout universal health care... if only basis were nixon era experience, then what were the point o' dean's presence? dean kinda chuckles and mentions how nixon did have a plan for universal health care. widespread laughter ensues.