Bill Clinton's approval swung quite wildly in years 1-2. Plummeted, rebounded, then dropped again
George H. W. Bush's approval rating was generally quite good in years 1-2 but dropped right before the midterms
George W. Bush's approval declined a bit in the beginning of year 1, then got the enormous 9/11 bump, which declined in year 2 but still left him positioned for the strongest midterm performance of any president since FDR
Reagan actually didn't come into office all that popular but he quickly got the "getting shot" bump. Then his approval declined heading into the 1982 midterms, major recovery in years 3-4
Trump's approval dropped quite low in year 1 but he recovered nearly 5 points by the midterms.
That wasn't enough to give him an actual good approval but a second-year pre-midterm recovery is pretty unusual. Most presidents decline in advance of the midterms
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I don't think a lack of clarity is the real hold-up. It's substance.
Manchin and Sinema have demanded various changes in the bill. Dems have offered some of what they want, but not all of it, in hopes they'll say it's good enough. They haven't yet.
Durham tries to get to the bottom of where the pee tape allegation came from. He seems to imply what he thinks is the answer without actually proving it.
This is a bit complicated so needs some decoding (cont'd)...
Much of the Steele dossier relied on information provided by Igor Danchenko, who is the subject of this indictment.
Per indictment, Danchenko was close to an unnamed Democratic PR Executive who worked in Russia and had associations with many key figures named in dossier
This Democratic PR Executive told Danchenko that he had inside information on the downfall of Paul Manafort, from "a GOP friend". Danchenko wrote up his info and put it into the dossier.
But the PR exec actually just made that up, had no "friend" who gave him inside info
Manchin said he wanted $1.5T over 10 years, not $3.5T.
Dems responded by dropping some programs (like paid leave), but keeping most in, & setting them to expire in a few years while hoping they'd later be extended permanently. Landed at $1.75T on paper.
Dems' hope was that Manchin just wanted a lower on-paper topline number he could point to, and was willing to look the other way on the openly-expressed intention these would in reality be permanent programs.
His comments today suggest he won't. But, Q is whether he sticks to it
They've certainly been talking but it seems the WH framework was more of a "we're trying to please him, let's see if this is good enough" rather than a deal he actually gave private approval to.
(Though who knows, maybe there's another secret document!)
Manchin presser takeaways re: reconciliation:
-He's not on board yet
-Says he wants to better understand impact on deficit and inflation
-Says that progressives aren't compromising enough
-Annoyed that House won't pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill.
Manchin definitely sounds like he is not sold on the "framework" plan the White House announced last week.
Says he wants to work toward a reconciliation package we can all agree on, and will continue to work in good faith. But he isn't there.
Manchin claims the House holding the bipartisan infrastructure bill hostage won't affect his vote either way, but he's clearly sore about it.
Says he'll vote for a reconciliation bill that helps our country, will vote against one that he thinks hurts our country
Youngkin tries to link McAuliffe, "defend the police" (which McAuliffe doesn't support but some outside group backing him did), and the argument that Arlington and Alexandria taking police out of schools made those schools less safe
Last year Alexandria VA's city council voted to take armed police officers out of schools and redirect those funds to mental health resources.
After a tumultuous start to the school year they reversed course this month, voting to bring officers back
Surveying the ads on the Glenn Youngkin YouTube channel, many of them cite a purported claim by @YahooNews that McAuliffe's plans could cost VA families $5,400.
But if you follow the links back from the article the true source of the claim is... the Glenn Youngkin campaign.
I'd call this a game of telephone, but it's more a deliberate distortion.
1. The Washington Examiner reposted an article from the conservative site The Center Square making the $5,400 claim, citing a report
2. The Examiner article was then syndicated on @YahooNews. (cont'd)
3. The Examiner then *corrected* its article. The $5,400 claim, they admit in the correction, came from Youngkin's campaign. Not some report.
4. But the correction never made it to the @YahooNews version.