Trump's approval rating just entered a league of its own

President Donald Trump's approval rating sank to a new low in CNN polling on Tuesday, earning the approval of just 35% of Americans less than a year into his first term.

That's a significant drop from the 45% approval rating that Trump had in March, shortly after taking office.

It marks the worst approval rating in a December of any elected president's first year in the White House by a wide margin — and only the second time since the dawn of modern polling that a president's approval rating sank under 50% at this point. A broad 59% of Americans said they disapprove of how Trump is handling his job as president.

 

 

George W. Bush ended his first calendar year at 86% approval, John F. Kennedy hit 77%, George H.W. Bush reached 71% and Dwight Eisenhower hit 69%.

 

Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama all finished their first calendar year with approval ratings in the mid-to-high 50s...

 

Cont.: http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/19/politics/trump-approval-new-low-history/index.html

 

Do we actually believe polls?  If so, are you enjoying President Hillary Clinton's term?  Another poll released today shows Trump at 45%  Are you employed?  Is your IRA going up?  

 

Best regards,

RA1

1 hour ago, RA1 said:

Do we actually believe polls?  If so, are you enjoying President Hillary Clinton's term?  Another poll released today shows Trump at 45%  Are you employed?  Is your IRA going up?  

 

Best regards,

RA1

Polls directed by a campaign's own paid staff may be viewed with some caution.

I, being a poll-taker myself (among engineering software users), have a certain [statistically quantified by chi-square method] degree of confidence in them.

As you yourself will have a certain quantified degree of confidence -- and, as appropriate, skepticism -- in new-engine and -airframe certification methods.

8 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

Polls directed by a campaign's own paid staff may be viewed with some caution.

I, being a poll-taker myself (among engineering software users), have a certain [statistically quantified by chi-square method] degree of confidence in them.

As you yourself will have a certain quantified degree of confidence -- and, as appropriate, skepticism -- in new-engine and -airframe certification methods.

Except for avionics, most of our stuff is still 1930's or 1940's generation.  Therefore pilots are generally very conservative by nature (not the same as right wing).  We still are learning on 80+ year old technology.  If people were meant to fly we would have aluminum arms.

Best regards,

RA1

8 minutes ago, RA1 said:

Except for avionics, most of our stuff is still 1930's or 1940's generation.  Therefore pilots are generally very conservative by nature (not the same as right wing).  We still are learning on 80+ year old technology.  If people were meant to fly we would have aluminum arms.

Best regards,

RA1

EXCEPT for this nonsense (I overstate, but still) of going down to just two engines for long over-ocean flights.

As stated here before. I hate that the airlines, and the airplane makers, have to try to make money by cutting engine count down that drastically.

How long until they decide to try to fly on just one-half an engine? 

There have to be business models out there that would get them out of these financial woods without sacrificing engineering good sense.

I suggest the B-52 as your primary means of transport.  They have tried to convert it to only 4 engines (vs. 8) but today's engines would drag the ground under the wing, therefore too expensive to retrofit.  Just imagine the US government deciding something it too expensive.

As you know, all those (light) twins have dual ignitions, dual generators, etc. (per engine) and they have been approved for 180 minutes or even 210 or 240 minutes of flying on one engine to reach an alternate.  I agree with you.  It isn't a pleasant prospect to think of flying for up to 4 hours on one engine.  However, modern turbine engines are very reliable.  The most likely reason for one to quit is insufficient fuel which probably will cause the remaining engine to suffer the same fate.

 

*Light twins is what 747 pilots call all those 2 engine aircraft.

Best regards,

RA1

17 minutes ago, RA1 said:

Except for avionics, most of our stuff is still 1930's or 1940's generation. 

P.P.S. I also, repeating myself from a couple years ago, still have uneasiness about the longer-term structural integrity of the composites that make up a lot of the 787's fuselage.

We just do not understand that stuff with anything approaching the engineering confidence that the program managers wanted to believe. Numerous engineers and structural-analysis discipline leads told me they were being pushed by their managers (can anyone say 'Challenger O-rings'?) to approve designs to meet schedule without remotely enough testing, experiment and software simulation.

And we have NO idea how to inspect crafts made from it, from flight to flight. I think it is a mess in the making.

O

1 minute ago, AdamSmith said:

P.P.S. I also, repeating myself from a couple years ago, still have uneasiness about the longer-term structural integrity of the composites that make up a lot of the 787's fuselage.

We just do not understand that stuff with anything approaching the engineering confidence that the program managers wanted to believe. Numerous engineers and structural-analysis discipline leads told me they were being pushed by their managers (can anyone say 'Challenger O-rings'?) to approve designs to meet schedule without remotely enough testing, experiment and software simulation.

And we have NO idea how to inspect crafts made from it, from flight to flight. I think it is a mess in the making.

Of course it is a mess.  Think Comet.

Best regards,

RA1

11 minutes ago, RA1 said:

Of course it is a mess.  Think Comet.

Best regards,

RA1

Exactly the same situation!

Before I became an arty-farty English major, I was in training (high school course tracks) to be a chemical engineer.

I do NOT like the current state of engineering understanding of composite materials AT ALL.

Many composite aircraft to include the Windecker Eagle (here I mean light aircraft) were only offered in white.  Stated reason:  They were afraid that dark colors would affect the glue (generically speaking).  Lear only offered white Lear Jets to save money. 

Best regards,

RA1

Edited December 29, 20178 yr by RA1

5 hours ago, RA1 said:

Many composite aircraft to include the Windecker Eagle (here I mean light aircraft) were only offered in white.  Stated reason:  They were afraid that dark colors would affect the glue (generically speaking).  Lear only offered white Lear Jets to save money. 

Best regards,

RA1

In the offshore platform industry, where the subsea-platform part is typically constructed halfway around the world from the so-called 'top sides,' there is a saying about the physical mating of the two:

'Beat it to fit, and paint it to match.'

I get the same feeling about US aircraft carrier construction.  The best in the world but scary to see happen.

Best regards,

RA1

Likewise the Navy's new Littoral Combat Ship, the first -- very expensive, of course -- instance of which just recently out of Bath Iron Works has been plagued with problems.

On 12/29/2017 at 1:00 AM, AdamSmith said:

'Beat it to fit, and paint it to match.'

Going back to software for engineering simulation and analysis of product physical phenomena, there is a saying in Detroit:

'Nobody believes the software-analysis results but the analyst; and everybody believes the physical-test results except for the test engineer.'