Current Events > GOP tax cuts are becoming less popular in polling

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/22/17492468/republican-tax-cut-law-poll

Its been six months since President Donald Trump signed into law the Republican tax cuts. During that time, the measure appears to have become less popular not more. The GOPs big 2018 midterms sales pitch isnt working out exactly how party leaders thought it would.

According to a Monmouth University poll released this week, just 34 percent of Americans said they approve of the Republican tax reform package, compared to 41 percent who disapprove. Thats down from April, when 40 percent of Americans said they approved of the law and 44 percent did not. In January, respondents were evenly split, with 44 percent saying they approved and another 44 percent voicing disapproval of the plan.

Public opinion on the tax law has never been positive, said Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute, in a statement accompanying the results, but potentially growing uncertainty about how American taxpayers will be affected does not seem to be helping the GOPs prospects in November.

Broadly, most polling shows the tax law is more disliked than liked by Americans. A recent Quinnipiac poll found 39 percent of respondents approve of the legislation and 46 percent disapprove of it. An Economist/YouGov poll found a smaller but still negative margin, with 38 percent approving and 40 percent not.

A RealClearPolitics average of tax law polling indicates that about 36.1 percent of Americans are on board with the tax measure and 43 percent are not, a nearly 7 percentage point difference.

---

We're probably back to polls not being accurate in the minds of the apologists. The same people who gloated about the generic ballot polls are gonna say this is FAKE NEWS

da got DAMN POLLS!!!! - Antifar in the year of our Lord 2018
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

da got DAMN POLLS!!!! - Antifar in the year of our Lord 2018

what was going through your mind when you made this post
---

Doom_Art posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

da got DAMN POLLS!!!! - Antifar in the year of our Lord 2018

what was going through your mind when you made this post

LIBERALS
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

da got DAMN POLLS!!!! - Antifar in the year of our Lord 2018

Do you not believe in math now?
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

da got DAMN POLLS!!!! - Antifar in the year of our Lord 2018

Huh?

Also, it appears Antifar's topic title is bullshit yet again.

Here is the actual poll data:

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_061818/

June 2018 on the left, December 2017 on the right.
Strongly approve 18% 18% 20% 24% 13%
Somewhat approve 16% 22% 21% 20% 13%
Somewhat disapprove 14% 15% 16% 13% 12%
Strongly disapprove 27% 29% 26% 31% 35%
(VOL) Dont know 24% 16% 17% 13% 27%
(n) (806) (803) (803) (806) (806)

That is the trend from December 2017 on the right to June 2018 on the left.

In that time frame, the number of people who strongly approve went from 13% to 18%. The number of people who somewhat approve went from 13% to 16%. The number of people who somewhat disapprove went from 12% to 14%. The number who strongly disapprove DROPPED from 35% to 27%.

And the number who don't know dropped from 27% to 24%. So ultimately it's showing that the tax cuts are more popular now.
---

Polls + Libs = Polliberal Science!!101!!
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Also, it appears Antifar's topic title is bullshit yet again.

Here is the actual poll data:

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_061818/

June 2018 on the left, December 2017 on the right.
Strongly approve 18% 18% 20% 24% 13%
Somewhat approve 16% 22% 21% 20% 13%
Somewhat disapprove 14% 15% 16% 13% 12%
Strongly disapprove 27% 29% 26% 31% 35%
(VOL) Dont know 24% 16% 17% 13% 27%
(n) (806) (803) (803) (806) (806)

That is the trend from December 2017 on the right to June 2018 on the left.

In that time frame, the number of people who strongly approve went from 13% to 18%. The number of people who somewhat approve went from 13% to 16%. The number of people who somewhat disapprove went from 12% to 14%. The number who strongly disapprove DROPPED from 35% to 27%.

And the number who don't know dropped from 27% to 24%. So ultimately it's showing that the tax cuts are more popular now.

I like you. I've never seen someone so articulate on these boards, and destroy that glass ceiling so effectively ...
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Also, it appears Antifar's topic title is bullshit yet again.

Here is the actual poll data:

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_061818/

June 2018 on the left, December 2017 on the right.
Strongly approve 18% 18% 20% 24% 13%
Somewhat approve 16% 22% 21% 20% 13%
Somewhat disapprove 14% 15% 16% 13% 12%
Strongly disapprove 27% 29% 26% 31% 35%
(VOL) Dont know 24% 16% 17% 13% 27%
(n) (806) (803) (803) (806) (806)

That is the trend from December 2017 on the right to June 2018 on the left.

In that time frame, the number of people who strongly approve went from 13% to 18%. The number of people who somewhat approve went from 13% to 16%. The number of people who somewhat disapprove went from 12% to 14%. The number who strongly disapprove DROPPED from 35% to 27%.

And the number who don't know dropped from 27% to 24%. So ultimately it's showing that the tax cuts are more popular now.

Get rekt, Antifar
---

I still like them

Those numbers suggest a drop in approval from 44% to 34% since January, which admittedly was much higher than December (26%). Disapproval was at 44% in January and is now at 41%

The law is becoming less popular, but was at its most unpopular before passing would be the fairest way to put this, I suppose.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Also, it appears Antifar's topic title is bullshit yet again.

Here is the actual poll data:

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_061818/

June 2018 on the left, December 2017 on the right.
Strongly approve 18% 18% 20% 24% 13%
Somewhat approve 16% 22% 21% 20% 13%
Somewhat disapprove 14% 15% 16% 13% 12%
Strongly disapprove 27% 29% 26% 31% 35%
(VOL) Dont know 24% 16% 17% 13% 27%
(n) (806) (803) (803) (806) (806)

That is the trend from December 2017 on the right to June 2018 on the left.

In that time frame, the number of people who strongly approve went from 13% to 18%. The number of people who somewhat approve went from 13% to 16%. The number of people who somewhat disapprove went from 12% to 14%. The number who strongly disapprove DROPPED from 35% to 27%.

And the number who don't know dropped from 27% to 24%. So ultimately it's showing that the tax cuts are more popular now.

This is why you don't read Vox.
---

Note the dishonesty, kids. He basically has to cherrypick an incomplete range of the data in order to make the bullshit conclusion. When in reality, if you look at the full data you can see that disapproval dropped from 47% to 43%.

With approval increasing from 26% to 34%.

Given that trend, for all we know the remaining 24% who said they don't know could end up approving strongly or somewhat strongly the next time the poll is run. Along with more people from the Disapprove camp changing their mind.

The law is only becoming less popular if you purposely exclude the entire range of data from this poll you just shared. All it takes is a month of CNN's bullshit to change the tide, so that's dishonest. Should've waited another few months until you could make the same narrative with all of the data rather than just the range that suits your narrative.
---

SK8T3R215 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Also, it appears Antifar's topic title is bullshit yet again.

Here is the actual poll data:

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_061818/

June 2018 on the left, December 2017 on the right.
Strongly approve 18% 18% 20% 24% 13%
Somewhat approve 16% 22% 21% 20% 13%
Somewhat disapprove 14% 15% 16% 13% 12%
Strongly disapprove 27% 29% 26% 31% 35%
(VOL) Dont know 24% 16% 17% 13% 27%
(n) (806) (803) (803) (806) (806)

That is the trend from December 2017 on the right to June 2018 on the left.

In that time frame, the number of people who strongly approve went from 13% to 18%. The number of people who somewhat approve went from 13% to 16%. The number of people who somewhat disapprove went from 12% to 14%. The number who strongly disapprove DROPPED from 35% to 27%.

And the number who don't know dropped from 27% to 24%. So ultimately it's showing that the tax cuts are more popular now.

This is why you don't read Vox.

It's pretty delicious that the people who were posting garbage in response to my first post didn't even bother to click on Antifar's link and then Vox's link to the actual study before posting their bullshit.

Anyway, it's a shame that you can't post comments on Vox articles. They're literally propagating lies right now and you can't even fact check them on their bullshit. No wonder susceptible naive CEmen without life experience are falling for this trash.
---

And this will literally be the GOP's only accomplishment going into November. They will not have a fun midterms.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Note the dishonesty, kids. He basically has to cherrypick an incomplete range of the data in order to make the bullshit conclusion. When in reality, if you look at the full data you can see that disapproval dropped from 47% to 43%.

With approval increasing from 26% to 34%.

Given that trend, for all we know the remaining 24% who said they don't know could end up approving strongly or somewhat strongly the next time the poll is run. Along with more people from the Disapprove camp changing their mind.

The law is only becoming less popular if you purposely exclude the entire range of data from this poll you just shared. All it takes is a month of CNN's bullshit to change the tide, so that's dishonest. Should've waited another few months until you could make the same narrative with all of the data rather than just the range that suits your narrative.

its still trending less popular even if you include the first data point

which you are now trying to discount by emphasizing the oldest point of data
---

BLAKUboy posted...

And this will literally be the GOP's only accomplishment going into November. They will not have a fun midterms.

"Republicans are low information voters!!!111"
---

Without looking at the polling data that's obviously not showing what Vox wants it to, think about the premise for a second. "I'm pissed off that the government is stealing less of my income now!"
---

People are starting to realize how much of a scam this bill is.
---

Balrog0 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Note the dishonesty, kids. He basically has to cherrypick an incomplete range of the data in order to make the bullshit conclusion. When in reality, if you look at the full data you can see that disapproval dropped from 47% to 43%.

With approval increasing from 26% to 34%.

Given that trend, for all we know the remaining 24% who said they don't know could end up approving strongly or somewhat strongly the next time the poll is run. Along with more people from the Disapprove camp changing their mind.

The law is only becoming less popular if you purposely exclude the entire range of data from this poll you just shared. All it takes is a month of CNN's bullshit to change the tide, so that's dishonest. Should've waited another few months until you could make the same narrative with all of the data rather than just the range that suits your narrative.

its still trending less popular even if you include the first data point

which you are now trying to discount by emphasizing the oldest point of data

If we do the same thing Antifar is doing, and exclude the most recent data point, it's overwhelmingly trending towards more popular. We could just as easily exclude the recent data point as being an outlier given the previous trend from the rest of the data points, and it'd be no less bullshit than what Antifar is doing.

Ultimately there are so few data points that we need to take all of them into consideration if we want to know what the truth is. You're being dishonest if you think it's okay to lop off the first data point in an already limited set of data points. It's all recent data (less than a year old).
---

Fuparulez posted...

Without looking at the polling data that's obviously not showing what Vox wants it to, think about the premise for a second. "I'm pissed off that the government is stealing less of my income now!"

The riders are why I was against it. The tax cuts themselves were welcome. All the extra shit thrown in there was not.

Balrog0 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Note the dishonesty, kids. He basically has to cherrypick an incomplete range of the data in order to make the bullshit conclusion. When in reality, if you look at the full data you can see that disapproval dropped from 47% to 43%.

With approval increasing from 26% to 34%.

Given that trend, for all we know the remaining 24% who said they don't know could end up approving strongly or somewhat strongly the next time the poll is run. Along with more people from the Disapprove camp changing their mind.

The law is only becoming less popular if you purposely exclude the entire range of data from this poll you just shared. All it takes is a month of CNN's bullshit to change the tide, so that's dishonest. Should've waited another few months until you could make the same narrative with all of the data rather than just the range that suits your narrative.

its still trending less popular even if you include the first data point

which you are now trying to discount by emphasizing the oldest point of data

It looks like the new car smell wore off, but overall people are still happier under the new tax plan versus the old one.
---

Fuparulez posted...

Without looking at the polling data that's obviously not showing what Vox wants it to, think about the premise for a second. "I'm pissed off that the government is stealing less of my income now!"

I mean, I don't have much confidence in polling to begin with. Way too flaky a method. So I'm not currently arguing for the tax cuts on the basis of the poll, I'm just pointing out that the way the data is being represented was bullshit.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

If we do the same thing Antifar is doing, and exclude the most recent data point, it's overwhelmingly trending towards more popular. We could just as easily exclude the recent data point as being an outlier given the previous trend from the rest of the data points, and it'd be no less bullshit than what Antifar is doing.

I don't think that's true

Strongly approve 18% 20% 24% 13%
Somewhat approve 22% 21% 20% 13%
Somewhat disapprove 15% 16% 13% 12%
Strongly disapprove 29% 26% 31% 35%
(VOL) Dont know 16% 17% 13% 27%

after the first point of data:
strongly approve drops 6, slight approve up 2
strongly disapprove down 2, slightly disapprove up 2

it shows a big surge in popularity right after passage followed by a decline, particularly among those who strongly approve
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

No wonder susceptible naive CEmen without life experience are falling for this trash.

remember, there's always someone with more life experience than you.
---

It'll be interesting to see the approval ratings once the insurance premiums start to spike from the bill.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

If we do the same thing Antifar is doing

You know Antifar didn't write the vox article, right?
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

The data can be sliced around to show whatever you want it to show. With data so limited as this, the only meaningful thing you can do with it is to look at the entire range. Especially when you're trying to make an argument about what people in general are feeling NOW as opposed to THEN.

The data is clear. In December of 2017, 35% of the people who disapproved strongly disapproved. That number dropped to 24% in the most recent data point (and even more substantial drop to 16% in April if we were to cherrypick where we start measuring from)

Imagine if Breitbart published some bullshit about how substantially fewer people strongly disapprove of the tax cuts by using that date range and that single data point. Antifar and co would be foaming at the mouth.

As such, all we can do is say 1) What data do we have? 2) What range? 3) What does the data show over that range? It shows that total approvals went up, total disapprovals went down. Completely the opposite of what the topic title was telling the low information voters who fled the topic.

what we can say is that it surged in popularity after the vote and has faded since then, like I just said...
---

Balrog0 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

If we do the same thing Antifar is doing, and exclude the most recent data point, it's overwhelmingly trending towards more popular. We could just as easily exclude the recent data point as being an outlier given the previous trend from the rest of the data points, and it'd be no less bullshit than what Antifar is doing.

I don't think that's true

Strongly approve 18% 20% 24% 13%
Somewhat approve 22% 21% 20% 13%
Somewhat disapprove 15% 16% 13% 12%
Strongly disapprove 29% 26% 31% 35%
(VOL) Dont know 16% 17% 13% 27%

after the first point of data:
strongly approve drops 6, slight approve up 2
strongly disapprove down 2, slightly disapprove up 2

it shows a big surge in popularity right after passage followed by a decline, particularly among those who strongly approve

The data can be sliced around to show whatever you want it to show. With data so limited as this, the only meaningful thing you can do with it is to look at the entire range. Especially when you're trying to make an argument about what people in general are feeling NOW as opposed to THEN.

The data is clear. In December of 2017, 35% of the people who disapproved strongly disapproved. That number dropped to 27% in the most recent data point.

Imagine if Breitbart published some bullshit about how substantially fewer people strongly disapprove of the tax cuts by using that date range and that single data point. Antifar and co would be foaming at the mouth.

As such, all we can do is say 1) What data do we have? 2) What range? 3) What does the data show over that range? It shows that total approvals went up, total disapprovals went down. Completely the opposite of what the topic title was telling the low information voters who fled the topic.
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

No wonder susceptible naive CEmen without life experience are falling for this trash.

remember, there's always someone with more life experience than you.

Agreed 100%, but I still remember you and I Like Toast and others spanking me around a bit back when I was younger. You can spank people around and still remember that there's always someone with more life experience around.
---

BWLurker2 posted...

It'll be interesting to see the approval ratings once the insurance premiums start to spike from the bill.

Or once people realize that the money they saved just ended up being absorbed by increased gas prices and these tariffs
---

Anteaterking posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

If we do the same thing Antifar is doing

You know Antifar didn't write the vox article, right?

He didn't bother to fact check them either, but if it was a conservative think tank source you could bet your ass he'd be Let's Seeing What's On Twitter out the ass.

Balrog0 posted...

what we can say is that it surged in popularity after the vote and has faded since then, like I just said...

Nope. That's loaded language meant to convey a narrative, dude. All you can say is what the exact numbers are. It'd be like me saying "The number of Americans who strongly disapprove of the tax cuts has plummeted since December" by looking at just that single data point. It'd be biased.

All you can objectively say is "the net disapprovals have gone down. The net approvals have gone up."

His topic title might've been more accurate if he said "GOP tax cuts are becoming less popular at a slower rate than last month" but even that's an obvious attempt to shill for Vox lol
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

The data can be sliced around to show whatever you want it to show. With data so limited as this, the only meaningful thing you can do with it is to look at the entire range. Especially when you're trying to make an argument about what people in general are feeling NOW as opposed to THEN.

The data is clear. In December of 2017, 35% of the people who disapproved strongly disapproved. That number dropped to 27% in the most recent data point.

Imagine if Breitbart published some bullshit about how substantially fewer people strongly disapprove of the tax cuts by using that date range and that single data point. Antifar and co would be foaming at the mouth.

As such, all we can do is say 1) What data do we have? 2) What range? 3) What does the data show over that range? It shows that total approvals went up, total disapprovals went down. Completely the opposite of what the topic title was telling the low information voters who fled the topic.

seems like a pretty arbitrary set of rules

bold would be a fair point, but you're right people would get mad about it. it wouldn't make it incorrect.
---

Kinda seems like after a spike when it was released it had ossilations in a small range that with polls are pretty insignificant with polling margin errors (I assume)
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Nope. That's loaded language meant to convey a narrative, dude. All you can say is what the exact numbers are. It'd be like me saying "The number of Americans who strongly disapprove of the tax cuts has plummeted since December" by looking at just that single data point. It'd be biased.

All you can objectively say is "the net disapprovals have gone down. The net approvals have gone up."

seems like an arbitrary rule but okay
---

Balrog0 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

The data can be sliced around to show whatever you want it to show. With data so limited as this, the only meaningful thing you can do with it is to look at the entire range. Especially when you're trying to make an argument about what people in general are feeling NOW as opposed to THEN.

The data is clear. In December of 2017, 35% of the people who disapproved strongly disapproved. That number dropped to 27% in the most recent data point.

Imagine if Breitbart published some bullshit about how substantially fewer people strongly disapprove of the tax cuts by using that date range and that single data point. Antifar and co would be foaming at the mouth.

As such, all we can do is say 1) What data do we have? 2) What range? 3) What does the data show over that range? It shows that total approvals went up, total disapprovals went down. Completely the opposite of what the topic title was telling the low information voters who fled the topic.

seems like a pretty arbitrary set of rules

bold would be a fair point, but you're right people would get mad about it. it wouldn't make it incorrect.

It would be incorrect because it ignores the bigger picture of what the data shows, in favor of making a point that is technically true but completely irrelevant.

You wouldn't use this type of analysis of data when betting money or someone's life, because it doesn't show the full picture. It isn't worth shit.
---

Balrog0 posted...

seems like an arbitrary rule but okay

He's being pretty dishonest ITT
---

hey proudclad is this graph that shows visually the loaded narrative I said verbally also an example of a loaded narrative?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_republicans_tax_reform_law-6446.html#polls
---

Balrog0 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Nope. That's loaded language meant to convey a narrative, dude. All you can say is what the exact numbers are. It'd be like me saying "The number of Americans who strongly disapprove of the tax cuts has plummeted since December" by looking at just that single data point. It'd be biased.

All you can objectively say is "the net disapprovals have gone down. The net approvals have gone up."

seems like an arbitrary rule but okay

That's literally not arbitrary. It's objective. You're aware that politicians and pundits use loaded rhetoric to cling to narratives, right? And that is why data needs to be presented as carefully and objectively as possible.

This data doesn't actually show that fewer Americans support the tax cuts. It shows that more Americans support it. Anything more than that becomes interpretation of specific ranges of an already limited data set.

Here's an idea: We should just throw this data out entirely since it's garbage. Basing our worldview on polls is insanity.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

It would be incorrect because it ignores the bigger picture of what the data shows, in favor of making a point that is technically true but completely irrelevant.

You wouldn't use this type of analysis of data when betting money or someone's life, because it doesn't show the full picture. It isn't worth shit.

uuuuh what do you mean? if I'm analyzing data over a time period, then yeah I'm not going to just compare what happens at the beginning and the end, that would hide a lot of relevant information from me that could be useful in making my decision

I'm not just gonna look at the end points, why would you?
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

That's literally not arbitrary. It's objective. You're aware that politicians and pundits use loaded rhetoric to cling to narratives, right? And that is why data needs to be presented as carefully and objectively as possible.

This data doesn't actually show that fewer Americans support the tax cuts. It shows that more Americans support it. Anything more than that becomes interpretation of specific ranges of an already limited data set.

Here's an idea: We should just throw this data out entirely since it's garbage. Basing our worldview on polls is insanity.

I mean, it isn't any more objective than your example of a breitbart article, which I said would be correct and you said would not be

because I feel like you're trying to trojan horse a ton of other assumptions about objectivity rather than just looking at the numbers the way you're acting like you are
---

Balrog0 posted...

hey proudclad is this graph that shows visually the loaded narrative I said verbally also an example of a loaded narrative?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_republicans_tax_reform_law-6446.html#polls

Plot it if you want, and we can chat about it. That's a different topic in itself, though, as it's what you said. Not what TC said. I think my work here is done as far as Antifar's claims are concerned tho.
---

its already plotted
---

Balrog0 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

It would be incorrect because it ignores the bigger picture of what the data shows, in favor of making a point that is technically true but completely irrelevant.

You wouldn't use this type of analysis of data when betting money or someone's life, because it doesn't show the full picture. It isn't worth shit.

uuuuh what do you mean? if I'm analyzing data over a time period, then yeah I'm not going to just compare what happens at the beginning and the end, that would hide a lot of relevant information from me that could be useful in making my decision

I'm not just gonna look at the end points, why would you?

When answering the question of "are the tax cuts more popular or less popular" you do have to look at the entire range from December to now. Otherwise you're reporting on daily or weekly trends which is not worth mentioning to anyone who actually gives a damn.

You can theorize about what happened month to month in the data set if you want, but the topic isn't about how the tax cut popularity changed from April to June, dude.

Edit: The article does mention how one data point changed from April to June, but honest journalism includes the entire picture. This is dishonest journalism because it's trying to peddle a narrative, rather than the truth.
---

and even if you just look at monmouth's numbers it goes from -24 to +2 to -2 to -7

kind of demonstrating my loaded narrative
---

Balrog0 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

That's literally not arbitrary. It's objective. You're aware that politicians and pundits use loaded rhetoric to cling to narratives, right? And that is why data needs to be presented as carefully and objectively as possible.

This data doesn't actually show that fewer Americans support the tax cuts. It shows that more Americans support it. Anything more than that becomes interpretation of specific ranges of an already limited data set.

Here's an idea: We should just throw this data out entirely since it's garbage. Basing our worldview on polls is insanity.

I mean, it isn't any more objective than your example of a breitbart article, which I said would be correct and you said would not be

because I feel like you're trying to trojan horse a ton of other assumptions about objectivity rather than just looking at the numbers the way you're acting like you are

Breitbart's claim would be superficially correct, but no honest and well-to-do person would take such a claim seriously. I'm being 100% objective with the numbers. My only claim about the numbers is:

From December of 2017 to June of 2018, six months later, more people approve of the tax cuts and fewer people disapprove of the tax cuts.

Literally does not get more objective than that.
---

Balrog0 posted...

its already plotted

Ah, didn't load the graph the first time. Anyway, what is your point exactly? These numbers are along the same lines as what I said and not in favor of what Antifar said unless you're also going to cherrypick the date ranges that prove your point rather than look at the entire date range.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Breitbart's claim would be superficially correct, but no honest and well-to-do person would take such a claim seriously. I'm being 100% objective with the numbers. My only claim about the numbers is:

From December of 2017 to June of 2018, six months later, more people approve of the tax cuts and fewer people disapprove of the tax cuts.

Literally does not get more objective than that.

its also not incompatible with the fact that its getting less, rather than more, popular

I literally dont get your point, I'm not even trying to be obtuse. If a helicopter dropped $100 trillion dollars into the us treasury we would still be losing money tomorrow because we keep spending it. You're saying that would not true because the latest data point would show that we just made $100 trillion. I don't get the thinking except for in a very narrow sense
---