Trump slowly catches up to Hillary, 5 pts behind this week, latest polls say trump ahead 1 point. - Polidicks

[URL]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN1182PT[/URL] Trump catches up to Hillary, be it slowly, personally i think these 2 are going to fluctuate back and forth. Anyone think this is because of the Mexico meeting and the Hillary threatening Russia with war?

While there has been a downward trend for Clinton over the past few weeks, I think it's important to keep in mind that she got a huge bump about a month ago - this may just be the bump reversing, not a Trump net gain as such. Still I think this goes to show that the people calling this election for Clinton a few weeks ago should probably wait with their proclamations until election day. I must admit, though, that I have a hard time understanding half the voters getting behind the Trumpster. He's a piece of shit.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50994124]While there has been a downward trend for Clinton over the past few weeks, I think it's important to keep in mind that she got a huge bump about a month ago - this may just be the bump reversing, not a Trump net gain as such. Still I think this goes to show that the people calling this election for Clinton a few weeks ago should probably wait with their proclamations until election day. [/QUOTE] I agree, its too soon to call anything, they will fluctuate up and down a bit more i think, and while it would be reasonable to say trump is on average a bit behind in popularity, all he needs is to experience a bump while Hillary experiences a dip to win, same for vice versa... [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50994124]I must admit, though, that I have a hard time understanding half the voters getting behind the Trumpster. He's a piece of shit.[/QUOTE] The same logic applies to Hillary... people are tired to death of career politicians, especially people so blatantly corrupt and slippery concerning the law as Hillary... there is a strong minority of trump supporters that support trump just because they are mad as hell about Hillary dodging all responsibility and the law and chugging along while these massive corruption scandal's around her are revealed.

Is this the part where we start trusting polls again. [QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994095][URL]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN1182PT[/URL] Trump catches up to Hillary, be it slowly, personally i think these 2 are going to fluctuate back and forth. Anyone think this is because of the Mexico meeting and the Hillary threatening Russia with war?[/QUOTE] The Mexico meeting was meaningless as nothing happened and Hillary never threatened Russia with war. Like GoDong said, this is probably just the huge post-convention bump for Clinton and convention dip for Trump equalizing. [QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994151] The same logic applies to Hillary... people are tired to death of career politicians, especially people so blatantly corrupt and slippery concerning the law as Hillary... there is a strong minority of trump supporters that support trump just because they are mad as hell about Hillary dodging all responsibility and the law and chugging along while these massive corruption scandal's around her are revealed.[/QUOTE] What massive corruption scandals? [editline]3rd September 2016[/editline] Also, even if you believe that, I'd say that makes Clinton duplicitous more than anything. When people say Trump is a "piece of shit" it's because of his attitude and the things he says; making fun of the disabled, talking shit about military veterans, calling most illegal immigrants rapists etc. Clinton may be untrustworthy, but Trump is untrustworthy and acts like a jerk. Utterly un-presidential. Sad!.

Reuters' [url=http://www.reuters.com/statesofthenation/]State of the Nation forecast[/url], which I believe draws data from this poll, still gives Clinton a 95% chance of winning the election

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50994306]Is this the part where we start trusting polls again. The Mexico meeting was meaningless as nothing happened and Hillary never threatened Russia with war. Like GoDong said, this is probably just the huge post-convention bump for Clinton and convention dip for Trump equalizing. [/QUOTE] This is all possible, but saying the mexico thing was meaningless is just outright bullshit, trump had his best speech in months just after the mexico thing, and the fact that he and the mexican president actually seemed to have gotten along reasonably well will certainly not harm mexicans being on the fence (or should i say, on the wall? :godzing:) about him... [QUOTE=Raidyr;50994306]What massive corruption scandals?[/QUOTE] the predetermined democratic primaries with debbie, and once she got fired for that Hillary hires her on her campaign the same day. Not being illegal does not mean its not corruption, also there is the whole email scandal, first thought to be some kind of Benghazi bullshit, but its pretty clear she was just doing her stuff that way so she could hide her corruption. pay to play in her campaign donation also, she made a vow to no longer accept money from a foreign source for her campaign but that also means she at one point DID accept that money, and that is dodgy if not just illegal yet nothing happens. [editline]3rd September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=smurfy;50994337]Reuters' [URL="http://www.reuters.com/statesofthenation/"]State of the Nation forecast[/URL], which I believe draws data from this poll, still gives Clinton a 95% chance of winning the election[/QUOTE] A number that could change wildly if trump keeps up his gains and hillary keeps up her losses. again, for being so closely tied, you simply cant call the election just yet... we could find something like Clinton saying eagles are stupid that will make the American people go batshit and all vote trump any day, same for trump saying stuff that will make everyone go Hillary.

It's going to keep going back and forth until election day.

^ i dont know how anyone can see wednesday as anything but a flop. yes he was presidential infront of foreign press, but then hours later it came out he was meek and avoided actually discussing anything and then went on to double down on anti mexican rhetoric its getting rediculous that every single instance he does an about face everyone says "well NOW hes acting presidential" its not an act. you either are presidential or not, its not something you turn on when convieniant. if elected he will have to be the leader of the free world 24-7 for 4 years, its not a 8-5 job its a life. also pretty much every national poll on demographics has shown he hasnt expanded his base of voters any which is the more important numbers to look at and early voting begins in 22 days

[QUOTE=Sableye;50994368]^ i dont know how anyone can see wednesday as anything but a flop. yes he was presidential infront of foreign press, but then hours later it came out he was meek and avoided actually discussing anything and then went on to double down on anti mexican rhetoric its getting rediculous that every single instance he does an about face everyone says "well NOW hes acting presidential" its not an act. you either are presidential or not, its not something you turn on when convieniant. if elected he will have to be the leader of the free world 24-7 for 4 years, its not a 8-5 job its a life. also pretty much every national poll on demographics has shown he hasnt expanded his base of voters any which is the more important numbers to look at and early voting begins in 22 days[/QUOTE] 'being presidential' is what people say you arent when they dont agree with your brand of politics. Trump for example has a LOT in common with churchill, his no nonscense attitude, his bold statements he cant possibly keep up, his macho attitude concerning other nations... sometimes a bully president is what is needed. Not saying that time is now, but geeze, a president as corrupt as Hillary is never needed. Its a bullshit standard. There is an argument to be made for being composed and moderate, but neither candidates are that. [QUOTE=Sableye;50994368]if elected he will have to be the leader of the free world 24-7[/QUOTE] eum, there are other countries then the US, in fact more people live in europe then in the USA. This is just the US presidency election, not president of the free world...

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994339]This is all possible, but saying the mexico thing was meaningless is just outright bullshit, trump had his best speech in months just after the mexico thing, and the fact that he and the mexican president actually seemed to have gotten along reasonably well will certainly not harm mexicans being on the fence (or should i say, on the wall? :godzing:) about him... [/QUOTE] Okay was it the speech or the visit itself because I don't have polling data in front of me and could give you the speech but the visit did nothing for him. Him and the president got along because they only talked about things they agree on, which is that "cartels are bad and free trade needs to be fair", completely taking Trumps keystone policy off the table. Mexicans can't vote in American elections and if they could, they wouldn't vote for Trump. He needs to do better than "not harming" demographics he needs to win. [QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994339]the predetermined democratic primaries with debbie, and once she got fired for that Hillary hires her on her campaign the same day. [/QUOTE] DWS wasn't fired, she stepped down, probably because Hillary offered her a spot on her campaign team. [QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994339]Not being illegal does not mean its not corruption, also there is the whole email scandal, first thought to be some kind of Benghazi bullshit, but its pretty clear she was just doing her stuff that way so she could hide her corruption.[/QUOTE] So basically you have no proof of outright corruption. [QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994339]pay to play in her campaign donation also, she made a vow to no longer accept money from a foreign source for her campaign but that also means she at one point DID accept that money, and that is dodgy if not just illegal yet nothing happens.[/QUOTE] Source on pay to play? When did she vow to "no longer" take foreign contributions for her campaign? Can you prove she took foreign contributions ever?

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50994124]While there has been a downward trend for Clinton over the past few weeks, I think it's important to keep in mind that she got a huge bump about a month ago - this may just be the bump reversing, not a Trump net gain as such. [/QUOTE] Pretty much: [quote]harry: Wait a minute. He hasn’t really gained per se as much as Clinton has lost. natesilver: Yeah, exactly. Trump’s at 37.7 percent in our national polling average. Where was he three weeks ago? 37.8 percent. No change. Clinton’s declined some, though. I think what you see is her convention bounce wearing off, along with maybe a couple of very bad news cycles for Trump just after the convention given his comments about the Khan family. It’s not obvious that his “turnaround” has actually been successful per se.[/quote] [url]http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-immigration-chat/[/url] [QUOTE=King Tiger;50994353]It's going to keep going back and forth until election day.[/QUOTE] Back and forth implies that he'll be in front at any time between now and election day.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994412]'being presidential' is what people say you arent when they dont agree with your brand of politics. Trump for example has a LOT in common with churchill, his no nonscense attitude, his bold statements he cant possibly keep up, his macho attitude concerning other nations... sometimes a bully president is what is needed. Not saying that time is now, but geeze, a president as corrupt as Hillary is never needed.[/QUOTE] There are presidents with whom I disagree politically much more than Trump whom I would say are more presidential. It has less to do with policy and more to do with presentation Comparing Trump to Churchill is [I]potentially [/I]the dumbest thing I've read about this election so far. [QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994412]Its a bullshit standard. There is an argument to be made for being composed and moderate, but neither candidates are that.[/QUOTE] Clinton is by far the most moderate candidate this election are you serious. [QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994412]eum, there are other countries then the US, in fact more people live in europe then in the USA. This is just the US presidency election, not president of the free world...[/QUOTE] How have you not heard this expression.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50994427]Okay was it the speech or the visit itself because I don't have polling data in front of me and could give you the speech but the visit did nothing for him. Him and the president got along because they only talked about things they agree on, which is that "cartels are bad and free trade needs to be fair", completely taking Trumps keystone policy off the table. Mexicans can't vote in American elections and if they could, they wouldn't vote for Trump. He needs to do better than "not harming" demographics he needs to win. [/QUOTE] the speech is about the visit, i mean i was technically talking about both but sure, my point is it didn't harm him and gave his appearance a bit more presidential glamour. to deny that is just being dogmatic imo... [QUOTE=Raidyr;50994427] DWS wasn't fired, she stepped down, probably because Hillary offered her a spot on her campaign team. [/QUOTE] because the heat on her became too much after the corruption with the made primary was revealed. She left the honour to herself, but her position was unsustainable either way, her successor was already chosen before she announced internally to step down, meaning she was going either way... Most likely she was offered the job if she resigned herself, or would have been sacked if she did not take the appeasement. James Carville, a top adviser for the clintons said it best... “In politics, you need to not only know when to draw your sword, but also when to fall on it.” in response to Debbie resigning. [QUOTE=Raidyr;50994427] So basically you have no proof of outright corruption. [/QUOTE] What are you talking about? the emails concerning her and hillaries campaign conspiring on how to rig the elections and how to synchronise strategy to keep Bernie out of the game are public record... so are the emails concerning her being contacted by foreign entities that donated to her campaign and wanting something in return. [URL="http://16004-presscdn-0-50.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/dnc-document-release-pay-for-play-575x432.jpg"]one example from the clinton email leaks;[/URL] [QUOTE=Raidyr;50994427] Source on pay to play? When did she vow to "no longer" take foreign contributions for her campaign? Can you prove she took foreign contributions ever?[/QUOTE] [URL]http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/18/politics/clinton-foundation-says-it-wont-accept-corporate-or-foreign-donations-if-clinton-wins/[/URL] Since the Clinton foundation is one of the big donators to her campaign, you are essentially using it as a white washing practice to donate to hillary with foreign money. Especially taking into account Hillary and bill until recently were the driving force behind the Clinton foundation, now their daughter is the vice chair. I mean All Capone's white washing practices were more obscure... then again this is all "legal" in the USA now, while some of it wasn't legal when All Capone's was a thing. [B]Doesn't mean its not corruption if its legal. You look like an ostrich atm.[/B]

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994151]The same logic applies to Hillary... people are tired to death of career politicians, especially people so blatantly corrupt and slippery concerning the law as Hillary... [/QUOTE] Last time voters were in that mind set, we got Jimmy Carter.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994412]'being presidential' is what people say you arent when they dont agree with your brand of politics.[/quote] Or the established status quo of US presidents' conduct up to now. [quote]Trump for example has a LOT in common with churchill,[/quote] True, he is fairly racist, and under his leadership millions could starve to death. [quote]o nonscense attitude, his bold statements he cant possibly keep up, his macho attitude concerning other nations... sometimes a bully president is what is needed. [/quote] It seems to me that the US fared fine through the Great Depression and WW2 under FDR and managed to survive the ACW under Lincoln. Hardly macho men, either of them. This appeal to the ideal of a war-time leader (even though it's not universally true!) explains why the proponents of strongman politics in Europe relentlessly appeal to the idea that we're being under attack or invaded all the time. It's the desire for institutionalized bullying. We have issues? How about we work together and solve them gradually and through great comp-- TRAITORS! THE WALL JUST GOT 10 FEET HIGHER. Your rhetoric is indistinguishable from the Golden Dawn. [quote]Its a bullshit standard. There is an argument to be made for being composed and moderate, but neither candidates are that.[/quote] As much as a piece of shit Clinton is, how is she not composed or moderate? [quote]eum, there are other countries then the US, in fact more people live in europe then in the USA. This is just the US presidency election, not president of the free world...[/QUOTE] The president of the US is absolutely the de facto leader of the West right now. All Europe has compared to the US is a disjointed union of small countries and an inflated sense of ego.

You won't be able to predict this until late October - and even then, a sudden terrorist attack or health issue or any other major scandal could easily flip things around in the last few weeks or days. But based on the current polling, so long as Trump keeps his mouth wide open, I can't see a reality where Hillary loses. Once the debates hit we'll see, though - Trump's loud, offensive and rash behavior will turn off more people than it'll gain, and if he tries to turn it off and go PC and nice to appeal to a wider base, he sounds like he's reading off a piece of paper (see his speech in Mexico). I'd actually rather Trump keep it close in the polls - it'll motivate Hillary supporters to actually go out and vote instead of thinking "eh she'll win I'll watch Netflix instead." Apathy can mean loss when it's a close election, so the closer Trump is, the better turnout Hillary will get.

Trump has to up his game if he wants to win, his shit worked in the primaries where he only had to appeal to republican voters but now Hillary toppling him because he hasn't really changed his strategy and his weak points are becoming increasingly obvious.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994412]'being presidential' is what people say you arent when they dont agree with your brand of politics. Trump for example has a LOT in common with churchill, his no nonscense attitude, his bold statements he cant possibly keep up, his macho attitude concerning other nations... sometimes a bully president is what is needed. Not saying that time is now, but geeze, a president as corrupt as Hillary is never needed.[/QUOTE] Churchill. You're comparing Trump to Churchill. No, unlike Trump, Churchill's attitude and plans were backed by his long career as a Colonel in the British Army, having experienced combat first hand, as well as his nearly 40 years of experience in politics before his first tenure as Prime Minister, people didn't listen to him because he "said what everyone was thinking" or whatever the fuck it is you think Trump does. Churchill's not an anti-intellectual, nor a bully, he's a Nobel Laureate in Literature for fuck's sake. This right here is the Trump delusion. He's not, and he never will be, like Churchill.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994520]the speech is about the visit, i mean i was technically talking about both but sure, my point is it didn't harm him and gave his appearance a bit more presidential glamour. to deny that is just being dogmatic imo...[/QUOTE] Yeah sure, Trump said something and his poll numbers didn't go down. Good for him I guess. [QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994520]because the heat on her became too much after the corruption with the made primary was revealed.[/QUOTE] What corruption? [QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994520]She left the honour to herself, but her position was unsustainable either way, her successor was already chosen before she announced internally to step down, meaning she was going either way... Most likely she was offered the job if she resigned herself, or would have been sacked if she did not take the appeasement. James Carville, a top adviser for the clintons said it best... “In politics, you need to not only know when to draw your sword, but also when to fall on it.” in response to Debbie resigning.[/QUOTE] She wouldn't have been sacked. Other than that yes this is a lot more accurate than saying that she was fired. [QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994520]What are you talking about? the emails concerning her and hillaries campaign conspiring on how to rig the elections and how to synchronise strategy to keep Bernie out of the game are public record... so are the emails concerning her being contacted by foreign entities that donated to her campaign and wanting something in return. [URL="http://16004-presscdn-0-50.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/dnc-document-release-pay-for-play-575x432.jpg"]one example from the clinton email leaks;[/URL][/QUOTE] The "Pay to Play" email is one staffer making sure another one knows to follow [URL="https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/pay-to-play-faq.htm"]SEC regulations[/URL] regarding the unfortunately named "Pay to play" law. Basically, you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. [QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994520][URL]http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/18/politics/clinton-foundation-says-it-wont-accept-corporate-or-foreign-donations-if-clinton-wins/[/URL][/QUOTE] Okay. So you say "Clinton said she will no longer accept foreign donations, that means she DID accept foreign donations! Illegal! Sad!" Then when I ask for proof You link an article about the Clinton Foundation Do you see why we might disagree on some things? [QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994520]Since the Clinton foundation is one of the big donators to her campaign, you are essentially using it as a white washing practice to donate to hillary with foreign money.[/QUOTE] Evidence for both these claims? [QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994520]Especially taking into account Hillary and bill until recently were the driving force behind the Clinton foundation, now their daughter is the vice chair. I mean All Capone's white washing practices were more obscure... then again this is all "legal" in the USA now, while some of it wasn't legal when All Capone's was a thing.[/QUOTE] What. [QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994520]Doesn't mean its not corruption if its legal. [/QUOTE] It does, however, mean it's not corruption if you can't explain why it isn't corruption. [QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994520]You look like an ostrich atm.[/QUOTE] And you look like someone who makes claims they can't back up with startling frequency.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50994658] I'd actually rather Trump keep it close in the polls - it'll motivate Hillary supporters to actually go out and vote instead of thinking "eh she'll win I'll watch Netflix instead." Apathy can mean loss when it's a close election, so the closer Trump is, the better turnout Hillary will get.[/QUOTE] But the shitposters told me the polls are skewed to make Clinton's lead look bigger than it is which will help her win!

It always surprises me to see people think they can actually get through to Blizzerd. [editline]oh hamburgers[/editline] [QUOTE=Cructo;50994715]One of Trump's objectives is to get the economy back on track. Do you think his past experience does not count for anything?[/QUOTE] "Get the economy back on track" has been the objective of literally every single presidential nominee who lived in a time of anything other than economic perfection.

[QUOTE=phaedon;50994627]Or the established status quo of US presidents' conduct up to now. True, he is fairly racist, and under his leadership millions could starve to death. It seems to me that the US fared fine through the Great Depression and WW2 under FDR and managed to survive the ACW under Lincoln. Hardly macho men, either of them. This appeal to the ideal of a war-time leader (even though it's not universally true!) explains why the proponents of strongman politics in Europe relentlessly appeal to the idea that we're being under attack or invaded all the time. It's the desire for institutionalized bullying. We have issues? How about we work together and solve them gradually and through great comp-- TRAITORS! THE WALL JUST GOT 10 FEET HIGHER.[/QUOTE] No issue here, sounds like you know your stuff [QUOTE=phaedon;50994627]Your rhetoric is indistinguishable from the Golden Dawn.[/QUOTE] Its not my rhetoric, Its the political system as it is, not as i want it to be. [QUOTE=phaedon;50994627] As much as a piece of shit Clinton is, how is she not composed or moderate? [/QUOTE] She threatened military action to Russia over "suspected" (although probable) Russian involvement in hacking her [B]private email[/B] account. let that sink in... Also she has threatened at least 2 more nations, Iran and Syria, with war on the[B] singular condition that she would be elected president[/B]. Trump is a bully and has made clear he is not dirty of a war or 2, but Hillary [B]outright said it[/B]. If she is supposed to be the 'composed and moderate' candidate, we should fear the factuality of those claims even more then trumps huffing and puffing. [video=youtube;lheYKeQ4Nmo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lheYKeQ4Nmo[/video] [QUOTE=phaedon;50994627] The president of the US is absolutely the de facto leader of the West right now. All Europe has compared to the US is a disjointed union of small countries and an inflated sense of ego.[/QUOTE] This is why the TTip agreements and agreements like it, spearheaded by US politicians like obama and hillary went through without a hitch. I wont deny the US president is the single most powerful person in the west, but by far are they "the leader of the free world" or anything like it. Thats just preposterous American exceptionalism, the singular cause of most US foreign policy disasters. American exceptionalism is claiming your nations people are better then others, you are basically saying your people are [I]above [/I]everyone else. People who believe that dont belong in power or you get stuff like ww2.

[QUOTE=Cructo;50994715]One of Trump's objectives is to get the economy back on track. Do you think his past experience does not count for anything?[/QUOTE] No, being rich off daddy's inheritance, running a shit reality TV show and also bankrupting himself multiple times doesn't count for anything. Besides, why would you Americans want a businessman in charge of your economy in the first place? The business elite are the reason you have terrible income inequality and tons of services are fucked.

[QUOTE=Cructo;50994715]One of Trump's objectives is to get the economy back on track. Do you think his past experience does not count for anything?[/QUOTE] Policies which gut the existing networks and cost more than 10 trillion dollars over 20 years, increasing the national debt by 80%, and cutting insurance and medical access off from the poorest parts of the American population, in addition to spending billions on essentially pipe dreams, and this after he shatters existing trade agreements, isn't going to do anything for getting the economy on track. It'll shatter it past recovery instead.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50994733] She threatened military action to Russia over "suspected" (although probable) Russian involvement in hacking her [B]private email[/B] account.[/QUOTE] This is a lie. [editline]3rd September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Rossy167;50994742]The business elite are the reason you have terrible income inequality and tons of services are fucked.[/QUOTE] Which is fucking amazing because he is the anti-establishment candidate. The guy who represents the 1% and corporate interests directly, the guy who donated massively to the Democrats.

[QUOTE=Cructo;50994796]Uh, no shit? It would be very hard for someone who doesn't want to fix the economy to run for president. They have this same objective but different approaches to the problem.[/QUOTE] Then what was the point of your post, other than deflecting from the point being made that comparing Trump to Churchill is ludicrous.

[QUOTE=Cructo;50994796]Uh, no shit? It would be very hard for someone who doesn't want to fix the economy to run for president. They have this same objective but different approaches to the problem.[/QUOTE] Except every person with half a brain who analyzed his proposed policies have unequivocally said he will ruin America's economy, and probably send shockwaves through the world economy too. Unless we see another Brexit-like scenario where the people mistrust the experts (who actually know what they're talking about) Trump isn't going to get elected. All he has to do to sink his campaign is keep talking nonsense.

Someone have a link to the poll that had Clinton/Trump tied within statistical means, but then this week showed Clinton +11

[QUOTE=Cructo;50994796]Uh, no shit? It would be very hard for someone who doesn't want to fix the economy to run for president. They have this same objective but different approaches to the problem.[/QUOTE] I'm glad we're in agreement that your post had no fucking point.

[QUOTE=Cructo;50994841]That is completely normal. People who defend Hillary will attack Trump and people who defend Trump will attack Hillary. That's just how politics work[/QUOTE] Except, many of the people who are supporting Hillary wouldn't support her if they actually had any other choice. If Berniebro had become the nominee, they would be 100% behind him. When your choice is two turds, you choose the shiniest one in the hope nothing gets fucked up. If Trump gets elected, I guarantee you that those who supported him with their votes will be the first to suffer from his policies. Rhetoric can carry you only so far, and once people see that said rhetoric has had bad consequences for them, there's going to be trouble.