WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of hate groups operating in the United States rose 7 percent to an all-time high last year, the Southern Poverty Law Center said on Wednesday, attributing the increase largely to anti-immigrant rhetoric from President Donald Trump.
The SPLC, which has tracked hate groups since 1971, found there were 1,020 operating in the United States in 2018, breaking the 1,018 record set in 2011. It marked the fourth consecutive year of growth.
The group blamed Trump, whose administration has focused on reducing illegal and legal immigration into the United States.
"The words and imagery coming out of the Trump administration and from Trump himself are heightening these fears," Heidi Beirich, director of the SPLC's Intelligence Project, told reporters on a conference call. "These images of foreign scary invaders threatening diseases, massive refugee caravans coming from the south. This is fear-mongering."
Have you seen the SPLC definition of Hate Groups?
Have you seen the SPLC definition of Hate Groups?
Yes I have. Have you?
The SPLC defines hate groups as those that "... have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics. The SPLC states that: "Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing." The SPLC adds that "Listing here does not imply that a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity".[
In all fairness, much of the rise in hate groups occured in the Obama years, which is not surprising.
exactly carl. if you held a meeting, made speech, went to a rally, and were waiting on your bus on the steps of the capitol your offense was that you were white and wore a hat.
Not disputing the numbers but its interesting how they choose to spin the facts.
"The SPLC, which has tracked hate groups since 1971, found there were 1,020 operating in the United States in 2018, breaking the 1,018 record set in 2011. It marked the fourth consecutive year of growth."
So 2 more hate groups since the previous record was set during the Obama administration, 7 years ago.
Using that stat, we get an increase of .002% in the past 7 years. This is a statistical tie.
They state that this contrasts with 3 consecutive years of a decline during Obama's administration. WOW! How dishonest can you get(look at the graph from the link below)......... to get that number, you have to look only at a 3 year period from 2011 to 2014 and ignore the other years. Hate groups were up in Obama's first few years, when they hit the previous high of 1,018, then from 2014 to 2016, they were up again.
Granted, there is no question that white nationalist groups have in fact increased during the Trump presidency.
But much of it is for the opposite reason that most espouse to it.
These groups are now getting more attention than ever before in the history of our country but not because of Trump...........because the mainstream media, looking to destroy Trump has connected him with antisemitism, racism, Nazism, xenophobia and so on. The media, in their biased wisdom has attached this to being part of the Trump agenda to discredit him...........which is completely false/fake.
However, what the media reports, does effect many people who believe what they say.
This has injected new energy into those movements. In todays politics, people adopt positions based on who they support................ or the opposite of what the other side supports.
We should condemn these despicable groups at every opportunity but please media, stop empowering them with your attaching them and their despicable beliefs/acts with our president. This validates them because the president is about making America great again and has some great ideas(whether you like him or not). If you try to convince everybody that being a white nationalist goes along with this...............guess what will happen to white nationalism?
"In all fairness, much of the rise in hate groups occurred in the Obama years, which is not surprising."
This is a good point about the numbers already being high during Obama's presidency.
Actually Carl, if you look at the graph, hate groups increased by the greatest amount.........by a wide margin during the Bush #2 years.......going up steadily, almost every year and almost doubling. Actually, the biggest % increase occurred the year PRIOR to Bush being elected..........when Clinton was still in office.
At the moment, the specific reason for this does not seem clear, other than divisive politics and people becoming more extreme in their views..........but then, why has this been occurring for 2 decades?
Personally, I think the politicians and media have everything to do with it. Good journalism has been tainted with political activism, which is blatant in some realms. Our elected officials take one sided stands, with "lines in the sand" I'm right and the other side is wrong and those who affiliate with one side, have an allegiance to their party and its positions. This has caused a massive growth in divisiveness and is conditioning out peoples ability to see things from other peoples point of view.
Seriously, the gate keepers of information that we get are conditioning out our ability to see the other side as we gravitate to sources that tell everything the way that we want to hear or read about it..............and those sources know that this is how to hit the jack pot with ratings/sales...........sensationalize and tell one sided versions that sell and in many cases, use narratives that dial in their personal views............which are also becoming less objective in the media.
Unfortunately the graph from this link won't cut/paste here.
stupid question:.... is the MSM a hate group, according to these definitions?
"is the MSM a hate group, according to these definitions?"
No more so than Trump's Cabinet.
Going beyond the definition they use is the application of that definition. Its pretty easy to make the llist, with the notable exception of ANTIFA. They do include the American College of Peditricians for opposing adoption by LGQTP. So we have a group who feels that ANTIFA is just swell but those damned pediatricians.
That's just one example of many absurdities you'll find while perusing their list.
"stupid question:.... is the MSM a hate group, according to these definitions?"
No, profound question by you.
The mainstream media has more control over people than any other entity.
Mueller recognized that, for instance when he invited CNN to record the Stone arrest, knowing how powerful it would be when CNN broadcast it with the pro Mueller, anti Stone narrative.
Some of these hate groups listed at the link that Tim provided really are serious hate groups(some are questionable).
But some of these hate groups have very little influence on others and are like birds of a feather............they hang out with each other in their small world and share sad hate filled ideas with people just like them...........while the rest of the world shuns/ignores them(until the MSM gives them massive attention).
But let's take CNN because I watch, probably 1-2 hours of them every week(I'm not watching to get authentic news, I seriously watch to see how crazy they will get when spinning Trump hating stories, then tell my wife and we laugh about it).
But CNN has millions of people that believe every bit of this round the clock, Trump hating propaganda.
I would bet that if there were a metric called "hatred created" which measured only the hate an entity created in people for another person/people and added it up for all the people that were affected, CNN would blow away the hatred created by all the other hate groups added up the last 2 years.
This doesn't compare to racism or white supremacists with regards to the disgusting mindset..........but when you have a multiplier in the millions, your power to increase hate is monumentally magnified.
It causes some people to think like Jessie Smallett for instance(not saying he got the idea from CNN).
Some people in the media, on certain topics(Trump) will twist the facts or spin the story, often using wild speculation and distorted context but presenting it as reasonable....to fit a narrative to the story they want to tell.
This has become common enough so that its now an accepted practice.
What is that practice?
It's called manipulating people to believe something that you want them to believe using clever/convincing tactics that tell a compelling story".
The objective is not to discover the objective truth. It's to win them over to your side using any method possible.
That's how most people in this country are in today's world. They will jump thru hoops and do back flips to convince you that they are right but won't take a few minutes to seriously contemplate the possibility that they might be dead wrong.
Smallett went to an extreme with his tactics but CNN does this all day long with their Trump stories. These stories are created to manipulate an aspect of how we view things for a selfish motive of the author(s) that contrive(s) the story.
"That's how most people in this country are in today's world. They will jump thru hoops and do back flips to convince you that they are right but won't take a few minutes to seriously contemplate the possibility that they might be dead wrong."
metmike. No malice intended, but are you sure you're not now like "most people" when it comes to Trump?
Mike/ There is no doubt that many on the list deserve attention and concern. But I feel there are many that don't. And ANTIFA not on the list? Please....
"Mueller recognized that, for instance when he invited CNN to record the Stone arrest, knowing how powerful it would be when CNN broadcast it with the pro Mueller, anti Stone narrative. "
Mike, as written, that statement implies that Mueller personally leaked. or had a staff member, leak the arrest. You have not a shred of proof that Mueller was involved.
Why for heaven sake would anyone pick CNN, when CBS, NBC, and ABC all have a much bigger audience?
"No malice intended, but are you sure you're not now like "most people" when it comes to Trump?"
No offense taken. I respect your opinions and you a great deal.
I look at the world using the eyes of a scientist......applying the scientific method whenever possible........with facts/data to form opinions.
I try to look for reasons why I might be wrong as much as right.
Since you are suggesting otherwise, I look forward to hearing why(while taking your opinion serious and looking for an opportunity to change anything that isn't objective) along with any examples that you might have.
My best guess is that your tainted view, like most people gives you the impression that somebody that takes a position against you on something, must be on the other side.
I am on the side of what I see is the objective truth but am wrong sometimes.
I like it when finding out about being wrong or biased because it means I just learned something.
Since you brought it up, comments by YOU suggest to me that you have a bias here(assuming that I might be somebody with BBTCS syndrome as you called it), which might be affecting how you see my interpretations.
pj: "takes the word of you know who, over McCabe's, is suffering from a sever case of BBTCS (Blinded By The Clown Syndrome)"
"Mike, as written, that statement implies that Mueller personally leaked. or had a staff member, leak the arrest. You have not a shred of proof that Mueller was involved.
Why for heaven sake would anyone pick CNN, when CBS, NBC, and ABC all have a much bigger audience?"
I guess you forgot or did not see my response to you the first time you said this:
By carlberky - Feb. 1, 2019, 1:50 p.m.
IMHO, if they wanted to tip off someone about the raid, they would have picked NBC, CBS, or ABC for much greater coverage.
By metmike - Feb. 1, 2019, 2:18 p.m.
"I was thinking the exact opposite carl but its just my opinion.
I watch 3 stations for news.
Mainly CNN and FOX in the evenings, flipping back and forth and ABC nightly news at 5:30-6pm. I bash CNN here all the time and its because I actually watch them to hear what they are saying/showing(I dont just go to the station that tells me what I want to hear, which Fox would be more likely to do)
Obviously they would never pick Fox. If they picked one of the other networks, it would show up in their nightly news with maybe a 2 minute story and follow up. Other stations would likely cover it too, like they have.
CNN already does wall to wall, around the clock anti Trump news, every day of the year. By a wide margin, getting CNN the scoup maximized the coverage. Now it can be on the station most likely to put the right spin on it and will broadcast it frequently as part of their anti Trump stuff 24 hours a day."
With regards to not having a shred of proof, I laid out the facts here around half a dozen times.
I don't have a taped phone conversation, no but the facts as outlined previously say with 100% certainty that normal protocol was violated.
I'll review again for you.
1. It can't be disputed that CNN was right there with the FBI or they wouldn't have the video footage from that vantage point.
2. The court order against Stone has apparently taken the Stone house camera footage of CNN and the FBI interacting before hand off the air but that doesn't matter because of #1.
3. The chances of CNN having this powerful reporter "instinct" as their guy described it, that caused them(and nobody else) to know to travel to this location from out of town and be there 1 hour before the bust is not zero. I can guess it's something like a 1% chance of being true........being generous.
4. The chance of them being there and not having Muellers team give them special permission that made a huge exception and violated protocol of every other case in history like this that I know about is exactly zero.
5. Every resident on the street was told they could not even be outside of their houses. The entire street was blocked off and nobody but the FBI and others connected to the arrest were allowed there.........as is always the case when you have 2 dozen heavily armed agents arresting some body. Everybody that is, except for CNN that was right there mingling with the heavily armed FBI agents.
6. I worked in broadcast television for 11 years and we met every year with different police agencies, state, county and city and from 2 different states to discuss protocol. They weren't the FBI or federal law enforcement of course but no way, no how would CNN have been allowed to be there unless the Mueller team wanted them to be there and made a huge exception to any protocol or situation that I've ever heard about or seen.
... Every time President Trump breathes there is a new
progressive hate group born immediately ...
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ...
I was thinking more about the Jessie S situation and it occurred to me that the MSM is exactly responsible.
He knew how it would generate national attention and be reported as a hate crime with him as the victim over and over...........because of the racist, anti gay guys yelling "this is MAGA country" attacking him.
This was the perfect story, with him as the victim and evil Trump supporters as the perpetrators.
He was exactly right. His friend, Don Lemmon from CNN, not surprisingly is twisting this into stating that Fox News's Shawn Hannity is going to use this event to "eat his lunch" and treat him unfairly for what he did.
If I am having a bias here, I would be mucho grateful to you in showing me.
If I am having a bias here, I would be mucho grateful to you in showing me."
I know it's your forum and you a fully within your rights to make all the rules. But it's seeing your lengthy defense of what seems everything Trump. Plus your taking umbrage (perhaps quite rightly so) of Trump being called a Nazi, but not seeming to be upset when Liberals are called Communists. Well it just left me wondering whether you could (still)
really entertain the possibility that you could be dead wrong about Trump. Or if not dead wrong that at least some of the negative things being said about him could possibly turn out to be true.
Pj , do you really think it is fair to say metmike defends "everything" Trump? Metmike is a family man from the Midwest with moral clarity. If its true that Trump can be a cad, which is the case, or was earlier in his life, few would defend that and metmike especially would be offended. Metmike, Tim and others on a regular basis state there are many unpleasant things about Trump they will not defend however they will defend the unfair treatment and the unprofessional job the so called reporters are doing in the MSM's of today's world
Ie. If Trump is a racist why does he push policies that have given us all time black employment? If Trump hates women why does he push policies that have given us all time numbers of women employed. If Trump is a homophobe why did he just hire Richard Grinell to front one of the largest measures by any President to fight unjust treatment of gays? Say what you will about Trump, he seems to get stuff done.
I always relish opportunities to be transparent and show evidence.
pj: "Plus your taking umbrage (perhaps quite rightly so) of Trump being called a Nazi, but not seeming to be upset when Liberals are called Communists."
Glad that I didn't delete this 1` as planned yesterday.
I have also deleted several of Tim and mcfarms posts.......but they were deleted so they don't exist anymore. I have deleted a dozen of silverspikers posts because of crazy stuff.
pj: "really entertain the possibility that you could be dead wrong about Trump. Or if not dead wrong that at least some of the negative things being said about him could possibly turn out to be true."
You continue to look at this as a "never Trump" and "Trump forever" battle between 2 sides. I am only seeking the truth with facts and very often, Trump doesn't even come up in my posts.......but the other side(you) ASSUMES that I'm defending Trump because you don't like the facts that I present.
For instance, your post last week on McCabe:
pj: "all I can say is that anyone believes he fabricated his version of events, takes the word of you know who, over McCabe's, is suffering from a sever case of BBTCS (Blinded By The Clown Syndrome). And yes I say this even though Mccabe has admitted to lying to investigators about his "leak".
1. You will note that in my very lengthy responses to you that I never mention Trump. I didn't care about Trump. I was just showing you corruption/political bias in the justice department from 5 different people. Who cares what Trump says on that....not me.
2. Scroll up in this thread to read my discussion on the Stone arrest. There is a heated debate on this issue on whether Stone is innocent and if he's protecting Trump or not......from alot of people but not me. metmike, has no idea whether Stone is guilty or innocent and I don't really care anyway........I have no facts on this. However, after working in television for 11 years, I know a few things about that business and I share the facts and my views with regards to what happened that led to CNN being there to record the arrest.
When the democratic side takes a position that rings true to me..............I am quick to agree with it.
Here are some examples from just this week:
pj: "I know it's your forum and you a fully within your rights to make all the rules. But it's seeing your lengthy defense of what seems everything Trump."
I look at this as being "your" forum and I am only here to serve you. I am doing my best to be objective and transparent but continue to welcome criticisms like yours. I would ask one big favor though. As I originally requested, "with any examples that you might have."
I would appreciate the examples because without them, I can't understant what and where I'm being biased and it's important for me to know please.
Mike, thanks for your answer. An anonymous call to all the networks, including Fox, would have achieved a far greater response. If you want to claim that Meuller's team was responsible for a leak, be my guest, but to state that Meuller was personally responsible is to equate Trump to being responsible for WH leaks.
Pretend this has nothing to do with Trump then look again at the obvious, indisputable fact. It's not that CNN knew about the bust........which a tipster could have told them about. It's the fact that they were allowed to have a front row seat to record the event.
All neighbors had to go inside their houses, the street blocked off to all traffic except the FBI."..this is protocol.
Having 2 dozen heavily armed cops going in there, along with additional support from vehicles. In what universe do you think that a tv station can just show up and be right there with the cops to record this?
This is not "cops" or Bad Boys" or cop shows with actors made for entertainment. This was for real. I'm telling you with 100% certainty that CNN or anybody else could not have been there mingling with the cops and having an ideal spot to record the event unless the Mueller team wanted them there.
Find me another example like this where it was not approved without special arrangements between the FBI/cops and tv crew.
What if somebody had tipped off Half a dozen tv crews before hand?
The FBI would have had a hard time maneuvering from them all there. Is there a special rule that allows access to the first station that gets there early and the others have to stay behind?
No, because none of them are allowed to be there for that reason. Only specifically authorized entities can be right there for the arrest and tv stations are never on that list..........unless they made an exception to the well known protocol for CNN, well before hand.
Mike, what it's all about, as far as I'm cncerned, is your statement impling that Mueller personally leaked. or had a staff member, leak the arrest.
"Mueller recognized that, for instance when he invited CNN to record the Stone arrest, knowing how powerful it would be when CNN broadcast it with the pro Mueller, anti Stone narrative. "
metmike: I'm trying hard to hear you. It could well be my POV, but what seems missing for me is any acknowledgment that Trump's vitriol against anyone who disagrees with him, the lies he unabashedly tells...I could go on about the way he acts that makes him a "cad"... is in any way responsible for how he is treated by the media and others that oppose him. In an ideal world the media would be completely unbiased, it hasn't been that way for a long time, not during Clinton, W or Obama. It's just that that Trump has managed, to escalate the exercise to a whole new level and in addition to his constant inflammatory tweets, I believe it's due in no small part to his claim that every piece of information that doesn't back his position, anything he doesn't want to hear, is "fake news".
I absolutely believe you are trying to be even handed. But with your position what appears to be so ardently in the Trump camp, it must be hard. And since you didn't address it directly, I'm still wondering weather you could really entertain the possibility that you could be dead wrong about Trump. I'll never for get how I felt when the Nixon detractors turned out to right about him.
BTW as someone who's always be right of center on most issues, what scares me the most about Trump is what we may well get next, due to the revulsion of what appears to be the majority have for him.
"If Trump is a racist why does he push policies that have given us all time black employment? If Trump hates women why does he push policies that have given us all time numbers of women employed."
mcfarm, You're not going to sit there and tell me Trump's motivation for the tax cuts was in anyway to help blacks. I agree that tax cuts helped the economy and created jobs and jobs for blacks. But it still remains to be seen how ballooning the deficit will play out. And if women believed that his policies were aimed at helping them, why does the vast majority of women detest him?
Ballooning the deficit? Please elaborate.
metmike: I'm trying hard to hear you. It could well be my POV, but "what seems missing for me is any acknowledgment that Trump's vitriol against anyone who disagrees with him, the lies he unabashedly tells...I could go on about the way he acts that makes him a "cad"
I agree 100% pj, when have I ever stated otherwise? Please show me.
You are hearing what you want to hear pj and I'm sure you don't realize it.
Last year and earlier this year, I spent a great deal of time discussing Trumps negative personality traits and many flaws and how I detest them.............which is an opinion but support most of his policies. Now, I try to just stick to the facts as they relate to policies/agenda, truth and whats best for America, very often, my points are independent of Trump, like in many recent posts...............where you apparently see it as being a pro Trump post. I am just stating facts and truth. If it lines up against the anti Trump side, then it lines up against the anti Trump side. I am not stating facts and truth to support Trump. I state them because they are authentic, independent of politics.
I gave you numerous examples of me going after the side that you think I favor and examples of me supporting the side that you think that I treat unfairly. For the 3rd time, I'm asking you to provide examples of what you are saying may be an issue with me, as you stated "your position what appears to be so ardently in the Trump camp" "weather you could really entertain the possibility that you could be dead wrong about Trump"
Vague assertions, with nothing to back it up, when it appears to me that YOU are completely misinterpreting many statements of mine will not help me clear up your confusion. You must provide examples if you want this properly addressed and for it to be considered a credible criticism.
I take you seriously enough to be asking for this the 3rd time instead of just brushing you off.
When you ask me questions about climate science, you are able to do this with specifics, which allows me to provide the data/evidence to support a position/answer your question or elaborate more to your satisfaction or agree with your point...............you wouldn't just say "metmike, I think you have never considered that you might be dead wrong about climate change" because that doesn't tell me what you think I might be wrong about. You would point out specific data or question a specific point that I made................so please do the same with this current issue.
"BTW as someone who's always be right of center on most issues, what scares me the most about Trump is what we may well get next, due to the revulsion of what appears to be the majority have for him. "
I have insisted for awhile that Trump will NOT get re elected. The MSM has been campaigning against him, with free nagative advertising worth billions the past 2 years, which will benefit whoever he runs against. Trump haters are fired up and unlike 2016, when many stayed home because they also disliked Clinton, in 2020 there will be many millions more that will vote for whoever runs against him, no matter who or what they represent...........and it may be the most extreme, opposite of Trump person out there, like you alluded to.
"trump will not be re-elected" metmike. If Trump decides to run he will roll over any one of current field of wild eyed libs. The dems had better find a serious candidate before Trump has a worry with this field..of course this is just my opinion
Pj do I think trumps policies have been good for blacks with that purpose. Well when did we have to coach every move with a racial or group identity over tone. This is silly. Trumps policies has he stated during the campaign will help Americans. He said , he did it. Deny it and be silly. Women, children, amish, legal aliens, on and on are better off with trump than any lib running right now, not even a debate.
Appreciate your kinds words above and, when I have had to correct you and delete posts because your opinions are very one sided and can get inflammatory.........your always cooperating for the best interest of MarketForum.
"metmike: I'm trying hard to hear you. It could well be my POV, but "what seems missing for me is any acknowledgment that Trump's vitriol against anyone who disagrees with him, the lies he unabashedly tells...I could go on about the way he acts that makes him a "cad"
I agree 100% pj, when have I ever stated otherwise? Please show me."
For me most of this discussion was mostly about your statement that you made about others being unable to entertain the possibility that they could be dead wrong about Trump. Which I turned around and asked you. I take the "100% agree" about as a "yes" you think you can. Or maybe even further that you really don't like what he's about as a person, but just like his positions as I know you do re: "climate change". And maybe since there are so many negatives posted and publicized about Trump many that see to you to be unfair, that you see no need to mention any of them (at least not lately).
Maybe you're right and I can't see the forest for the trees. Anyway I'm getting weary of the battle.
Maybe ballooning isn't quite the right word as we're not back to the numbers of the early BO years post the '08-'09 meltdown, but From 2017 to 2019 a 48% increase in my book is nothing to sneeze at.
You are awesome!
Not only do I agree again with everything in your last post, you made me realize something.
That with Trump bashing getting way out of control and me trying to tone down the hate that it was bringing here, I certainly didn't think of contributing on any level..............as was the case awhile back for me.......prior to being moderator.
During the first 2 years of Trumps presidency, I made numerous posts that stated what it was about his agenda/policies that I liked(he nailed the one on climate change) but distinguished that from my vehemently disliking his character flaws, that include numerous negative contributing personality traits At the top of the list is his arrogance/narcissism that he blatantly displays proudly vs recent presidents, that have a lot of that in them but know to act humble instead of boastful.
His exaggeration of the facts into realms that spin his own story............ easy to bust story, have happened so often that a person can never tell how much of what he is saying is a fact. This, his personality flaws, penchant for making inflammatory statements and his desire to take on the media with a mentality of trying to win a war against them(vs working with them) has made him the perfect target for them. He doesn't realize that he can't win that war........because of his narcissism. The MSM is crushing him because they are professionals at communicating well designed, convincing stories/reports that often appear objective when they aren't and certainly with a less confrontational tone....................making him look like he started and is completely responsible for the entire issue, which he blames on "fake news".
The narrative that the media has painted of him, makes him look like a raving lunatic that is ruining the country(ignoring his many, many accomplishments) and they are a bunch of Mother Teresa's, just practicing professional journalism/doing their jobs.
Since its been easy to show that Trumps version of many things is distorted, the media has been able to vilify him with impunity because of the effectively sold negative narrative.......while they go without much scrutiny...........even when busted over and over being biased. Their bias appears to be less biased than Trumps, so they win every time in they eyes of most.
Trump does best in how people view him when it comes to standing up for what he believes in and getting things done and keeping his promises. One would guess that if he didn't have so many people intensely hating him that he would have close to the highest numbers ever for those categories.
The democrats battling to run for Trump are falling over themselves and some are looney tunes. They ALL know that the media is going to give them massive favorable coverage and continue to bash Trump. Whoever runs against Trump, already has 2 years of free campaigning advertising from numerous national networks...........negative campaigning against Trump. Negative campaigning is repugnant to many of us.......but it's often effective.
When I was in tv for 11 years, we did intense surveys, often with focus groups to get peoples views of the different tv stations in our market as well as the on air talent/anchors. This helps to ascertain strong and weak points and understand what people like and dislike. The objective of course is to change things to attract more viewers. This is always tricky but one thing that is pretty universally understood relates to how people perceive main anchors(wx-news-sports).
If, for instance they rated somebody on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the highest in 10 different categories. You don't have to do much to win over those that give scores of 8-10 for that person. They love that person and will always love that person. Conversely, if a person gets rated with all 1-3's, from an individual being questioned, there is almost nothing you can do to resurrect their image.
A popular personality can survive a low % of people that give 1-3's if they have a massive amount of 8-10's and the station can work on boosting scores in those people that are in the middle. The ones in the middle can go up and down alot because a 5 means the person isn't sure but is usually willing to go up or down based on seeing something new.
However, if a tv anchor gets into double digit 1-3's, especially alot of 1's, they usually have to go, they get replaced. For instance, let's say you have a weather person that 12% of people rated 1-2's. This means that, when the weather comes on your station, 12% of people are going to change the channel or never even watch your news because they hate that person so much.
Trump has an all time record number of 1's by a wide margin. Politicians don't need ratings nearly as high as tv anchors to keep their jobs. They can probably get re elected with, maybe(wild guess) 30%? that would give you a 1-3". It just seems to me, that when you start getting a great deal above 30%, let's say to 40%. If those people hate you or will NEVER vote for you, no matter what, in absence of everybody that doesn't hate you, voting for you, the math towards the path towards being elected becomes tougher and tougher.
Whoever runs against Trump will only have a fraction of the people hate them that hate Trump..........and have the media giving everything that person says and does a positive spin. Those on the fence will be a very small number compared to past elections but if 92% of Trumps coverage is negative and 92% of his opponents coverage is positive, one would think that the opponent would have an advantage.
Trumps chances look very poor. He declared that the media is the enemy of the people awhile back and the media is making him pay a high price for it.