Who won Trump’s first 100 days?

Who won Trump’s first 100 days?

It’s not even the end of the first quarter, but Trump has made significant gains.

One hundred days. Made popular by FDR and the New Deal, the left-leaning press is focused on the number like a laser. But is it really meaningful? Has President Trump accomplished any of his agenda? Have the Democrats, fighting from a minority position, been able to slow or stop him? The facts are available, but it is challenging to sift through the propaganda filter to discover them.

According to the MRC, mainstream press coverage of Trump has been 89% negative.

One victory that stands out is the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. This fulfills a campaign promise to nominate a justice from the list he released during the campaign. Moreover, the Democrats’ effort to slow the process only resulted in the Republicans invoking the “nuclear option” to prevent another Supreme Court filibuster. That’s really a double-win for Republicans. Rumors in D.C. are that a justice is going to retire this summer. Another nomination from that list? Trump is now free to go even further right if he so chooses. Some observers thought Schumer might hold off on the threat of a filibuster for that eventuality but outspoken, far-left Democrat activists forced his hand this time around.

Huge win with long-term consequences.

Since 2008, the largest thing on voters’ minds has been jobs and the economy. Among the major factors in Trump’s victory was his appeal to the working class voters the Democrats had ignored in their march towards their socialist utopia. What has he accomplished on that front?

The economic trends are positive. The stock market is up and unemployment is down. Certainly, there are no bills to point to as cause. Leftists believe in positive government action to correct flaws in the economy, while free market economists know that all government can do is get in the way. Trump has done precisely the right thing: he’s gotten out of the way. He negotiated a few high-profile deals to set the tone. Entrepreneurs are responding.

Score one in the morale column. As Napoleon said, the moral is to the material as three is to one.

Trump also said he would approve the Keystone pipeline. Done. The Dakota pipeline, too. Obama had them on indefinite bureaucratic hold. Live by the administrative state, watch your legacy die by the administrative state.

It’s not just pipelines on the energy front. The Western Energy Alliance is ecstatic. While they had been cautiously optimistic about the incoming Trump administration, their president said, commenting on Trump’s first hundred days, “We didn’t fully anticipate that not only would the punishing regulations stop, but the new Administration would make it a priority to roll back the last-minute, redundant regulation from the Obama Administration, and do it in such an effective way.”

And further,

“…the Executive Order on Energy Independence was truly a surprise. We knew the order was coming on the Clean Power Plan, but didn’t anticipate it would so comprehensively address other aspects of the Obama climate change edifice, and redundant federal methane and hydraulic fracturing rules.”

Meanwhile, morale at the EPA is reportedly in a shambles.

Part of trump’s argument on the economy was unfair trade deals. Very early on, he backed out of the disastrous Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP was another of those Democrat-inspired massive deals like Obamacare and Dodd-Frank designed to radically transform. It didn’t pass the Senate, so Obama used his pen and phone to the extent he could. Now it’s dead. Good riddance.

Trump said this week that he won’t back out of NAFTA. Indeed, without Senate action, he can’t. Instead, he will attempt to re-negotiate. Again: the right path.

In foreign policy, Trump actually put teeth into the no-chemical-weapons red line in Syria. This was no first step on a slippery slope of involvement, as critics fretted. There may be future plans being drawn, but there will be no unilateral action as with Obama in Libya and Egypt. This is especially significant because this had nothing to do with a campaign promise. Stuff happens.

Score one for restoring an appropriate place for American power in the international system. You can’t just pick up your marbles and go home when you’re the biggest player.

There’s more. His appointments have been uniformly good and we’re starting to see positive actions from people such as Nikki Haley at the UN and Jeff Sessions at the DOJ. But it is going to be a tough slog as Obama appointees remain and the pace of Trump’s nominations to lower-level appointments slows.

Meanwhile, far-left Democrats—who seem to be the only ones left in the Democrat Party—have been uniformly opposed to everything Trump does. They’ve sued to stop his immigration policies, for example, although in the end his executive orders are on clear and solid Constitutional footing.

What do Democrats think of their party’s efforts?

Recent Rasmussen polls have produced some interesting results: Only 11% of Likely Democratic Voters believe efforts by the Democrats to oppose Trump were successful. Twenty-four percent (24%) think those efforts were a failure, while most (63%) say they’re somewhere in between.

But, successful or not, is this opposition a good thing?

Forty-four percent (44%) of Democrats feel it’s better for both the country and their party if they oppose the new president as much as possible. But 46% say it’s better for America if Democrats try to work with Trump, and 45% say it’s better for their party, too.

Only 29% of all Likely U.S. Voters think it’s better for the country if Democrats oppose the president in every way possible. Sixty-three percent (63%) say it’s better for the country if Democrats try to work with the president instead.

Is anyone at the DNC listening? Is this the way to win Congressional seats in 2018 or the presidency in 2020?

It doesn’t seem likely. Victor Davis Hansen, writing this week in Townhall, compares the current Democrat strategy with that of 1972. Democrats, of course, seem to hope that 2020 will more closely mirror 2006 and 2008, when relentless hounding of G.W. Bush produced victories.

The problem is, leftists, with their eyes on their utopian future, neglect to learn the lessons of the past. Socialism fails again and again.

And Trump is not Bush.