Trump proves most risky move

It has proven to be far riskier than they could have possibly anticipated.

On Election Day, the vast majority of voters considered Donald Trump in the Oval Office a serious risk. While 52 percent thought Clinton was qualified for the job, only 38 percent said that about Trump, exit polls showed.

{mosads}Fifty-five percent believed Clinton had the right temperament to be president, but only 35 percent felt that way about Trump.

And while integrity was advertised as Clinton’s Achilles heel, and only 36 percent thought she was honest and trustworthy, even fewer (33 percent) had the same view of Trump.

In short, for Trump to win, voters had to be willing to take a real chance on him. Voters who thought he was unqualified or unsuited for office had to support him, despite their misgivings.

Some did.

Nationally, as well as in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, one in six to one in five voters who thought Trump was unqualified, or temperamentally unsuited, for the presidency cast their ballots for him despite these important reservations.

Assuming that level of risk is most likely a function of one of two things:  Either voters were so fed up they were willing to take that kind of chance, or so confident in Clinton’s eventual victory that they felt free to cast a protest vote without consequences.

However, no one could have anticipated quite how risky a choice President Trump would prove to be.

Who could have imagined that the White House would be warned that the president’s now-former national  security advisor, Michael Flynn, could be subject to Russian blackmail and that the president would take no action for weeks?

Who could have guessed that that same national security adviser could have made liars out of the vice president and the president’s press secretary, and suffer no consequence for weeks?

Who could foresee an executive order on refugees and immigrants so at odds with humanity and so harmful to our own security?

Who could imagine that to make a few extra bucks at Mar-a-Lago, the president would allow paying guests to photograph the man carrying the nuclear “football” and make policy on North Korea before the very eyes of the paying guests, who certainly got their 200 grand worth that night alone?

Who could imagine that the president would simply bluster at Iran and North Korea, without a plan to back up his words with action?

Who could have imagined that in just a few short weeks, President Trump would earn the enmity of the leaders of nearly every other nation on earth?

Managing world peace just isn’t quite the same thing as negotiating a real estate deal, and the same tactics are not always appropriate to both occasions.

Americans are distraught about the risks Trump is posing.

The president began his first term with weaker ratings than any of his predecessors — and they’ve gotten worse. Just two days after his inauguration, an average of polls showed Americans approved of his performance by a meager 4-point margin.

Today they disapprove on average by an 8-point margin — a 12-point net shift against Trump in just three weeks.

Just 38 percent approve of his handling of foreign policy according to Quinnipiac — 56 percent disapprove.

The number who feel less safe with Trump as president shot up 5 points, to 50 percent, in just two weeks.

When the dangers to which Trump exposed the country this past weekend, and during Flynn’s brief tenure, work their way into the public consciousness, the president’s ratings are likely to deteriorate further.

The fact that voters were willing to take risks doesn’t mean they want their fears realized. They hope the risks will never actually emerge.

Donald Trump represents a serious threat to the security and well-being of this country. It’s time he and his minions stopped embracing risk and started trying to reduce it.

Mellman is president of The Mellman Group and has helped elect 30 U.S. Senators, 12 Governors and dozens of House Members. Mellman served as pollster to Senate Democratic Leaders for over 20 years.