Trump approval ratings thread 1.1

[Mr. Morden]

If he were to have today's job approval rating on Election Day 2020, then yes, he'd presumably lose.  But I don't think the historical record shows that there's any correlation between job approval rating in a president's first year and his job approval rating three years later.

Oh, probably not. I didn't mean to imply that, although I would state that I really don't think things are going to get better for him. Trump isn't that kind of person - the kind of person to take advice and follow it to the letter, to change his behavior and make amends with people and really go out of his way to hit all the right notes.

I guess my response would be that I'm not sure how much of a president's job approval rating at the end of his first term is based on anything he has control over anyway.  He might well learn nothing, yet rebound in popularity if the economy's good.  E.g.:

[Mr. Morden]

If he were to have today's job approval rating on Election Day 2020, then yes, he'd presumably lose.  But I don't think the historical record shows that there's any correlation between job approval rating in a president's first year and his job approval rating three years later.

Oh, probably not. I didn't mean to imply that, although I would state that I really don't think things are going to get better for him. Trump isn't that kind of person - the kind of person to take advice and follow it to the letter, to change his behavior and make amends with people and really go out of his way to hit all the right notes.

I guess my response would be that I'm not sure how much of a president's job approval rating at the end of his first term is based on anything he has control over anyway.  He might well learn nothing, yet rebound in popularity if the economy's good.  E.g.:

2016 would sit pretty far off the trendline on the lower right of this graph, though, wouldn't it? So the point is weakened somewhat.

I don't know.  How big was real disposable income growth in 2016?

Anyway, obviously there's some overfitting here: The 1.29 per term adjustment wasn't picked out of thin air.  It was fit to the data at hand, so that the relationship would turn out better.  I've seen other "incumbent vote share" vs. "economic indicator" plots which showed some bigger outliers.  Though, from memory, I think the outliers are more likely to happen in races in which there's no incumbent, like 2016.  In races with an incumbent running for reelection, it's a bigger deal.  (At least, that's my memory from previous plots of this nature I've seen.  In this particular plot, I think it's actually the reverse.)

Also, to pre-empt another possible objection, I'm not sure "The economy's good right now, and Trump is still struggling" works as a counterargument either.  Sure, Trump gets good marks on the economy now, despite having poor job approval #s overall.  But it's so early in his term, I imagine that even fairly low info voters understand that he hasn't been in office long enough to be able to take that much credit or blame for it yet.  Three years from now, the state of the economy will be all on Trump (in voters' minds, if not in reality).  So it'll probably loom larger in voters' assessment of his performance in office.

[Mr. Morden]

Look, I know it's hard for incumbents to actually lose reelection but is Trump really more than likely to do so seeing he has a 55% disapproval in a state like Utah?

Just to nitpick - Trump is uniquely unsuited for a state like Utah, and even with such a poor image among Mormons, he still did quite well. However, if by October 2020 he had the same approval ratings he does now and was up against a challenger that was about as popular as the average challenger would be, then he most likely would lose, and probably not by a hair either. In an election where his opponent wasn't almost as hated as he was, his "win" most likely would have been a loss with a margin in between Romney and McCain.

If he were to have today's job approval rating on Election Day 2020, then yes, he'd presumably lose.  But I don't think the historical record shows that there's any correlation between job approval rating in a president's first year and his job approval rating three years later.

But here's the thing. Has Trump given an ounce of indication at anytime during this first six months of his presidency that he has the ability to change his behavior or temperament in a way that translates into picking up greater support Beyond his hardcore cultist base? I'd say the answer is a hardcore no. He has zero ability to triangulate the Way Clinton did, or do anything other than continuing to repeat his mistakes and arrogance that turns the vast majority of Voters off. I think a substantial number of his supporters expected him to act more mature and gracefully dash dash say nothing of displaying signs of flirting with treason Dash Dash once he became president. That has not happened, and frankly it appears never will.

With that in mind and the fact Trump's disapproval rating is in the dumpster despite a bull economy and no foreign entanglements, what route can he take to realistically solidify enough support for reelection? It's not just that these are a reflection of his first year popularity ratings. It's a likely reflection of his popularity throughout his presidency, but subject only to dropping if the economy or International affairs go south.

Like I said, the premise of your argument is that a president's popularity at the end of his first term is based on the actions of the president himself.  And I'm just not sure to what extent that's true.  He might become more popular by 2020 just because of a good economy, for example, even if he doesn't change his behavior at all.  You mention the fact that the economy's already good right now, yet he's still unpopular.  But do the voters give presidents full credit or blame for the economy when he's just a few months into his term in the same way that they do after four years?  I'm not sure.  I'd say it's an open question.

Other factors that might allow for some rebound in popularity even if Trump’s own behavior doesn’t change at all:

1) Trump and the GOP move on from agenda items like health reform to other topics, which aren’t as politically toxic.  “Obamacare repeal” is something that made short term political sense for the GOP to advocate, but was quite politically poisonous to pursue once they actually had unified control of government.  But they were boxed in, because they ran on it.  Once you’re done with the agenda items that you’re forced to address because you ran on them, you can move on to agenda items that make more political sense for a party that’s actually in power.  Not that the GOP has a terribly popular set of policies ready to go in general, but not much can be worse than their health reform fiasco.

2) Trump himself won’t learn, but people around him might.  That is, GOP leaders in Congress and the saner members of Trump’s Cabinet and staff might get a better handle on how to work around Trump’s craziness, and thus better keep him out of political trouble.

3) Outrage fatigue / people stop being shocked.  Some of the personality and policy problems people have with Trump might become less salient as times go on, because it becomes more “normal” in people’s minds.  And thus, he starts getting judged more on economic fundamentals than he does now.  On the policy front, I remember some of the early outrage against Clinton over cultural issues like gays in the military, or against Bush over environmental regulations being loosened.  There was political whiplash that occurred largely just because of the party in the White House changing.  But soon enough, these things faded, and people got used to the new POTUS.

4) Rally around the flag event, like a terrorist attack.  This could go a number of ways, but even if Trump doesn’t know how to handle a crisis, it’s not hard to imagine scenarios for a crisis that actually boosts his popularity.

5) Dems win the House in 2018.  If the Dems win the House, then Trump can’t pass anything, which is probably good for him politically.  And there’s also the possibility of Dem. overreach, and more opportunity to villainize the other side, which could make Trump look not quite as bad in comparison.

6) Trump gets a Democratic opponent in 2020.  Similar to #5, but if you have someone running against you from the other party, then you enter into a zero sum game of popularity, which doesn’t quite exist right now, because there is no single figure that Trump is facing off against.  If Team GOP can villainize, say, 2020 Dem. presidential nominee Elizabeth Warren enough, then Trump’s own job approval might get a slight boost because of the contrast.

[Mr. Morden]

Badger, I disagree with much of your rebuttal, but I honestly don't feel motivated enough to keep arguing on all of these different points, so I'll just limit myself to one:

6) who in the Democratic party could he possibly run against as unpopular and with as much baggage as Hillary Clinton?

You say that now, when her favorability #s are in the gutter, but before she actually ran, her #s were actually quite good, and while many folks (including, IIRC, me) foresaw that they'd come back down to Earth when she got back into the daily political grind, few predicted they'd sink to Trump-ian levels.

I've written this before in other threads, but I'm actually somewhat skeptical that Clinton's struggles were unique to Clinton, and part of me wonders if other potential Democratic nominees might not have faced similar problems.  I mean, not the exact same scandals of course, but whatever negatives they had would end up getting amplified in the same way, and cause them to become unpopular.  Partly because Trump's mud wrestling style of politics ends up dragging his rivals down to his level, and partly because I wonder if the current media environment and the way in which the major party nominees become polarizing symbols in the culture war is going to make unpopular party nominees the "new normal", such that even if they have reasonable levels of popularity going into the race, they end up getting sunk by the process.  Whatever flaws they had going in end up getting amplified to absurd proportions.

I also wonder if, on the Democratic side, it might be a problem unique to so-called "establishment" candidates.  If we now have a bunch of Sandersistas who view the "establishment" as corrupt, does that mean that if an establishment candidate is again nominated in 2020, that they'll face enough resistance from the Sanders wing to once again create GE problems?  I don't know, but I'd say it's possible.

Oh, and finally, let's not forget that while Clinton had "25 years of baggage" the piece of that baggage that dragged her down the most was the most recent scandal, the email scandal which didn't even become public until 2015.  We didn't know anything about it four years ago at this time, so who's to say that once the 2020 nominee's public life is exposed to that level of scrutiny, there won't be some similar thing that consumes their public image?

[Mr. Morden]

That's quite possible, but impossible to predict. I really have to disagree with the idea that all candidates are susceptible to being ruined by Trump. At the very least, I'd like to see it happen to a candidate who is a lot more 'pristine' than Clinton, because she had a massive amount of baggage. As Chaffetz said, she was target-rich. There was always something to hit her on, and she had been in the public sphere for so long that many people had formed opinions of her. On top of that, the email scandal was given an obscene amount of coverage and was amplified by a common perception of Clinton that existed long before it happened - that she was untrustworthy and had an agenda.

What I’m saying though is that I’m not sure her “25 years of baggage” actually ended up being that important, since what did her in was a scandal that broke in 2015.  I’m not sure how much “old news” matters anymore.  It’s whatever the latest shiny object is that people will latch on to.  And I do honestly wonder if, in part because of media attempts at “balance”, anyone running against Trump will see whatever their latest controversy is get blown up into something that’s viewed as the moral equivalent of Trump’s shadiness.

Or, like I said, I wonder if it’s something that might be uniquely dangerous for a Democratic “establishment candidate” in the current era.  Jonathan Chait talks here about how the 2016 primary exposed Clinton to an “extended character indictment”:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/why-cant-america-see-that-clinton-is-flawed-but-normal.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Sanders or a Sanders-esque candidate once again loses to an “establishment” candidate in the 2020 primaries, then I could easily see a repeat of this sort of thing.

[Mr. Morden]

I'd also add that it wouldn't even necessarily take an opponent as unpopular as Clinton or Trump in 2016 to create at least a minor bump upwards in Trump's job approval #s by contrast.  Even if you've got an opponent who's only mildly underwater on favorability, that could help swing some of the GOP-leaning voters who've now peeled away from Trump back into line.  I mean, his job approval # is well below his vote share on election day, so there are certainly *some* GOP or GOP-leaners who are susceptible to being pushed back into line once the Dem. opponent starts getting scrutinized like Trump is now.

[Mr. Morden]

If Sanders or a Sanders-esque candidate once again loses to an “establishment” candidate in the 2020 primaries, then I could easily see a repeat of this sort of thing.

I guess the question becomes who is the establishment "Third Way" so to speak neoliberal candidate in 2020? Even a moderate like Cuomo has a pretty progressive track record. Kamala Harris and Warren don't really fit this mold listening to their speeches. Joe Biden in his recent Harvard commencement speech almost sounded Sanders-esque at critical times during his speech. Klobuchar jut doesn't have the charisma to pose a serious challenge IMO.

The only sort of moderate guy/gal who talks about working with Republicans and finding common ground with the other side is Cory Booker. And that guy has a serious problem of sounding like he's "Telling a bed time story to a 5 year old" every time he's talking so I have serious doubts he'll win the nomination.

Most of the 2020ers are trying to hug the Sanders wing of the party on policy (though some more than others).  But if the candidates mostly end up agreeing on policy, that's all the more reason to think that those who have more of a history of being "establishment" are going to get attacked on those grounds, rather than on issue positions.  Yes, if, say, Kamala Harris wins the nomination and her main rival is someone seen as being closer to the Sanders mold, then it's absolutely possible that she'll get attacked by the Sanders '16 supporters for being "a corrupt part of the establishment", or however jfern would put it.

[Mr. Morden]

If Sanders or a Sanders-esque candidate once again loses to an “establishment” candidate in the 2020 primaries, then I could easily see a repeat of this sort of thing.

I guess the question becomes who is the establishment "Third Way" so to speak neoliberal candidate in 2020? Even a moderate like Cuomo has a pretty progressive track record. Kamala Harris and Warren don't really fit this mold listening to their speeches. Joe Biden in his recent Harvard commencement speech almost sounded Sanders-esque at critical times during his speech. Klobuchar jut doesn't have the charisma to pose a serious challenge IMO.

The only sort of moderate guy/gal who talks about working with Republicans and finding common ground with the other side is Cory Booker. And that guy has a serious problem of sounding like he's "Telling a bed time story to a 5 year old" every time he's talking so I have serious doubts he'll win the nomination.

Most of the 2020ers are trying to hug the Sanders wing of the party on policy (though some more than others).  But if the candidates mostly end up agreeing on policy, that's all the more reason to think that those who have more of a history of being "establishment" are going to get attacked on those grounds, rather than on issue positions.  Yes, if, say, Kamala Harris wins the nomination and her main rival is someone seen as being closer to the Sanders mold, then it's absolutely possible that she'll get attacked by the Sanders '16 supporters for being "a corrupt part of the establishment", or however jfern would put it.

I think this is a hard attack to make with a straight face against Harris in particular, who hasn't been around in Washington long enough to be part of "the establishment" in the minds of voters. Booker and Gillibrand may be easier to tarnish this way, although neither has been around all that long, either. And Cuomo of course hasn't been in Washington at all, though he is probably the most objectionable to the Sanders wing for ideological reasons. Ultimately, the attacks would have to be based on support for centrist policies rather than nebulous anti-establishment feelings, which is a much less successful way to harm a politician with general election (or even primary election) voters.

There are always votes that you can attach to this critique.  E.g., Booker got crucified by a certain segment of Dem. activists over his vote on drug imports.  You don't have to be a Senator for very long to accumulate some votes that will be viewed as being too corporate-friendly.  And heck, it's not just about votes.  Harris has taken flack from some on this forum just for meeting with big money donors.

Like I said, in terms of real, substantive policy disagreements on big issues, I'm not sure there will be that many among the major 2020 Dem. candidates.  And that's what makes it all the more likely that the battle lines will be drawn more along the "establishment" vs. "insurgent" axis, which is only marginally connected to issue positions as such.  E.g., Bernie Sanders says that the "Democratic Party's model is 'failing'":

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/330123-sanders-democratic-party-model-is-failing

Senator X, do you agree with that?  If not, then you're a corporate shill, who is hopelessly compromised by big money donations. 

[Mr. Morden]

Since the Washington Post already analyzed Trump's positive or negative swing from his election results in each state to his current approval ratings, I figured I'd go a step further and see what Trump's trend is. Of course, the trend is comparing the state's swing to the national swing and seeing whether it is higher or lower. So, that'd give us a better idea of how each state is responding to the Trump Presidency.

What I'm curious to see is the swing from his favorability #s in the 2016 exit poll (in states that had exit polls) to his job approval now.

[Mr. Morden]

Morning Consult national poll, conducted July 20-24:

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015d-7a13-dad8-a1df-fe9b171c0000
http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015d-7a14-d70f-a75d-fb14aa4d0000

approve 44%
disapprove 51%

crosstabs:

Trump job approval margin by region:
Midwest: -2
Northeast: -17
South: +3
West: -15

Trump job approval margin by race:
whites: 0
blacks: -55
Hispanics: -15

Trump job approval margin by income:
under $50k: -13
$50-100k: -10
over $100k: -3

12% of Trump voters disapprove of Trump’s job performance.  10% of Clinton voters approve of Trump’s job performance.

Also from that poll, 49% of Trump supporters believe he won the popular vote.  40% believe Clinton won it.