The Official Trump 1.0 Approval Ratings Thread

[Wiz in Wis]

I think GOPers are dramatically overestimating their new superpowers. If they miscalculate and push Medicare privatization or Social Security Reform, combined with an already hyper-charged left, there's no reason to think they hold the House in 2018. They could also give a ton of cover to Ruby Red State Dems  in the Senate. 

[Wiz in Wis]

It really has to be said that there is no precedent for an incoming president to improve all that much after their "honeymoon" period. Trump is getting good press and benefit of the doubt right now, there are no major crises and the GOP is united.

In other words... he's got everything going for him I can think of and he's still underwater.

[Wiz in Wis]

He is probably at 70% unfavorable in CA, so that skews the numbers but doesn't really impact his reelection chances.

Even if there were some truth to that, it wouldn't skew his national numbers that much. Trump is underwater and its only downhill from here.  

Would you be saying the same thing if Clinton had won? Not saying you're wrong, but it's too early to tell that for sure. Anyway, this is all not surprising since he almost certainly would have lost to any other Democrat. Even many Trump voters have an unfavorable opinion of him.

Absolutely. I was resigned to the fact that Hillary, at best, was going to break even on her favorable if democrats were lucky during the honeymoon period. I also knew Hillary would be back to the low 40s by 2018 and republicans would probably get to 60 seats in the senate. And most importantly, I think she would have lost re-election.

Both candidates were fatally flawed, but one had to win. Trump only did well in comparison to Clinton. Yes, Sanders never faced the full onslaught of the GOP, but he always polled way better than Clinton. Now, with Clinton out of the picture, the Dems are an amorphous, faceless opponent that he cannot tie to any specific scandal or flaw. His counterattacks will be like shooting into a fog, while the Dems can keep pressing him on any number of scandals/crises/tempests that he seems intent on creating every time he tweets.

Clinton would have potentially gotten an SC justice or three... Trump will get the same and perhaps some tax cuts, but it won't be long before the GOP starts infighting. Paul, McCain, and Graham are already signalling they will oppose some of his nominees and investigate the Russia issue. I cannot see him winning over more GOP members than he loses as time goes on (Clinton would have had the same issue, probably would have forced Manchin to switch parties).

He could be in the low to mid 30s by this time next year having done nothing more than behaving as he has been. And that's before we even talk about the economy. We are due for a recession (even a mild one) historically, and that will drag him down too.

[Wiz in Wis]

It really has to be said that there is no precedent for an incoming president to improve all that much after their "honeymoon" period. Trump is getting good press and benefit of the doubt right now, there are no major crises and the GOP is united.

In other words... he's got everything going for him I can think of and he's still underwater.

This might be the single most delusional, dumbest thing I've ever read on this site, ever.

Ever.

Trump could be getting good press and the benefit of the doubt if he were handling the transition competently, but he's not. He's pissed away any goodwill acquired from his victory with his response to the CIA fiasco and his choice of cabinet picks, not to mention his continued twitter usage. All preventable damage.

Crap. All crap. 'Handling the transition competently' is an opinion. I'm sure the +95% of the media which endorsed Hillary have their opinion of things, but they completely lack any ability to see outside their bubble.

It doesn't matter what Trump does, the media will try to take him out every step of the way. Just because you have your biases doesn't mean you have to be a shill and hack.

Just admit it. The media is a liberal propaganda arm of the democratic party. They are not 'non-political' and they are not interested in the truth. Stop pretending otherwise.

'Fake News'
'Alt-right'
'Russian hackers'
'Rigged machines'

Fake narratives created by the media to de-legitimize Trump.

My god, if Obama got same kind of press that conservatives get, his approvals would be in the 20's

If you think that Obama has made more than 1/1000th the mistakes that Trump has, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. Trump has been getting much better press since his election than he did before it. He's Time's person of the year, hes on the cover of People Magazine. His approvals are up from two months ago... and he's still under 50.

Also, the media will pillory him until he revokes the 1st amendment (not that I think he will), so, maybe deal with the universe as it is rather than the way you wish it was. Fox will cover him positively, CNN will cover him sensationally, and MSNBC will 100% hate him. The other networks will probably lean more negative than positive, but that's life. Deal with it.

[Wiz in Wis]

It's exceptionally rare for a party to win seats in a midterm, and it's only recently happened in cases of either national crisis (2002) or when the out party is already in charge of the chambers and... ahem, being dicks about it (1998).

Liberal fatalism aside, the 2006 coalition that flipped the House is still mostly alive and well, it's just been sedate with Obama as president. Trump will polarize for sure, but the House is still most definitely "In Play"

[Wiz in Wis]

Those aren't bad numbers for Trump. 45% of the country will always disapprove of any Republican, no matter what.

This completely ignores history. The lowest "highest" approval rating for any president since Truman was for Richard Nixon... who never exceeded 67%. Barack Obama's first approval ratings ranged between 75-68, depending on the pollster, and were often above 50.

Gallup's highest high poll rating:

Truman 87
Eisenhower 79
Kennedy 83
Johnson 79
Nixon 67
Ford 71
Carter 75
Reagan 68
GHW Bush 89
Clinton 73
GW Bush 90
Obama 68

If Trump can't crack 55 (in your scenario), he's the worst president by approval rating in history... by far.



 

[Wiz in Wis]

Aren't these the same polls that showed Trump losing?  As far as how people think he'll do it's 48/48.  Democrats can spin it however they want.  Remember polls are fake news.  Nice little work though!

These are the same polls that showed Trump losing the popular vote, yes. Polling error in 2016 was pretty much in line with other years. Some systemic error in Midwest, but otherwise, pretty standard year.

[Wiz in Wis]

So Rasmussen has Trump up 11 and Gallup has him down 10?

gallup has him even. there is a liar in this thread.

I think he just looked at the splash page and assumed the total was 100.

[Wiz in Wis]

YouGov/Economist:

https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/826847086356332545

Approve 43 (+2)
Disapprove 44 (+9!)
Undecided 14 (-10)

Strong Approve 25
Strong Disapprove 33

Trump down in every poll we've gotten this week, compared to last week.

[Wiz in Wis]

lol

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/826949540183957504

Haha

On Jan. 26 they had 35% in favour of impeaching Trump, and 50% against it. I wonder what surge is to expect here.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/01/americans-think-trump-will-be-worst-president-since-nixon.html

40% favor impeaching him
48% oppose

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/02/after-2-weeks-voters-yearn-for-obama.html

[Wiz in Wis]

Clear mode effect. Trump does much worse with live interview polls.

[Wiz in Wis]

Clear mode effect. Trump does much worse with live interview polls.

Rassy is also doing likely voters, which is absurd this far out from anything

True, but PPP/YouGov/SurveyMonkey are all showing approvals with net's of around 0. CBS, Q-poll, and Gallup all -8ish.

[Wiz in Wis]

Interestingly, Trump's approval rating on the economy is running about 13 points ahead of his overall approval rating.

The economy is good, he hasn't made any major changes, and he's touted every little deal as his baby. I get it.

[Wiz in Wis]

The -8% in the Midwest is probably the worst number for Trump and Republicans.

Subsample error and all, but yeah. If he's bleeding support in the Midwest, he's putting a fair number of GOP house members in danger. The midwest is gerrymandered pretty effectively to help the GOP. But, and this is a big but, that also gives the Dems a major opening in a wave. Lots of seats in play, even with a slight GOP lean.

[Wiz in Wis]

The -8% in the Midwest is probably the worst number for Trump and Republicans.

Subsample error and all, but yeah. If he's bleeding support in the Midwest, he's putting a fair number of GOP house members in danger.

I'm not sure if he's really bleeding support.  Or rather, while whatever post-election "bounce" he might have gotten has faded, I'm not sure if he's doing any worse now than he was on election day.  The Ohio exit poll, for example had his favorability #s in the state at:

favorable 41%
unfavorable 57%

Yet he won the state convincingly.  He was underwater on favorability almost everywhere, but still won.  Will the same hold on job approval though?  I'm not sure.

That's an interesting point. His job approval has, thus far, usually exceeded his favorability numbers. However, that could just be reg GOP voters saying "we like you doing X, but you're still an ass." Weird times.

On a related note, one theory I heard is that, because a good number of people assumed Hillary would win (2-3% of voters), they went with their GOP rep/senator to provide a check on her. Now, with Trump in there, I could see something similar happening in reverse, with people voting Dem just to keep him in check, not because they like the Dems... add that to the agitated Dem base... I can see a lot of seats moving in weird directions much faster than anticipated or in line with priors.

[Wiz in Wis]

2/4/2017:
Disapproval 53%
Approval 42%

Gallup.

Fun fact... Ronald Reagan had a 42% approval rating, or worse, between July and October 1982.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1982

[Wiz in Wis]

Wonder why Rasmussen is so different from the others. Do we know the methodologies of these pollsters? Worst case, Ras is deliberately inflating Trump's numbers to appease him and his base and get a higher profile. (actually, WORST worst case is Ras is right)

They're using a LV screen, which is pretty ridiculous considering it's February 2017 with no election in sight. Meanwhile, Gallup and IBD are sampling adults. I think his true approval is somewhere in the middle -- slightly underwater, but not a majority disapprove. The "good" news is he still has a lot of room to fall.

True approval is not a thing. His approval being lower with all adults makes sense. Non-voters tend to me more liberal than voters, and presumably, this would affect any GOPer.

[Wiz in Wis]

2/4/2017:
Disapproval 53%
Approval 42%

Gallup.

Fun fact... Ronald Reagan had a 42% approval rating, or worse, between July and October 1982.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1982

Yeah, but this isn't 1982 anymore. The country is more polarized today.

Okay... I wonder what Obama's Gallup approval rating was in say, November 2010, before his party lost 63 seats in the House?

11/1/2010

Approve 44%
Disapprove 48%

But... Obama may be an outlier. Let's look at GW Bush, who lost 31 seats in 2006:

11/4/2006

Approve 38
Disapprove 54

Hmmm.... that "polarization" argument is not holding up so well.

[Wiz in Wis]

Hmmm.... that "polarization" argument is not holding up so well.

The polarization argument in this context is really just a cop-out, imo. Let's take the often-cited (by TNVol too I think?) number of "45%" that, say, Republicans can always count on. If Republicans get 45% in the House PV, odds are Democrats are probably bringing in 51% - 53%. By House standards that is basically a landslide loss, and in the range of what Democrats need to take over the chamber. If you look back in history, rarely have parties gotten less than 44% in the House PV, and it wasn't necessary to go lower to lose big (but it did happen sometimes, like 1974, and it caused huge losses).

I think the polarization argument applies more to presidential races, where the intense focus on 2 well-defined candidates has a more powerful polarizing effect. The 20th century was filled to the brim with landslide elections, and polarization today largely prevents landslides like '36, '64, '72, '84, etc, and that makes it appear more substantial than it really is.

But, for the record, I don't really believe in the "45% always" rule. I just wanted to point out that in elections for the House, it doesn't really change anything anyway.

-

Edit: As for the geographical sorting issue, I put this down:

www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/house-2016-how-a-democratic-wave-could-happen/



I'd a venture a guess that if Obama could have won roughly that many GOP-held districts with a 5-7 pt. PV win, a Democratic House PV win in the same range (obviously with some changes due to the suburban/rural sorting seen under Clinton/Trump) could probably achieve similar, even if maybe somewhat weaker effects. We'd just need to recruit some pretty good candidates and hope the GOP brand is sufficiently garbage to get voters to toss out incumbents.

This is my point exactly. Let's look at 2006. Nancy Boyda won KS-02. Now, how the hell does that make sense? She lost in 2008 as "polarization" brought that district back into the fold, but between 2006 and 2008, a fair number of "PVI R+5" districts fell to the Dems. In fact, that's why the 2010 midterms were so stacked against the Dems... they had been picking off seats they really had no business winning. So, in 2018, I cannot see a reason to think that the average R+5 seat is "safe" because of polarization.

And there are plenty of R+2, R+3 seats that will fall in a wave. In fact, Polarization probably increases the chance of the Dems winning the House! Think about it... the last three midterms have been super great for the party not in the White House - out of power partisans are infuriated and over-represent themselves. Why would 2018 suddenly be different?

[Wiz in Wis]

Well, one thing I'd note is that the tipping point seat in the House in 2016 was UT-4, Mia Love's district, and she won by a 12.5% margin.  That is, if you had a uniform nationwide swing towards the Dems from the GOP's actual ~1% national victory margin, it would need to be as big as 12.5 points in order to win the House.

Of course, the swing wouldn't be uniform, but the point is, on the surface that makes it look like a rather large structural advantage for the GOP.  Is that different from what the Dems faced in the last decade?  I don't know.  I suppose I could look up the tipping point seat in 2004, to see if it looked just as daunting for the Dems to take the House in 2006, but I'm too lazy to do so. 

Would also note, of course, that Trump was already unpopular in November 2016, at the time that the voters were reelecting a Republican Congress.  Does that matter?  If the incoming president is unpopular to begin with, and simply remains unpopular two years in, does that impact the opposition's ability to pick up seats in the House?  I don't know.

Two thoughts.

1) I wonder if uncontested seats drive this in favor of the GOP. The tipping point may depend on a few competitive seats having no credible Dem run. For example, no GOPer ran against Ron Kind in WI-03. That was a seat Trump won. Same thing with the Dallas area seat Hillary won.

2) I wonder if a number of people, assuming Hillary would win, voted GOP to "keep things in check" - now, they may flip.

[Wiz in Wis]

I'm not sure it makes sense to look at historical averages covering both parties when trying to predict midterm losses in the House.  At the moment, at least, there's a pretty significant asymmetry between the two parties in terms of how efficiently their voters are distributed geographically, such that the Dems would need a rather substantial margin of victory in the national House popular vote in order to win back the chamber.  Trump might be unpopular, but unless the people who don't like him are geographically distributed in an optimal way, it won't matter.

Whether President Trump will be unpopular in the late summer and early autumn of 2018 is yet to be known. But if he should be unpopular enough, Democrats will have  enough of an edge in the national popular vote for the House that they can swing as many as 42 House seats by winning districts that are up to R+5... enough for an unambiguous majority. That would take about a 55-45 split in the vote.  But if enough people want to constrain him, that is what they will have to do.

2006 Dems won the national popular vote by around 8%, so that's totally doable.

Also... odd finding... the GOP won the House of Reps popular vote in 2016 by a 1% margin... Dems gained 6 seats... so, the Dems are really only facing a national PVI penalty of around 2%. A 6% Dem margin would be enough to win the House if that is applied broadly.

[Wiz in Wis]

I'm not sure it makes sense to look at historical averages covering both parties when trying to predict midterm losses in the House.  At the moment, at least, there's a pretty significant asymmetry between the two parties in terms of how efficiently their voters are distributed geographically, such that the Dems would need a rather substantial margin of victory in the national House popular vote in order to win back the chamber.  Trump might be unpopular, but unless the people who don't like him are geographically distributed in an optimal way, it won't matter.

Whether President Trump will be unpopular in the late summer and early autumn of 2018 is yet to be known. But if he should be unpopular enough, Democrats will have  enough of an edge in the national popular vote for the House that they can swing as many as 42 House seats by winning districts that are up to R+5... enough for an unambiguous majority. That would take about a 55-45 split in the vote.  But if enough people want to constrain him, that is what they will have to do.

2006 Dems won the national popular vote by around 8%, so that's totally doable.

Also... odd finding... the GOP won the House of Reps popular vote in 2016 by a 1% margin... Dems gained 6 seats... so, the Dems are really only facing a national PVI penalty of around 2%. A 6% Dem margin would be enough to win the House if that is applied broadly.

Wait, I'm sorry, you'll have to explain that logic to me.  Why would a 6% Dem. margin be enough to win the House?  I don't follow.

I was a bit inarticulate, but you actually prove my point above. You said Mia Love won with a 12.5% margin, when the Dems are down 1% nationally... well, if you increase the Dems by 6%, and the GOP drops by 6%, then that's 12%. I should have said swing, not margin.

[Wiz in Wis]

Yeah, but this isn't 1982 anymore. The country is more polarized today.

An unpopular president can unite a nation.

That didn't happen under Obama, so color me skeptical. Look, maybe you guys are right and 2018, 2020 and 2022 will all be big Democratic landslide years just because Trump is in the White House and demographics are changing, but all I'm saying is don't be too surprised if Rs manage to pick up 4 or 5 seats in the Senate in 2018 or if they keep the House. You'd think after what happened in 2014 and 2016 (when people like Wiz in Wis predicted Democratic landslides), Democrats wouldn't be making overconfident predictions anymore. Oh well...

If I was polled, I'd definitely say "disapprove" but I still wouldn't vote for a Democratic congressional candidate.

I predicted a "Democratic Landslide in 2014"!?!? [citation needed]

[Wiz in Wis]

First Emerson Poll - Pretty favorable to Trump:

BOSTON, MA – The first poll of Emerson College’s Spring 2017 semester shows the nation is split on Donald Trump’s performance as President so far with 48% of registered voters approving of the job that Trump is doing, versus 47% that disapprove. Republicans approve of Trump 89%/5%, while Democrats disapprove of the President by a margin of 81% to 17%. Trump’s failure to pass the 50% threshold for approval can be accredited to his standing among independents, who disapprove of him 52%/42%.
 
A key finding of the poll shows that voters find the Trump administration to be more truthful than the news media. The Trump administration is considered truthful by 49% of voters, to 48% of voters who consider it untruthful. Meanwhile, the news media is considered untruthful by a 53%-majority of registered voters, to only 39% who find them truthful (a 14-point gap). Numerous members of the Trump administration – including Trump himself – have been criticized frequently for making false statements. The partisan split on this topic is clear – 89% of Republicans find the Trump administration truthful, versus 77% of Democrats who find the administration untruthful. Conversely, 69% of Democrats find the news media truthful, while a whopping 91% of Republicans consider them untruthful. Independents consider both untruthful – the Trump administration by a margin of 42%/52% and the news media by a margin of 45%/47%.
 
Trump’s nomination of GOP mega-donor Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education is opposed by a majority, 51%, of registered voters. Only 34% of registered voters support DeVos’ nomination to the cabinet post, while roughly 15% remain undecided on the controversial nominee. DeVos’ nomination is opposed by voters who attended both public and private school, but voters who attended public school – of which DeVos’ is a strong opponent – oppose her nomination by a significant 19-point margin, 32%/51%. Voters who attended private school also oppose DeVos’ nomination, but by a smaller 11-point margin, 42%/51%.
 
Trump’s other high-profile nominees are more popular among voters. Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions is supported by 45% of registered voters versus 40% who oppose him. Newly confirmed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has the support of 48% of voters, to only 33% who oppose him, a 15-point margin of support. Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, is supported by voters 52%/32%.
 
Similarly, voters prefer Gorsuch to former Obama nominee Merrick Garland by a 10-point margin, 39%/29%, though 14% of voters indicated that they would prefer somebody else altogether. 18% of Democrats side with Gorsuch, versus 8% of Republicans who side with Garland. Independents are evenly split between the two – each judge receives 28% support from independent voters, while 26% of independents want somebody else.
 
Kellyanne Conway, a frequent face of the administration on television who recently made headlines by coining the phrase “alternative facts,” holds a favorability ratio of 39%/45%, a net favorability of -6%. Significantly less popular is Steve Bannon, a controversial figure in the administration who is viewed favorably by only 34% of voters, while 47% view him unfavorably – a net favorability of -13%.
 
Trump does not yet appear to be a drag on Republican congressional candidates. In a hypothetical match-up for the next congressional election, a generic Democrat beats a generic Republican by a slim, 2-point margin, 48%/46%. The generic Democrat currently has the edge with independents by an 18-point margin, 54%/36%. However, Republicans have been able to keep the race close due to a lack of party unity on the Democratic side – 12% of Democrats currently say they will vote for a generic Republican, versus only 4% of Republicans who say they will vote for a generic Democrat.
 
CALLER ID
The national Emerson College poll was conducted February 5-6 under the Supervision of Professor Spencer Kimball. The sample consisted of only registered voters, n=617, with a margin of error (MOE) of +/- 3.9 percentage points. The national data was weighted by 2016 election results, gender, party affiliation, race, age and region. It is important to remember that subsets based on gender, age, party breakdown and school carry with them higher margins of error, as the sample size is reduced. Data was collected using an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system of landlines only.

http://www.theecps.com/

[Wiz in Wis]

Why are we still using RV's right now?

No idea. Makes it harder to compare polls.