Trump approval ratings thread 1.1

[pbrower2a]

West Virginia still holding strong for Trump

Trump approval: 62/31

Some of us can remember when West Virginia was one of the most stalwart states in voting for Democrats at the federal level  and when Virginia was one of the most stalwart states in voting for Republicans at the federal level. I was shocked to see West Virginia go for Dubya in a close election in 2000 and Virginia go to Obama in what looked like a close election in 2008... close until the electoral results flooded in from the West Coast.  

Texas Tribune/YouGov - TX: 43/51

Second poll to have Trump underwater in Texas

Same pollster in a state in which polling is tricky. Educated white Texans have been voting heavily R in contrast to the trend in other states. But if that comes to an end, Texas could give some unpleasant surprises to the Republican Party. Texas is probably the difference between 400 and 440 electoral votes for a Democratic nominee for President.

Figuring that Democrats will unify against Trump, I can see one way in which republicans lose the Lone Star State: as nationwide polling shows Donald Trump with disapproval ratings going near or even past 60%, one can see some very conservative voters who would never vote for any liberal getting extremely hostile to President Trump for reasons other than his political agenda. Foreign policy is obvious enough. Corruption and a despotic style of management?

Donald Trump will need Texas to avoid losing a landslide. The Democratic nominee of 2020 will be able to win without Texas.


So how could President Trump fare badly in Texas?

1. President Trump is not from Texas.  He's a city-slicker from New York City.

2. Texas could be drifting D due to demographics: the fast-growing Mexican-American part of the electorate. It is possible that President Trump's "Make America Great Again" was interpreted by many Mexican-Americans to imply "without us". This may explain the weakest Republican performance for its Presidential nominee since 1996.

3. Texas now fares better than most Southern states in measures of education. Education  is a bane to demagogues, and this could maul President Trump in a re-election bid in 2020.    
.................... 

I am not using favorability polls unless the rating is uncontroversial and there is no approval poll.

The letter F shall signify a favorability poll, as the only polls that I have for Arizona,  Massachusetts and Oklahoma  

Even -- white



Blue, positive and 40-43%  20% saturation
............................ 44-47%  40%
............................ 48-50%  50%
............................ 51-55%  70%
............................ 56%+     90%

Red, negative and  48-50%  20% (raw approval or favorability)
..........................  44-47%  30%
..........................  40-43%  50%
..........................  35-39%  70%
.......................under  35%  90%

White - tie.
 
Colors chosen for partisan affiliation  

[BudgieForce]

FWIW, trump is at 50% approval in rasmussen, which was showing him underwater recently by 10-12 points.

Rassy is and always will be a joke polling company. No polling is better than Rassy.

While I agree, they did nail the 2016 election with their clintn +2 final poll.

Then again, approval polls =! election polls.

Rasmussen also had Trump tied or leading throughout the election only correcting themselves in November. They're junk.

Edit: He went from 43% to 50% in three days. Thats garbage.

[Gass3268]

CNBC: 37/51

[Person Man]

FWIW, trump is at 50% approval in rasmussen, which was showing him underwater recently by 10-12 points.

Rassy is and always will be a joke polling company. No polling is better than Rassy.

While I agree, they did nail the 2016 election with their clintn +2 final poll.

Then again, approval polls =! election polls.

Rasmussen also had Trump tied or leading throughout the election only correcting themselves in November. They're junk.

Edit: He went from 43% to 50% in three days. Thats garbage.

They had Bush above water at least once in 2006.

[windjammer]

West Virginia still holding strong for Trump

Trump approval: 62/31

He carried it by 50 points right?
So that is in line with his national job approval

[GeorgiaModerate]

West Virginia still holding strong for Trump

Trump approval: 62/31

He carried it by 50 points right?
So that is in line with his national job approval

Not quite - 68.7% to 26.5% for Clinton.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

West Virginia still holding strong for Trump

Trump approval: 62/31

He carried it by 50 points right?
So that is in line with his national job approval

It's a Republican pollster. That's clear from the article, especially this last sentence:

"The People’s Pundit Daily (PPD Poll) Big Data Poll was recently featured in The Washington Times for conducting the most accurate state-level polling in 2016."

The Washington Times??? Really???

[Person Man]

West Virginia still holding strong for Trump

Trump approval: 62/31

He carried it by 50 points right?
So that is in line with his national job approval

It's a Republican pollster. That's clear from the article, especially this last sentence:

"The People’s Pundit Daily (PPD Poll) Big Data Poll was recently featured in The Washington Times for conducting the most accurate state-level polling in 2016."

The Washington Times??? Really???

So he is down AT LEAST a few points everywhere...

If he doesn't MAGA by 2020, he loses unless the Democrats run the worst campaign ever....counting 2016 and Dewey.

[Holmes]

I've noticed that a lot of national pollsters seem to agree that his approval is around 36-39% but seem to disagree on disapproval.

[Person Man]

I've noticed that a lot of national pollsters seem to agree that his approval is around 36-39% but seem to disagree on disapproval.

Eh. I've noticed the opposite really, discounting Rasmussen. Almost every pollster has his disapproval hovering in the high 50's, but approval ranging from mid-30's to ~40

The size of the "give him a chance crowd" at appears to be the size the during the election of the "I know he's nuts, but I am sort of a bit conservative and maybe he will do a good job, so I dunno"

[Virginiá]

Gallup (June 16th)

Approve 39% (+1)
Disapprove 55% (-2)

[Person Man]

Gallup (June 16th)

Approve 39% (+1)
Disapprove 55% (-2)

He seems to be winning people back despite confirmation that he is under investigation.

[hopper]

CBS/YouGov poll of adults:

I am a strong Trump supporter, period - 19%
I am a Trump supporter, but to keep my support, he has to deliver what I want - 22%
I am against Trump now, but could reconsider him if he does a good job - 19%
I am strongly against Trump, period - 40%

Not exactly an approval poll, but if you grouped the people who say they support him and those who are against him, it's 41/59.

Also, deporting illegal immigrants and banning Muslims are more important to Trump supporters than cutting taxes.

Yeah but Trump isn't banning all Muslims.

He obviously would if not for the constitutional issues associated with doing so. The various complications of the EOs were blatantly in order to try (unsuccessfully thus far) to avoid them being found unconstitutional and not for any other reason.

I think your wrong but if you think he would ban all Muslims you have a right to your thought.

[hopper]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Key point about 2018 that I don't think people like MT realize is Trump is likely to kill the last remaining GOP strongholds in Cali in Orange County an Southern Cali which make up 7-8 seats

What? MT Treasurer is well aware that Republicans are starting to have a suburban problem. It's RINO Tom and others who insist that the inner-ring suburban numbers for Clinton were just a one-time thing.

Could be a one-time thing with problem with inner-ring Suburban Voters or it could be an ongoing thing. One election doesn't make a trend.

[hopper]

I'm not calling anyone out in this thread, but overall, this thread is an example of what is wrong with American politics. We are essentially in campaign mode 24/7, much more concerned with politician numbers than with policy. Furthermore, our number 1 goal is not to deal with policy, but to defeat our political "enemies", aka the other side.

This is a problem on both sides and I do not see it ending anytime soon. If a democrat gets into office in 2020, I think you'll see immediate opposition from the republicans.

It's a problem in the modern era when peddling constant outrage and opposition sells at the polls, while coming together to form policy doesn't sell at all.

It's a mirror opposite of post ww2 america.

Lol, cry me a river.

Your president is deeply unpopular and pushes for terrible legislation. So save me the bothsides, moral preening bull****.

You misread my post. Trump in many ways deserves low approvals right now. Slow, half-assed legislation and constant investigation intrigue is deserving of scorn. BUT, that doesn't mean politicians in congress don't have a duty to craft policy they were elected to put forward. Sometimes we forget that it is the legislation branch that is supposed to form legislation and vote on it, while the executive branch can veto and execute.

Well, this isn't a "bothsides" problem, but a GOP one.

Democrats have been willing to work on things like infrastructure and the ACA for years now, it is the GOP who shuts down any attempts to do so.

You want a functional legislative branch, then you have to get rid of the GOP.

No Dems will never let go of ObamaCare because its their parties legislation. Infrastructure-Yes Dems would work with Trump there your right.

[hopper]

The Republicans have gerrymandered their way into control of Congress. If they still can't pass bills, don't blame the Democrats. The last Democratic Congress (2009-2010) was very productive.

Its not true Republican gerrymandered their way to a House Majority. The Dems would have more seats if not for gerrymandering but not a House Majority.

[hopper]

I'm not calling anyone out in this thread, but overall, this thread is an example of what is wrong with American politics. We are essentially in campaign mode 24/7, much more concerned with politician numbers than with policy. Furthermore, our number 1 goal is not to deal with policy, but to defeat our political "enemies", aka the other side.

Campaign mode rightly ends on or before Inauguration Day. President Trump has been ineffective in pushing the New Feudalism that the Hard Right wants -- the "Christian and Corporate State" in which 95% of the people suffer for 2% in return for vague promises of Pie-in-the-Sky-When-You-Die. The attempt by President Trump to tout his non-existent landslide win (even if the Electoral College result is analogous to that of JFK in 1961 or Carter in 1976, neither of them using their levels of electoral wins as justification for calling for the Other Side to give up forever.

This President still acts much like a dictator, the sort who believes that the election that brings him to power ends all political debate forever. He violates so many norms of American political life  that he cannot fail to lose support.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With a President having an approval rating in the high thirties or lower (and this is with me assuming that today's Q poll is a transitory freak), I expect the Republicans to endure an electoral bloodbath in 2020 as their 2014 wave in the Senate is reversed. If Democrats have not turned the House in 2018, then they do it then. I expect President Trump to be seen as a catastrophic failure, after which an Obama-like President gets every chance he needs to turn America around.    

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Right organized a virulent campaign of opposition against President Obama from practically Inauguration Day, smashing every Obama policy possible. Now we have a President acting more like Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier (brutal dictator of Haiti who, like Trump, won with demagoguery in a free election) than like any prior President of the United States.

But something else happened:  the disappearance of the Moderate Republicans, the sorts of people who were viable alternatives to Democrats who went a bit too far on policy. Instead we have liberals and near-fascists. We get to choose between watered-down versions of Scandinavian-style Social Democrats and people who would like America to resemble Franco's Spain. You know how the latter went -- if you disliked the oppression and poverty, then either emigrate or go to Church to plead to God to give strength to accept the hideous life that you endure.    

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Lunatic Fringe took over the Republican Party, and it now has the President as a willing accomplice.

Trump is not hard-right and neither are the Republicans that are in Congress. Its that they are too conservative. There is a difference between being hard-right and being too Conservative. I don't think anybody wants 95% of America too suffer either.

I don't think Trump acts like a dictator. I remember when Obama was in office and some on the right thought he was acting like he was a king.

I sort of agree with your last paragraph though.

[hopper]

I still think it's too early to use approval ratings to predict 2018. A year and a half is an eternity in politics. History tells us that the party out of power makes inroads and low approval ratings cost seats, but the magnitude is still up in the air.

We have examples of presidents down in the dumps coming back. In 1982, nobody thought reagan would be re-elected, and even Obama in 2011 was looking vulnerable.

Trump, of course, has unique issues. But there is a lot going on in this world. If something happens in korea, it could be a big factor.

If I recall correctly, 1982 and 2010 were still horrendous midterms for the presidents even though they did manage to turn the ship around by reelection time. So your analogy isn't really applicable since there's no example of a President turning the ship around before the midterms

1982-There was still problems with inflationary rates. 2010-The economy was still kind of in bad shape.

[hopper]

We have examples of presidents down in the dumps coming back. In 1982, nobody thought reagan would be re-elected, and even Obama in 2011 was looking vulnerable.

We do, although something they all have in common is winning their first term by comfortable margins or more. If Trump's reelection followed a similar path as, say, Obama's, then he'd lose. Obama's reelection was almost half of is first election's margin. Trump already had no room to spare in that regard.

Of course I guess you could say Trump could come roaring back in popularity, but then I'd say that Trump was never popular and even through the election was rated unfavorably by almost 2/3rds of the country. He simply doesn't have the type of personality or behavior to be as popular as he needs to be. This is something we should all be able to agree on. Putting aside the massive amount of material - on video/audio - of course Trump bullying people and saying crude things, things like making fun of disabled people during a rally will put a hard limit on his favorability ceiling, imo.

I'm not even sure a 9/11-type event could help him indefinitely. It could give him a big popularity boost, but Trump always seems to somehow squander good will from the people, whether by his doing or by some new scandal breaking, or whatever, and this is something Bush never had - he was a relatively clean, unoffensive slate compared to Trump. Also, given how hardened opposition is to him among Democrats and some Indies, I'm not sure how much popularity he'd really get from a rally-around-the-flag event.

Yeah he may not have the temperament to be re-elected for a second term as President at this point anyway it maybe is looking like.

[hopper]

Trump at 36/59 in Gallup

Vindication DENIED.

As a general rule, if you're under investigation, changing your story about every two hours makes you look guilty as hell. Trump was "totally vindicated" by Comey's testimony. Except for the parts of the testimony were Comey called Trump a liar and implied that he had committed obstruction of justice, which happened to be untrue. Despite those lies, Comey was still a "leaker", meaning that he probably had leaked lies to the public. Except that he didn't, because Trump's own son went public and announced that Comey was indeed fired because of the Russia investigation. Except that that didn't constituted obstruction of justice, for some reason. Confused yet?

The Russia Investigation didn't stop because Trump fired Comey though.

[hopper]

I still think it's too early to use approval ratings to predict 2018. A year and a half is an eternity in politics. History tells us that the party out of power makes inroads and low approval ratings cost seats, but the magnitude is still up in the air.

There are plenty of precedents for 2018, but conditions now are with little precedent. Democrats lost huge numbers of House and Senate seats in the two midterm years under Obama and Republicans lost huge numbers of House and Senate seats in 2006 under Dubya. But Republicans gained a little in 2002 in the wave of patriotism following 9/11.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People who recognized that Obama and Reagan had similar skill sets as politicians could have gotten 1984 wrong in 1982 -- but not 2012 wrong in 2010.  Incumbents win big against weak challengers like Goldwater, McGovern, and Mondale... Romney, almost everyone must now admit, did surprisingly well against Obama. Romney was a really-strong challenger. But remember that the incumbent of 2012 was an expert campaigner, a man gifted with language to a strong degree, with an improving economy, and no hint of scandal. He had one big success in foreign policy -- whacking the worst terrorist in history with the rest of the world applauding.

I look at Mitt Romney's strengths, and I see someone who would have defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016. Maybe by a smaller margin of the electoral vote, but we would have far fewer problems with him as President.

As I see it, Donald Trump is good at only one thing as President, and that is at throwing aspersions about others and telling people "My way or the Highway!" Of course, Reagan quit talking about Carter soon after the inauguration, and Obama had bigger concerns than blaming Dubya. It's just as well.

Donald Trump has a dream Congress with a unified Party willing to vote a Party line on taxes and replacing Obamacare with "run out of money and die". So far President Trump has been one of the lower achievers as President in getting legislation passed. Heck, Dubya did better.

I see Trump as a one-term President. He made promises to people and then betrayed those to whom he made those promises. President Trump has rushed into the second term of Richard Nixon without Nixon's legitimate achievements in the first term.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If he handles it well. But that is one gigantic qualification. But if he handles it badly, then he could have a world situation that would make the Iranian Revolution and the hostage situation in Iran look trivial by contrast. I see no reason to expect him to handle it well.

I certainly hope that Democrats don't have images of smouldering ruins of Seoul to show in campaign messages of either 2018 or 2020. That's one political asset that Democrats do not want.

A reasonably competent challenger defeats Trump in 2020. Trump has been unpopular almost from the moment of his inauguration, and he's doing nothing to make himself more popular. The He used the executive order in efforts to shortcut Congress and evade the Constitution. He is going to spend more time shaking off allegations that he won a tainted election and of obstruction of justice. base is not enough; McGovern and Mondale at least won their Party's bases.  They won almost nothing else.

I was for him unwinding previous executive orders but not creating new ones of his own. The election was not tainted he won the election. I think you have a point that he shouldn't have said  anything about dropping the Flynn Investigation though.

[Virginiá]

Yeah he may not have the temperament to be re-elected for a second term as President at this point anyway it maybe is looking like.

It didn't, but that does not mean Trump didn't think it would stop. Judging by Trump's own public comments, it seems clear that he believed firing Comey would either end the investigation or slow it way down. I'd like to believe Trump had people telling him it wouldn't work and that he was just too stubborn, but on the other hand, Trump is usually prone to making bad decisions, so that whole debacle was completely in line with his way of doing things.

[The_Doctor]

Gallup (June 16th)

Approve 39% (+1)
Disapprove 55% (-2)

He seems to be winning people back despite confirmation that he is under investigation.

It's called statistical noise. He hit 55% disapproval and 38-39% approval about a month ago in the 538 weighted aggregate. He's been hovering there for the last month. So that poll isn't really "new" information. If he drops to 50% disapproval and climbs to something like 40-45%, then I'd say that was real movement. But he seems, as I've said, to keep lowering his approval ratings floor and increasing the disapproval rating ceiling over time. He roughly loses 1-2% approval rating every month. So, in six months, assuming we don't hit his absolute base, he would be at 62-68% disapproval.

[pbrower2a]

I still think it's too early to use approval ratings to predict 2018. A year and a half is an eternity in politics. History tells us that the party out of power makes inroads and low approval ratings cost seats, but the magnitude is still up in the air.

There are plenty of precedents for 2018, but conditions now are with little precedent. Democrats lost huge numbers of House and Senate seats in the two midterm years under Obama and Republicans lost huge numbers of House and Senate seats in 2006 under Dubya. But Republicans gained a little in 2002 in the wave of patriotism following 9/11.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People who recognized that Obama and Reagan had similar skill sets as politicians could have gotten 1984 wrong in 1982 -- but not 2012 wrong in 2010.  Incumbents win big against weak challengers like Goldwater, McGovern, and Mondale... Romney, almost everyone must now admit, did surprisingly well against Obama. Romney was a really-strong challenger. But remember that the incumbent of 2012 was an expert campaigner, a man gifted with language to a strong degree, with an improving economy, and no hint of scandal. He had one big success in foreign policy -- whacking the worst terrorist in history with the rest of the world applauding.

I look at Mitt Romney's strengths, and I see someone who would have defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016. Maybe by a smaller margin of the electoral vote, but we would have far fewer problems with him as President.

As I see it, Donald Trump is good at only one thing as President, and that is at throwing aspersions about others and telling people "My way or the Highway!" Of course, Reagan quit talking about Carter soon after the inauguration, and Obama had bigger concerns than blaming Dubya. It's just as well.

Donald Trump has a dream Congress with a unified Party willing to vote a Party line on taxes and replacing Obamacare with "run out of money and die". So far President Trump has been one of the lower achievers as President in getting legislation passed. Heck, Dubya did better.

I see Trump as a one-term President. He made promises to people and then betrayed those to whom he made those promises. President Trump has rushed into the second term of Richard Nixon without Nixon's legitimate achievements in the first term.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If he handles it well. But that is one gigantic qualification. But if he handles it badly, then he could have a world situation that would make the Iranian Revolution and the hostage situation in Iran look trivial by contrast. I see no reason to expect him to handle it well.

I certainly hope that Democrats don't have images of smouldering ruins of Seoul to show in campaign messages of either 2018 or 2020. That's one political asset that Democrats do not want.

A reasonably competent challenger defeats Trump in 2020. Trump has been unpopular almost from the moment of his inauguration, and he's doing nothing to make himself more popular. The He used the executive order in efforts to shortcut Congress and evade the Constitution. He is going to spend more time shaking off allegations that he won a tainted election and of obstruction of justice. base is not enough; McGovern and Mondale at least won their Party's bases.  They won almost nothing else.

I was for him unwinding previous executive orders but not creating new ones of his own. The election was not tainted he won the election. I think you have a point that he shouldn't have said  anything about dropping the Flynn Investigation though.

Putting an  end to executive orders of the previous President is legitimate no matter how sturdy the pretext the prior President had. The election could be tainted even if his electoral behavior is legally acceptable -- if one can show that foreigners interfered in the election to the detriment of those who formally lost the election. We have precedents for dealing with electoral conduct even if the politician is clean of it. We have no provisions for the validity of an election influenced by foreign agents. We do not let foreigners or foreign companies make political contributions.

But this said, conduct after the election, if questionable, puts the Presidency at risk at the least for loss in the next election.  

...Executive orders have their use, as in making decisions in the role of Commander-in-Chief in wartime or in transferring public (often military) resources in the wake of disasters. They can be used to make decisions in which statute leaves some leeway and the judgment call is by the President. But executive orders that bypass Congress or have suspect validity on Constitutional merit are simply wrong.

[jaichind]

Trump just tweeted

"The new Rasmussen Poll, one of the most accurate in the 2016 Election, just out with a Trump 50% Approval Rating.That's higher than O's #'s!"

Actually he is right.  Rasmussen was pretty much the most accurate pollster in the 2016 election (Clinton+2).