Trump approval ratings thread 1.1

[pbrower2a]

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.

We have no precedent in the last century of a President starting out so unpopular so quickly. Even with Herbert Hoover the Stock Market Crash of September 1929 had to show itself as something more than a temporary panic at roughly the same stage as Trump is in. Hoover was thought of quite well by then. The early ratings for this President are execrable without precedent.

For a President starting his term barely winning election we have Kennedy in 1960. Carter in 1976, and Dubya in 2000. Kennedy may be the best President we have ever had who won election to his first term so barely. But much unlike Trump, Kennedy

(1) did not repudiate his predecessor
(2) made genuine (and somewhat successful) efforts to win over people who did not vote for him in 1960
(3) handled the Cuban Missile Crisis as well as was possible
(4) cultivated warm relations with the news media
(5) did not offend America's allies
(6) did not promote deals for his profit as a good way to warm up to him.

I cannot say without doubt that he was headed to a landslide re-election when he was assassinated... but most people thought that he would be.

Carter? Carter was a weak campaigner, and might have lost to anyone other than Gerald Ford. He posed as a reformer, but his effort to bring his competent style of leadership from Atlanta to Washington DC proved a failure. He was willing to let people vote for him thinking that he would be a conservative Southern agrarian, but he tried to be something else He had to recreate a winning coalition of the sort that Bill Clinton would win with, but he lacked the time. He could not undo the stagflation that had begun earlier without alienating the working class with measures to cut back living standards to defeat inflation (Reagan had no such qualms), and the Iranian hostage situation did his Presidency in.

Except that Carter is a more decent and magnanimous person, I see Trump fitting the Carter pattern except that he will be hated.

Dubya won the Presidency despite ending up second in the popular vote, which could be relevant to Trump. This President almost needs an incident analogous to 9-11 to play off. So Dubya went by the book and made decisions that would not bite back until he was re-elected.  In theory President Trump could exploit a calamity for his political salvation.       

[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.:

[Virginiá]

We'll have to see. Like I was saying, I think this is the wrong end of the business cycle for Trump to be coasting through his first term purely based on a positive economy, and his other scandals/behavior is probably too much to ever truly get back above water - at least for any sustained period of time.

But who knows, that's just my hot take

[Tintrlvr]

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.

[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.

[pbrower2a]

President Trump has done nothing to stimulate the economy. His economic plan is mostly to enrich the super-rich while cutting their taxes, which can mean only greater hardships for the vast majority of Americans. He might promote an asset bubble, but that bubble will be cannibalization of assets.

It's still the Obama Fed -- and the Obama boom. 

[Gass3268]

PPP:

Approve 41% (+1)
Disapprove 55% (+1)

Hypothetical Matchups:

Clinton 49 - Trump 42
Obama 53 - Trump 40
Biden 54 - Trump 39
Sanders 52 - Trump 39
Warren 49 - Trump 42
Booker 45 - Trump 40
Harris 41 - Trump 40
Zuckerberg 40 - Trump 40

Source

[Tintrlvr]

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.

Real disposable income per capita growth was 2.03% annually in Q3 2016.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A229RX0Q048SBEA

Edit: Although I realize now that the graph is popular vote margin so would place 2016 very close to 2012 (just slightly down and to the right).

[GeorgiaModerate]

PPP:

Approve 41% (+1)
Disapprove 55% (+1)

Hypothetical Matchups:

Clinton 49 - Trump 42
Obama 53 - Trump 40
Biden 54 - Trump 39
Sanders 52 - Trump 39
Warren 49 - Trump 42
Booker 45 - Trump 40
Harris 41 - Trump 40
Zuckerberg 40 - Trump 40

Source

Lots of interesting data points in this poll.  A plurality (45/43) favors impeachment, and Trump is considered more corrupt than Nixon by 42/35.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

PPP:

Approve 41% (+1)
Disapprove 55% (+1)

Hypothetical Matchups:

Clinton 49 - Trump 42
Obama 53 - Trump 40
Biden 54 - Trump 39
Sanders 52 - Trump 39
Warren 49 - Trump 42
Booker 45 - Trump 40
Harris 41 - Trump 40
Zuckerberg 40 - Trump 40

Source

Wow, this is encouraging. 42% of respondents were Democrats, though.

[GeorgiaModerate]

PPP:

Approve 41% (+1)
Disapprove 55% (+1)

Hypothetical Matchups:

Clinton 49 - Trump 42
Obama 53 - Trump 40
Biden 54 - Trump 39
Sanders 52 - Trump 39
Warren 49 - Trump 42
Booker 45 - Trump 40
Harris 41 - Trump 40
Zuckerberg 40 - Trump 40

Source

Wow, this is encouraging. 42% of respondents were Democrats, though.

I'm surprised they didn't poll a Gillibrand matchup.

[pbrower2a]

So far, Democrats have yet to coalesce behind anyone. But that will likely be easy in 2020.

....here's some data about Trump voters:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most are in a bubble, and those are the ones who would go down with him. They would believe a contemporary Dolchstosslegende involving their President.  But there was apparently some squishy support for President Trump at the time of the election, and that squishy support is likely gone.

I see a President likely to go down about like Hoover in 1932 or Carter in 1980, at least in the popular vote.  Remember: most conservatives are patriots.   

[Virginiá]

Gallup (July 17th)

Approve 38% (-1)
Disapprove 56% (-/-)

[Badger]

So far, Democrats have yet to coalesce behind anyone. But that will likely be easy in 2020.

....here's some data about Trump voters:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most are in a bubble, and those are the ones who would go down with him. They would believe a contemporary Dolchstosslegende involving their President.  But there was apparently some squishy support for President Trump at the time of the election, and that squishy support is likely gone.

I see a President likely to go down about like Hoover in 1932 or Carter in 1980, at least in the popular vote.  Remember: most conservatives are patriots.   

That is beyond depressing for my party.   Or should I say depressing about my party?

[Badger]

Once again, his base is shrinking.

Trump’s Approval Stands at 50 Percent in the Counties That Fueled His Win.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/trump-s-standing-takes-hit-even-places-he-won-2016-n783611

The working class voters are starting to abandon him. They've finally realized a man who has been fed with a silver spoon his entire life and paints his walls with gold never cared about them, their family, or their future.

He isn't? I am shocked I tell you. Shocked! Who could have possibly seen this coming?

[Badger]

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.

[Virginiá]

Gallup (July 18th)

Approve 37% (-1)
Disapprove 57% (+1)

[pbrower2a]

As usual, the first decision that a demagogue must make is to decide which part of his coalition he must first betray. That is always the working class. Yes, all politicians promise more than they (or their fellow politicians) can deliver because of the realities of the political process. But when the promises are the incompatible parts of a logical contradiction? Such is never a fault of the Legislature for a national leader. Such is the fault of the cynical mind of an amoral leader.

Donald Trump is not the first filthy-rich person to win high public office in America and he won't be the last. But all classes have their virtuous people, and the competent can get rich with enterprise and wise investments -- and keep a soul intact. Like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. You can count on Barack Obama getting rich by accident on his writings alone.

[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.

[Person Man]

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.

3 seems logical but might already be priced in. Clinton had low approval in the beginning but a lot of people just didn't have an opinion rather than disapproved. After that, Clintons numbers became reasonable but still he lost the midterms. W started off with a benefit of the doubt, but if you look at him on Gallup, his numbers slowly eroded over time and the only time he went up is when 911 happened and when he attacked Saddam. I think he would have lost Congress (Dems would gain what they lost in the House and Strickland, Cleland, and Mondale would have won) but I still think Bush would squeak by on 2004 by about half the margin (probably by what I was expecting him by).

[heatcharger]

Faux News poll:



They conveniently leave out their June poll where he had a 44/50 split in this graphic.

Approvals on:

The economy: 45/46
Immigration: 42/53
North Korea: 41/45
Syria: 40/45
Iran: 37/44
Russia: 33/56
Health care: 32/59

First time he's been in the negatives on the economy.

[Inmate Trump]

Faux News poll:



They conveniently leave out their June poll where he had a 44/50 split in this graphic.

Approvals on:

The economy: 45/46
Immigration: 42/53
North Korea: 41/45
Syria: 40/45
Iran: 37/44
Russia: 33/56
Health care: 32/59

First time he's been in the negatives on the economy.

I bet they spun it to sound favorably to him somehow.

[BudgieForce]

Faux News poll:



They conveniently leave out their June poll where he had a 44/50 split in this graphic.

Approvals on:

The economy: 45/46
Immigration: 42/53
North Korea: 41/45
Syria: 40/45
Iran: 37/44
Russia: 33/56
Health care: 32/59

First time he's been in the negatives on the economy.

I bet they spun it to sound favorably to him somehow.

They did leave out their June poll so now it looks like he his approval ratings went up +1 instead down -3.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Faux News poll:



They conveniently leave out their June poll where he had a 44/50 split in this graphic.

Approvals on:

The economy: 45/46
Immigration: 42/53
North Korea: 41/45
Syria: 40/45
Iran: 37/44
Russia: 33/56
Health care: 32/59

First time he's been in the negatives on the economy.

I bet they spun it to sound favorably to him somehow.

Approvals are up since May!

[Badger]

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.

1) just doesn't seem likely. Of all the Democratic proposals and policies to run against, can anyone think of one that would should have been more of a slam-dunk winner than Obamacare? If they screwed that up so completely, it's hard to see how massive tax cuts for the rich or other policies are going to engender much more favor. Trump ran is a populist, and he's governing as a plutocrat. It's not going to work. At least not politically.

2) one would think after 6 months that there would have been even one iota of improvement on that front. There hasn't been. To think that anyone around Trump will be able to control his Bonafide craziness, immaturity, and outbursts stemming straight from his id is contrary to everything we have seen not only since he was inaugurated, but for his entire year running for president as well. It's possible they might be able to moderate him ever so slightly, but to no meaningful degree to where he even approximates presidential Behavior as anyone has ever conceived it previously.

3) I think we are already there. Frankly we were there before election day. He's dug himself in and yes his hardcore called his supporters will in fact defend him if he shoots someone on 5th Avenue or the pee tape emerges along with video of him literally kissing Putin's ring. That doesn't exactly mean anyone is going to stop thinking differently of him. A****** fatigue merely means he may not go any lower, not that he's going to make up lost ground. As far as his being given credit for a booming economy, that hardly helped Obama in 2014, although I realized there was still much of a hangover from the Great Recession.

4) this one I agree with. It has to be perfectly timed before Trump's inevitable over-reaction comes back and bites him in the ass and reinforces that he's an untrustworthy Loose Cannon. The scary thing is I have absolutely zero doubt that he and his innermost cronies would go out of their way to provoke an international incident if he thought he needed it to secure reelection. Other politicians have used such incidents, but Trump would go as far as creating one. After all, it's not his family's blood that will be spilled in the process. He is, after all, a complete bastard.

5) this one has some Merit that I didn't consider. Clinton did wonders running against the extremism of the Gingrich Congress. Never underestimate the Democratic party's ability to f*** things up. Nevertheless, on the issue of policies such as health care, immigration, taxes, Etc, so far the Democrats seem to be on The Winning Side of public opinion. Bill Clinton ran the tables on a moderate populist message against gingrich's Neo Dickens version of America, and scored a reasonably easy reelection as a result. Still, if there's one thing that could help Trump somewhat at least with moderate Republicans who've given up on him is to run against Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. I still seriously question whether that will be sufficient to dig him out of the very deep hole he is currently in, though.

6) who in the Democratic party could he possibly run against as unpopular and with as much baggage as Hillary Clinton? I would argue that Elizabeth Warren at her worst still is it nearly as bad because she doesn't carry Decades of untrustworthiness and perceived corruption. He is hardly the best candidate that Democrats could nominate in my humble opinion, but I can't conceive of how Trump could realistically run against anyone nearly as flawed as Clinton.

In short, based on everything we have seen for the last 18 months from Trump and his so-called organization, he would probably need to rely on a terrorist attack or similar rally round the flag incident to know Talib bump his approvals up, and that's only likely to be short-term at best. Otherwise he may have a shot at running heavily against a democratic Congress, or even one house controlled by the Democrats. But that will require missteps along the level of, well, the Democratic Party.