Trump approval ratings thread 1.1

[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?

[Virginiá]

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?

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. If you took out the email scandal, and by extension, Comey's various actions, she probably would have won comfortably (assuming nothing else changed). As stupid (particularly in comparison to Trump) as that 'scandal' was, voters were very clearly bothered by it. However, again, this is where the likeability and charisma of a candidate come into play - people will forgive all sorts of things if they really like the person.

This is partly why I want Warren to run. Contrary to numerous Atlasians, not only do I think she would make a fine candidate, but she would present a clear contrast to Trump in so many ways, which after 4 years of Trump's freewheeling antics, they will probably be ready for. So far, there isn't really much to attack her on either. Republicans are dead set on making her unpopular, so we'll see how that goes, but assuming nothing major changes I think it would be an interesting election to see. A more polarized opinion of her due to enduring conservative efforts might lower her ceiling a little bit at least for her first election, but I seriously doubt they can derail her chances altogether. Not by a long shot, unless she gets embroiled in some scandal they can blow out of proportion vis-à-vis Clinton's email scandal.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Gallup

Approve 36% (-1)
Disapprove 59% (+2)

Pretty much typical post-Trumpcare collapse numbers we are accustomed to by now.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Gallup

Approve 36% (-1)
Disapprove 59% (+2)

He's nearing 60!!!!

[pbrower2a]

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!

It is shocking that the approvals for North Korea are as high as they ar. The country that America is most likely to go to war with and has one of the three worst political orders in the world should have a near-zero approval rating. Iran hasn't done anything to the USA in recent years. w

[GeorgiaModerate]

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!

It is shocking that the approvals for North Korea are as high as they ar. The country that America is most likely to go to war with and has one of the three worst political orders in the world should have a near-zero approval rating. Iran hasn't done anything to the USA in recent years. w

It's approval of Trump's handling of North Korea, not approval of North Korea itself (which I agree should be near zero).

[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.

[Technocracy Timmy]

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.

[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.

[pbrower2a]

We have a game-changer. The President, in a game on the margin of closeness, waked in a base-runner and then gave up a grand slam on the next pitch. The game has gone from 6-1 to 11-1. The game may not be over, but tension has given way to a near-hopelessness. Many have better things eir time than to watch the ensuing formality.

[Tintrlvr]

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.

[Virginiá]

Gallup (July 20th)

Approve 37% (+1)
Disapprove 58% (-1)

[Holmes]

ARG!

Falls in line with other polls though.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Trump sets a new record low for average second-quarter approval in Gallup poll (38.8%, down from 41.3% in his first quarter): http://www.gallup.com/poll/214322/trump-sets-new-low-second-quarter-job-approval.aspx.  Bill Clinton held the previous record low of 44.0%.  No other President has averaged below 50% for the quarter.

[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. 

[Tintrlvr]

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.  

Those are ideological attacks, not attacks for being "too establishment". Sanders, and, maybe more importantly, his supporters, never really brought up Clinton's votes while she was in the Senate and generally did not spend much time attacking her on ideological grounds. They talked about who she was friends with, her paid speeches, vague whiffs of scandal, etc. That is much harder to do successfully and convincingly (to people who are not already in the tank, and only about maybe 15-20% of primary voters are in the tank) against someone who has only been in Washington a short time. Unless the Sanders-wing candidate is Sanders himself (who has a big personal vote now, of course), they'll struggle to make any arguments that stick in the primary against candidates who are not Hillary Clinton (or, say, Chuck Schumer or similar types of clearly establishment figures who are obviously not going to run anyway).

It's also not clear to me who the Sanders wing is supposed to be running if it isn't Sanders. They're more tepid these days on Warren (and she's very hawkish, which will turn off a lot of the Sanders wing once she actually has to talk about foreign policy), Sherrod Brown is friendly with the other candidates they like to attack as too establishment and would not play into the insidious whispers strategy, and the other possible candidates as far as I can tell are all jokes who would never go anywhere (Tulsi Gabbard??).

[Gustaf]

Maybe this isn't the thread for discussing the 2020 D primary dynamics?

[pbrower2a]

Does anybody expect President Trump to have a good third quarter?

[Person Man]

Does anybody expect President Trump to have a good third quarter?

Its off to a shaky start. I'd imagine what will save his ass is if he finally starts to compromise with Democrats on his agenda and banks keep lending and investors keep spending. If Republicans nuke through tax cuts and austerity programs, they probably stay where they bleed all of the radishes dry. If they get cucked now or on taxes, Trump might lose approval. Though at this point, anyone who would now approves of Trump, will never directly or indirectly vote against him. They depend on him too much for his gifts to them.

[Holmes]

There's also going to be another shut down scare in September, so that will take a lot of energy. I doubt there will be any movement on health care afterwards with the midterms looming.

[Virginiá]

Gallup (July 21st)

Approve 38% (+1)
Disapprove 57% (-1)

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

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.

I suspect that "finding common ground with Republicans" is going to spell doom in the primaries to anyone on the record as promoting it. And a nominee who openly talks about wanting "bipartisanship" or to "work across the aisle" is probably Trump (or any GOP candidate's) best hope. My personal read is that a big swathe of the party are DONE making nice to Republicans.

[pbrower2a]

Maybe this isn't the thread for discussing the 2020 D primary dynamics?

Probably not. Assuming that approvals for Donald Trump remain low, Democrats will have an easy target in Trump. They have yet to agree on emphasis, let alone on a personality to defeat him. It will be hard to predict how mass contempt for President Trump will shape the Democratic agenda of 2020.

If President Trump resigns, dies or becomes incapacitated, or is removed from office, then how Mike Pence does will shape the next presidential election.

[The Other Castro]

Arkansas - Talk Business & Politics-Hendrix College poll of Trump approval:

Approve - 50%
Disapprove - 47%

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://katv.com/news/local/president-trumps-job-approval-in-arkansas-50-47