Trump approval ratings thread 1.1

[Badger]

How low has a president gone and still recovered with no consequences? There was Truman, right? Even he lost Congress and only ran once.

Here's the answer according to Nate Silver:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/have-trumps-problems-hit-a-breaking-point/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Say what you will about Trump, but I think his "win" will go down in history as one of the biggest upsets, along with Truman (though not as impressive as Truman's).

Well, I think it'll still be second to Truman's if only because of the reality that Trump pulled an inside straight with the electoral college but still lost the popular vote by almost 3 million. But yeah, it was perhaps the greatest upset since Truman, and possibly worse. I think we should have all been expecting there was something going on when Hillary's last couple rounds of the campaign we're in Philadelphia and Detroit.

[Badger]

The more media spin Russia-gate with absolutely no evidence, the more teflon Don becomes. Nice!

Not sure if you're joking, but you should probably read the thread on this page regarding the NSA report

[Badger]

Trump is unique in the presidential ratings in that he squandered all the goodwill by February. Bill Clinton did the same in his first 200 days but he was skillful enough to rebuild the capital and keep it afloat to a credible level throughout his two terms. His early blunders of 1993-1995 are almost nothing like Trump's blunders. They're policy related and some scandals but nothing on the level of Trump's.

They're on two separate planets although I will say Trump reminds me of a much less able and competent Clinton. Clinton was more focused on winning 50% of the two party vote at almost all times and had the experience of the Arkansas governorship behind him. Trump literally does not grasp political capital or the art of keeping his coalition together enough to pass a law and maintain his ratings.

Remember this. Bill Clinton rebounded after that low and didn't hit negative ratings until fall 1994 to the Oklahoma bombing in April 1995. Trump has been underwater for months with strongly disapprove climbing.

Also Bill Clinton had the economic expansion left to him by George H.W. Bush while Trump might hit a recession within the next two years.

Two additional points:
1) Clinton only won the election with about 43% of the vote. One of the lowest pluralities along with Nixon in 68 of any winner in the previous century. A telling comparison IMHO.

2) While a lot can happen, what does the result of Clinton's following mid-term election forecast about 2018?

[Badger]

My guess is that if you are above 45%, the median voter will probably hold their nose for you, but by 40% all the truly undecided voters have turned on you. By 30-35, people who voted for you will not vote for you again and by the time you are under 30, people will start peeling off bumper stickers. I don't think you can get under the high 20s.

President Nixon hit 24% approval shortly before his resignation.

http://historyinpieces.com/research/nixon-approval-ratings

The lowest approval rating for any politician I can recall was Governor Robert Taft of Ohio whom per Wikipedia: In the wake of convictions for the ethics violations (see criminal conviction), Taft's approval rating bottomed out at 6.5 percent, according to a late November 2005 poll by Zogby, giving him quite possibly the lowest polled approval rating ever by a United States politician.[58] A SurveyUSA poll that same month gave Taft a rating of 18 percent.

Yes Zogby, ha ha whatever. But IIRC there was another poll placing him at 11% approval in 2006. That's astronomically bad.

[Badger]

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

[Badger]

Not likely with TX but if he keeps sliding this might be the map.

Could be, but I have a hard time Texas flip before Missouri, or even Montana. One thing about Montana's voting estate tend to swing harder than the national Norm against unpopular incumbents or their parties. Consider how Clinton carried it in 92 and Obama came darn close in 2008, only for the state to swing hard hard against them in the subsequent election.

[Badger]

^ Montana is too entrenched with libertarians/conservatives to flip. That and the lack of population and big pop cities is why I still have it as R. For Missouri, HC got only 38.14% in 2016 so it is long gone for any Dem for a considerable period of time, even in a landslide. It votes like Appalachia, essentially.

In 2004, Bush beat Kerry in MT 59.1% - 38.6%. Granted, Bush did win the PV nationally that year, but it still shows that that margin doesn't necessarily preclude a future Democratic win there (or a narrow loss)

And in 2008 Obama lost Missouri by a fraction of a percent, and Montana buy something like 3%. If we assume states are going to maintain their Trump level voting patterns, this would be a valid argument. It's not impossible to say that Trump presents something of a realignment, but a wiser bet is that he's a general voting aberration. Yes, Missouri has been trending away from democrats for the last 20 years, where is Texas has been trending towards them for at least the last several, but it is way too early to say Texas is more ready to flip then Missouri.

Likewise, wow Texas hasn't shown much of proclivity to voting Democratic in the last 25 years, Montana in that. Has even at the federal level comma plus a notable Auntie incumbent swing. Of course Republicans are favored there, but it's at least even if not better chance than Texas to flip

[Badger]

I guess these things happen when The Media supports everything you do.

The Media doesn't like Trump. Most members of the media are Democrats.

Yes, billionaires who are owners or majority shareholders in media companies are notoriously liberal Democrats.

If the media reports on a team that hasn't scored a run all year as having a lousy offense, do they have a bias against the local team or are they just reporting a disaster in the making? Now apply that to the presidency and get it through your skull that he is a walking dumpster fire on every conceivable level. He is indefensible. For anyone with common sense of a toad that is. Join the club of those who surpass that level.

Your whining about the media is pathetic, tired, and baseless. Grow up.

And that's directed it pretty much a third of the Forum, not just Hopper.

[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.

[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.

[Badger]

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.

Do we really know that this is true? National media in the United States inform their coverage with about as much historical perspective as you might expect from a fruit fly, but that doesn't mean that underlying voter attitudes were not formed over decades.

Everyone points to Clinton's high approvals as SoS, but there's nothing unusual about a SoS having high approval ratings. Which backlash may have harmed her more in retrospect, given that the more recent scandals prompted voters to re-assess her tenure in that position, although the Clinton campaign never stopped touting that experience as an unimpeachable asset.

It's very wrong in my opinion, as in fact was a salient semi recent issue that Republicans can use to hammer on the underlined impression people have Hillary for decades. The email scandal barely ask Elam. Beyond the screams of the right-wing media best put by Obama as a problem for the help desk because it was drummed like a Bonnaroo hippie Circle two years flat it gave Focus for decades long lingering mistrust and Clinton that couldn't be written off as ancient history

[Badger]

I suspect his numbers might nominally bump up slightly in the short term due to some disaffected members of tbe base approving of the trans military ban. Wouldn't swear to it, but that's my hunch.

[Badger]

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

And Trump voters wonder why everyone thinks theyre ignorant

*puts on MAGA hat* He did win the popular vote; the millions of votes by illegals don't count!

Remove L.A. and NYC and what's the popular vote? I'd say those areas are not culturally representative of most of America.

Neither is West Virginia nor Wyoming.

More than L.A. or NYC.

9/11 mother f*****

You have an extremely narrow version of cultural representation.. America's greatest strength is its diversity.

By the way, your inability to do math is as strong as your xenophobia. Hillary won New York City by about a million and a half votes which only Cuts Trump's national deficit by half. I couldn't find the figures for the city of Los Angeles, but considering it's substantially smaller and no more Democrat friendly then New York, it's inconceivable that trumps still doesn't lose the National popular vote by at least close to a million votes.

[Badger]

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

And Trump voters wonder why everyone thinks theyre ignorant

*puts on MAGA hat* He did win the popular vote; the millions of votes by illegals don't count!

Remove L.A. and NYC and what's the popular vote? I'd say those areas are not culturally representative of most of America.

Neither is West Virginia nor Wyoming.

More than L.A. or NYC.

9/11 mother f*****

You have an extremely narrow version of cultural representation.. America's greatest strength is its diversity.

By the way, your inability to do math is as strong as your xenophobia. Hillary won New York City by about a million and a half votes which only Cuts Trump's national deficit by half. I couldn't find the figures for the city of Los Angeles, but considering it's substantially smaller and no more Democrat friendly then New York, it's inconceivable that trumps still doesn't lose the National popular vote by at least close to a million votes.

First of all, no it's not.

Secondly, I should have specified Los Angeles County. I believe she received 1.7 million votes from that single county alone.

It's not because naso's incompetent ass has to compete with the vast majority of blacks, Hispanics, and agents who are, like most whites, vastly Superior to him both in terms of intellectual discipline and as a person. He just can't rely on good old-fashioned 1950s mad men-style white privilege to get an automatic de facto affirmative action bonus over these people.

[Badger]

PPIC - California:

Approve 25%
Disapprove 71%

Only 68% of California Republicans and 33% of Independents approve of Trump.

Source

california is real america, best america confirmed

I agree.

When I went there I saw so many Asians. Everyone always talks about Hispanics, or me it was Asians everywhere. That got me thinking, were they foreigners on vacation to Santa Monica, or were they California residents?

Of course the vast majority were Americans you ignorant racist slut. You really fail to comprehend that people who don't look like you, especially in California are the norm?

For all your obnoxious adulation of the 80s dash dash a grossly overrated decade I assure you dash dash your mindset is actually 1950s Leave it to Beaver version of America.

You know, I think I hit upon it in my previous post. You are a dude with literally no life or prospects to speak of. Everything you've attempted in your life has been a raging failure thus far and you have chosen to focus your bad choices in general and confidence on minorities who can't compete with, political correctness whatever the hell that means as an excuse for why you can't get laid despite your giant Ginger schlong, plus the fact women are getting jobs wear back in the good old days they be serving you coffee as your secretary despite there being intellectually and personally Superior to you.

Rough life. I suppose you found something that you can rely on like a security blanket more than actually trying to improve yourself, but hey whatever works for you

[Badger]

PPIC - California:

Approve 25%
Disapprove 71%

Only 68% of California Republicans and 33% of Independents approve of Trump.

Source

california is real america, best america confirmed

I agree.

When I went there I saw so many Asians. Everyone always talks about Hispanics, or me it was Asians everywhere. That got me thinking, were they foreigners on vacation to Santa Monica, or were they California residents?

Does this go into the Deplorapile?

Naso's entire posting history belongs in the deplorable or bad post threads

[Badger]

I couldn't find the figures for the city of Los Angeles, but considering it's substantially smaller and no more Democrat friendly then New York, it's inconceivable that trumps still doesn't lose the National popular vote by at least close to a million votes.

Some quick napkin calculations suggest that Clinton's PV margin in Los Angeles proper is somewhere between 700-800k votes.

You have a pretty good napkin!!!!

City of LA:

Clinton: 1,017,038 ---    Trump: 212,080        Margin 804, 958

http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2016-general/ssov/ssov-complete.pdf

Impressive as always Griffin.

Does anyone have the numbers for Chicago? It's probably enough for Trump to get over the remaining seven hundred thousand or so vote deficit, but if not it'd be hysterical to see naso have to explain how Houston doesn't represent real America either.

[Badger]

Chicago was Clinton 912,943 - 135,317. Margin of 777,626.

Thanks Ted. So that combined with LA and NYC accounts for a Hillary margin of just under 3.1 million, we're as her National popular vote margin was just short of 2.9 Million.

Okay, I guess naso made it official, without the grossly an American cities of New York and la, which is exactly what no one thinks of when they think of America plus that completely in American city of Chicago Trump would have won the popular vote by a hair.

From naso's to put it mildly skewed Viewpoint, I can get where his prejudices and bubble View lead him to consider New York City and LA to be not real America. But where the hell does that come into Chicago? Midwestern big city of big shoulders? Surely even he can't a trivia more than a drop in the bucket of that 700000 + city wide margin to vote fraud which it's something that largely hasn't occurred since the 70s? What could it possibly be it makes Chicago so non-typical America for naso? 

Oh, now I remember. Ni##ers.

[Badger]

Gallup (July 29th)

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

It has been for a long time he's between 35-40 now right?

Yeah, he is hit his base core of conservative Republicans support who won't abandon him short of a recession and / or russiagate hitting impeachment level Watergate standards

[Badger]

Mitt Romney is a prophet. He was right about Russia and right about Donald Trump too. It was the voters who grievously harmed themselves by refusing to listen to him.

He's was even right about the entitled 47% who will vote for their party no matter what and refuse to take responsibility for what they do.

In fairness, not quite all even the 47% voted for Trump. And if approval ratings are anything to go by, more will defect

[Badger]

I had to delete the NH thread because the usual suspects were derailing it with their trolling, but as you may know Trump called NH a "drug-infested den" in a telephone conversation with the Mexican president.

So don't be surprised if his disapproval goes up even more in the state, if that's even possible. Hopefully this helps Democrats take back the state for good in 2018.

Aww, you should have just locked it . I was planning on skimming that thread.

It was mostly Beet concern trolling about how Trump acting like an idiot gains him voters.

Again?

[Badger]

Get back on topic please.

You geniuses let Krazen and MAGA2020 endlessly troll, the former after bei,g let back after a year because " he'd change", let Stormfront lite posts flourish, and THIS is where you draw the line?

Develop some perspective

[Badger]

Get back on topic please.

You geniuses let Krazen and MAGA2020 endlessly troll, the former after bei,g let back after a year because " he'd change", let Stormfront lite posts flourish, and THIS is where you draw the line?

Develop some perspective

Get over yourself.

Badger, with all due respect, you're getting too much of a single-issue regarding Krazen. And I'm saying this as somebody who wouldn't mind banning him altogether.

Maybe, I think he's more Exhibit A as to what absolute jokes the mod squad have (mostly) become in trying to keep this place from being overrun with trolls and Stormfront-lite posters (of which Krazen is both).