Trump approval ratings thread 1.1

[Virginiá]

So his disapproval for the week should average out to about 60%?

Again, I must say, it's pretty amazing how fast Trump is sinking. It's unprecedented. He is still supposed to be in the period of time where people are mostly giving him some benefit of the doubt, even if there is some modest erosion

[Middle-aged Europe]

Trump seems to have suffered some lasting damage from either Charlottesville, the firing of Bannon, the bragging about how awesome he finds himself in dealing with Harvey, or a combination of these factors.

[GeorgiaModerate]

So his disapproval for the week should average out to about 60%?

Again, I must say, it's pretty amazing how fast Trump is sinking. It's unprecedented. He is still supposed to be in the period of time where people are mostly giving him some benefit of the doubt, even if there is some modest erosion

Yes, starting on Aug 23 he had 6 consecutive days of 60%, then 59, 60, 61.

[Dr. Arch]

Hopefully, he's solidly around the mid to high 60s (with strong disapproval in the high 50s or more) by 2018 midterms.

[The Mikado]

So his disapproval for the week should average out to about 60%?

Again, I must say, it's pretty amazing how fast Trump is sinking. It's unprecedented. He is still supposed to be in the period of time where people are mostly giving him some benefit of the doubt, even if there is some modest erosion

Unprecedented, although Gerald Ford's unique circumstances produced a president ALMOST as unpopular early as Trump.

[President Johnson]

navy under 40
blue 40-43
light blue 44-47
white 48 or 49
pink 50-54
red 55-59
maroon 60-69
reddish-black 70+

If you put all states with a disapproval of less than 55% in his column, he's still relatively close to 270 electoral votes.

[Devout Centrist]

Guys, that poll of WV is garbage: please don't take it seriously. The only metric anybody should have any credence in is the fact that Manchin has likely almost wrapped up his re-election.

Give all the undecideds/others to the GOP in each contest and it might be somewhat accurate; Trump and Capito are probably around 60% in WV, and Justice is probably around 55%.

I don't think it's that bad. I think Clinton lost so badly in WV because of her comments on coal mining and Obama era-regulations. I think it will definitely trend D in 2020, even if it stays solid R.

[Virginiá]

McCaskill will probably need his disapproval to be around 65% or more to win again. She's the most endangered of the red state Dems (though the others are too). Needless to say though, I think Heller and Flake might be more screwed than any of the red state Dems though if he drops that low.

So far, as brutal as the map is for Democrats, things seem to be working out very nicely. With 2 GOP-held seats being severely softened up by Trump himself, Democrats could very well break even when all is said and done, or if by some stroke of luck, even make a +1 net gain. We honestly couldn't ask for a better night. Breaking even or even having just a one-seat net loss would be a good day in regards to the Senate. It makes flipping the chamber in 2020 a lot easier if Trump is still remotely as unpopular as he is now.

Due to the way Senate elections are structured, even the dominant political party of the time has to be strategic about holding the Senate for numerous cycles. Republicans are completely blowing a rare opportunity to lock it down.

[Tintrlvr]

So his disapproval for the week should average out to about 60%?

Again, I must say, it's pretty amazing how fast Trump is sinking. It's unprecedented. He is still supposed to be in the period of time where people are mostly giving him some benefit of the doubt, even if there is some modest erosion

Well, the honeymoon period was over for both Obama and Bush (both were in the low 50s) by this time in their presidencies. So Trump is way underperforming still but by somewhat less than he used to be (used to be running about 30 points behind Obama and Bush back at the beginning of his Presidency, now running about 20 points behind them).

[Blackacre]

The big takeaway here is that Ohio and Indiana aren't converging as much as it may have seemed.

[pbrower2a]

Now for the probabilistic model of random chance in an election when a nominee needs eight wins in independent events.  The probabilities for each state can be seen as P(ST), with "ST" as the stand-in for the postal code for each state. Figuring that President Trump is in the position in which he must win eight states in which his approval rating is 55% or lower, and that one of those is New Hampshire, in which his approval rating is 55%...

His chances of winning the election are the product of

P(AZ), P(FL), P(IA), P(NV), P(NH), P(NC), P(OH), and P(TX).

1 represents a sure win, and 0 is a sure loss. Any loss among these states implies that he is defeated.  Remember  -- the product of zero and any finite set of numbers is zero.

50% chance in each state? That gives him just less than 4 chances in 1000 of winning. at 0.00391, stopping at three significant digits.

So let's see how things change as the percentage goes up.

.55    0.00837
.60    0.0168
.65    0.0319
.70    0.0576
.75    0.100   
.80    0.168
.85    0.272
.88    0.360
.90    0.430
.91    0.470
.92    0.513

Of course the President, should he be getting 92% chances in all of these  states, is probably making things tighter in Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and is changing the assumptions about the election.  But at 80% in all eight states, what happens if his chances go to .95 in Texas but .25 in Iowa?  His chance falls from 17% to about 6%. The chance for the President depends far more upon his weakest state than upon his strongest state. Now let us suppose that Trump has shored himself up in Arizona, North Carolina, and Texas to make them effective certainties at .95, but New Hampshire has gone to .10 and Iowa has gone to .25... the chance drops to about .00656...  one chance in 152. Ouch!

...and if you are a partisan Democrat and see polls showing effective certainty in all states (except New Hampshire) in which his disapproval ratings are now 55% or higher, and go to the Democratic Party headquarters for a celebration, and you get a quick call of New Hampshire as a Democratic win while Democrats are picking up the states that you expect to be easy wins -- all that remains is the formality of a network journalist calling exactly what you expect.  Some time around 11PM eastern time you might await the countdown for results from states on the West Coast as the Democrat has 196 or more electoral votes as 74 sure electoral votes from sure states for a Democratic nominee get called as a formality.   


   
     

[pbrower2a]

New Jersey, Rutgers-Eagleton

Donald Trump approval 30-65

Chris Christie 16-79 approval

Robert Menendez 28-25 favorability

Cory Booker 54-23 favorability

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

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

White - tie.


Now for the theme of disapproval as shown in the Gallup data and subsequent polls:

navy under 40
blue 40-43
light blue 44-47
white 48 or 49
pink 50-54
red 55-59
maroon 60-69
reddish-black 70+

[pbrower2a]

(updated due to a poll in New Jersey that shows a huge swing since the last polling data)

If you put all states with a disapproval of less than 55% in his column, he's still relatively close to 270 electoral votes.

One must draw a line somewhere to show that some tipping-point state defines victory and loss.  This could be percentage of the vote  or margin.

DEM  REP  DIS ΔEV  STATES
000  538   80   03      DC
003  535   71   58      CA VT
061  477   66   11      MA
072  466   65   14      NJ
086  452   64   10      MD
096  442   62   29      NY 
125  413   61   13      VA
138  400   59   24      CT HI WA
161  377   58   20      IL
181  357   57   45      CO MI MN WI
222  312   56   15      DE NM OR
241  297   55   32     ME* NH PA RI TIPPING POINT/ZONE
273  265   54   11      AZ
284  254   53   06      NV
290  248   52   53      FL IA OH
343  195   51   36      TX
381  157   50   37      GA NC UT
418  120   48   16      IN WV
434  104   47   06      AR
440  098   46   19      MS MO MT
459  079   44   12      ND SC
471  067   43   16      LA NE* SD
487  051   42   29      ID KS KY TN
516  022   39   22      AL OK WY
538  000

*Maine and Nebraska divide their electoral votes.

ME-01 is more Democratic than Maine at large, which is more Democratic than ME-02 (which went to Donald Trump in 2016). Maine-01 is somewhat urban southern Maine, including Portland, and ME-02 is very rural, comprising central and northern Maine.

NE-02 (mostly Greater Omaha inside Nebraska) is less Democratic than ME-02, so in a normal election it is more likely that Maine gives an electoral vote for a Republican than that Nebraska gives an electoral vote to a Democrat. But NE-02 went for Barack Obama in 2008. It is much more Democratic than Nebraska as a whole. NE-01, eastern Nebraska (including Lincoln and some parts of Greater Omaha) is slightly more Democratic than Nebraska as a whole. NE-03, including very rural central and western Nebraska (including Scottsbluff and Grand Island) is one of the most Republican districts in the USA, and is so strongly Republican that

(1) it can easily swing the state at large Republican, and
(2) it could conceivably offer the single electoral vote for a Republican nominee for President.

Descriptions of the states and their districts are

ME-01 -- very strong D
ME at large  -- strong D
ME-02  -- very weak D
NE-02  --  weak R
NE-01  -- strong R
NE at large -- very strong R
NE-03 -- almost as reliably R as the District of Columbia is reliably D


This chart shows how the states and DC fall as they go Democratic.  With allowance for the age of some of the polling data (oldest of which is a Gallup composite of statewide data from January to July, which I average as April data) that likely underestimates disapproval ratings of the President in some states, I get some idea of how badly President Trump will do in many states. On the whole I have a reasonable average of disapproval of the states lower than those of recent Gallup polls of nationwide tracking. Sure, California (55 electoral votes) is huge, but it is only a little more than a tenth of the population of the USA, and even Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York State, and Virginia -- 83 electoral votes altogether) are shown close to the national average of disapproval of the President.

You can argue any single state poll, but any state in which President Trump has 55% or higher disapproval is effectively gone. By picking off every such state the Democratic nominee gets just barely enough electoral votes should he get nothing in which disapproval of President Trump is 54% or lower.  President Trump's three barest wins were in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin... and polling data suggests that he can count on losing all three of those states. An easy appeal by Democrats to those three states is "Promises made, promises broken"

To win while winning all states in which he now has disapproval of 54% or less, he would have to pick off five or more electoral votes from states in which he has current levels of disapproval of 55% or more. Conveniently those would have to be the ME-02 (which President Trump won, and for which I have no polling data) and New Hampshire (one of his barest losses in a usual swing state). That is stretching things.

But that leaves President Trump with practically no room for error. He could conceivably lose only one more electoral vote, the unlikely loss with nothing else of NE-02, which means that there would be a 269-269 split of the Electoral College with the Presidency chosen in the House of Representatives. President Trump is doing so badly that he could hand the Democrats a majority of House seats in this unlikely scenario.

The problem that President Trump has in the polling isn't that he has 71% disapproval in California. It is that he has 54% disapproval in Arizona, 51% disapproval in Texas,  50% disapproval in North Carolina, and 52% or 53% disapproval in three states in four states (Florida, Iowa, Nevada, and Ohio) that Obama won twice. Yes, you can say "but it is Arizona, which hasn't gone Democratic in a close race in a century (1948 was not close even if the newspaper headline read "DEWEY WINS!", "but it is Texas, which hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee since 1976", or "but it is North Carolina, sort of a freak in 2008". You can say such things, but President Trump will need to win every one of those states. 

Take the Trump chance of winning every one of those states individually, and really New Hampshire because it is in the set-up condition to give Trump a probabilistic chance (it will be between 0.00 and 1.00  for each), multiply them all, and you get the chance of President Trump getting re-elected. If any of those states slides out of reach, then he is one-and-done. To reset the chance for being re-elected he must reset the public discourse on him in states in which he is faring badly. 

You can argue about any single state, but even with 268 electoral votes for the Democratic nominee in states in which disapproval of Donald Trump is 55% or higher, President Trump has many ways to lose -- as in, any state in which his disapproval is under 55%.

He actually lost Nevada in 2016, and he could easily do so again. But if Nevada doesn't get him, Arizona might. Or Florida, Iowa, or Ohio.   Texas (of all states!) could utterly reject him if he bungles the response to Hurricane Harvey. The Hispanic vote in Texas is growing rapidly, and Texas is no longer below-average in educational achievement for white people. Then there is North Carolina.  These seven states are dissimilar enough and scattered enough that the President could not offer a one-size fits all approach that could secure all seven states, and he would have to spend resources of advertising funds and personal appearances wildly in an effort to keep them all.

(So why did I not mention Georgia or Utah? Utah doesn't go to a Democrat unless the Democrat is a Mormon, and I see it more likely that a third-party conservative nominee wins Utah than does any Democrat. Utah isn't going for a Democratic nominee unless either Arizona or Nevada goes for the Democrat.  Georgia does not go for a Democratic nominee unless both Florida and North Carolina also do so).

[Virginiá]

Gallup (September 2nd)

Approve 34% (-/-)
Disapprove 61% (-/-)

[pbrower2a]

Trump seems to have suffered some lasting damage from either Charlottesville, the firing of Bannon, the bragging about how awesome he finds himself in dealing with Harvey, or a combination of these factors.

This is all bad and inexcusable. It is not what Ronald Reagan did, imposing unpopular (but necessary, at least as he saw it) pain for good results later. There can be no good from any of this.

There is no good side to his mealy-mouthed bungling of his response to violence in Charlottesville from American fascists. Ronald Reagan would have never made that mistake. Firing Bannon? Inevitable with what was a bad choice from the start.  One does not brag about what one does in response to a tragedy until the tragedy is over.

There is no obvious good to come from any of this. People are giving up on him, and should the hurricane lead to higher interest rates, cost of living, and taxes, and a downturn in the securities markets then a President who has promised little more than unprecedented prosperity will have nothing to back him up.

The floor for Presidential approval has been in the 20s with Truman (end of his term), Nixon (as he was approaching resignation), and Dubya (end of his second term). Trump could get there long before any impeachment process looms or before the scheduled end of his term.

A Presidency that has an economic meltdown, disasters in foreign policy, or civil unrest long before its scheduled end could bring unprecedented instability in American politics.       

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Gallup (September 2nd)

Approve 34% (-/-)
Disapprove 61% (-/-)

I don't see a Harvey bump coming out of this. He's just too hated. Besides, his response hasn't been great compared to Obama's towards Sandy.

[Dr. Arch]

Gallup (September 2nd)

Approve 34% (-/-)
Disapprove 61% (-/-)

I don't see a Harvey bump coming out of this. He's just too hated. Besides, his response hasn't been great compared to Obama's towards Sandy.

His half-spirited $1 million pledge walk-back isn't going to help either.

[President Johnson]

Gallup (September 2nd)

Approve 34% (-/-)
Disapprove 61% (-/-)

I don't see a Harvey bump coming out of this. He's just too hated. Besides, his response hasn't been great compared to Obama's towards Sandy.

His half-spirited $1 million pledge walk-back isn't going to help either.

Especially when he continues to suffer from one self-inflicted wound after another... Looks like Charlottsville resulted in lasting damage for the God Emperor. Not to mention his inability to get anything done in congress.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Gallup (September 2nd)

Approve 34% (-/-)
Disapprove 61% (-/-)

I don't see a Harvey bump coming out of this. He's just too hated. Besides, his response hasn't been great compared to Obama's towards Sandy.

His half-spirited $1 million pledge walk-back isn't going to help either.

Yeah thats going to be a massive stain on the legacy of his response towards the disaster.

[Yank2133]

Gallup (September 2nd)

Approve 34% (-/-)
Disapprove 61% (-/-)

I don't see a Harvey bump coming out of this. He's just too hated. Besides, his response hasn't been great compared to Obama's towards Sandy.

I have said it before. But his response to Charlottesville was a watershed moment. No one is going to buy his response to any disaster or tragedy for the rest of his term.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Gallup:

Dissaprove: 58% (-3)
Approve: 36% (+2)

Looks like I was wrong, he is getting a Harvey boost. I'm doubtful it will be much though. Might break 40% again but that's it.

[Holmes]

Can't yet say if it's a Harvey boost or just sn overdue bounce.

[BudgieForce]

Im not sure how many times I need to post this but you should never read too much into the daily fluctuations of a tracking poll. They are prone to wild jumps for no reason.

[Devout Centrist]

Im not sure how many times I need to post this but you should never read too much into the daily fluctuations of a tracking poll. They are prone to wild jumps for no reason.

Well at least you gave me a good laugh.

[BudgieForce]

Im not sure how many times I need to post this but you should never read too much into the daily fluctuations of a tracking poll. They are prone to wild jumps for no reason.

Well at least you gave me a good laugh.

Gosh darn it, how am I supposed to ignore Daniel if you quote him.