Trump approval ratings thread 1.2

[Inmate Trump]

So far I see Donald Trump doing little that gets a President re-elected.   

Does he have to though?  His supporters are die-hard and they'll be showing up to vote no matter what; he could declare himself Jesus and emperor of the world, and they'd cheer him on; he could advocate the opening of extermination camps for all Muslims and they'd praise him for it.  If the other side fails again to get out the vote, I can see him squeaking to another victory simply on the backs of his deranged supporters who will be there rooting for him regardless of what he's done so far or what he will do.

[Inmate Trump]

Maybe both parties should have nominated non-pieces of sh*t?

One party did, but she had the impossible task of running against 20+ years of unfounded, illogical, and many times sexist propaganda.  Was Hillary perfect?  No.  Was she the best candidate?  Absolutely not, and she made many mistakes that led to her defeat.  But she wasn't, as you say, a piece of sh*t.  There is no politician in the US who does not have a checkered reputation or  questionable values and morals.  But she was vastly superior in every way to her opponent; from moral compass, to leadership ability, to intelligence, to composure, to grace, etc etc etc.  She was the only presidential candidate in the history of presidential candidates (non-incumbents) who was literally molded and ready for the job on day 1.

But instead we went with a near literal "piece of sh*t" who is not the master negotiator he claimed to be, nor was he ready or even really willing to take on the role of commander-in-chief.  Someone who quite possibly colluded with a foreign government to meddle in our election on his behalf.  The world's biggest hypocrite; the world's biggest narcissist; the world's greatest liar; and the world's best conman.

Say what you will about Hillary Clinton.  Hate her.  Hate the things that 20+ years of conservative lies tell you.  Even if you consider all of it as truth, she was still better than the utter garbage we elected.

[Koharu]

Maybe both parties should have nominated non-pieces of sh*t?

One party did, but she had the impossible task of running against 20+ years of unfounded, illogical, and many times sexist propaganda.  Was Hillary perfect?  No.  Was she the best candidate?  Absolutely not, and she made many mistakes that led to her defeat.  But she wasn't, as you say, a piece of sh*t.  There is no politician in the US who does not have a checkered reputation or  questionable values and morals.  But she was vastly superior in every way to her opponent; from moral compass, to leadership ability, to intelligence, to composure, to grace, etc etc etc.  She was the only presidential candidate in the history of presidential candidates (non-incumbents) who was literally molded and ready for the job on day 1.

But instead we went with a near literal "piece of sh*t" who is not the master negotiator he claimed to be, nor was he ready or even really willing to take on the role of commander-in-chief.  Someone who quite possibly colluded with a foreign government to meddle in our election on his behalf.  The world's biggest hypocrite; the world's biggest narcissist; the world's greatest liar; and the world's best conman.

Say what you will about Hillary Clinton.  Hate her.  Hate the things that 20+ years of conservative lies tell you.  Even if you consider all of it as truth, she was still better than the utter garbage we elected.

A++++


Am I reading this right in that WV is actually split on Trump now? That is truly shocking to me, and yet gives me hope. They're not getting what they expected from this president, and maybe that's already sinking in.

[Yank2133]

So far I see Donald Trump doing little that gets a President re-elected.   

Does he have to though?  His supporters are die-hard and they'll be showing up to vote no matter what; he could declare himself Jesus and emperor of the world, and they'd cheer him on; he could advocate the opening of extermination camps for all Muslims and they'd praise him for it.  If the other side fails again to get out the vote, I can see him squeaking to another victory simply on the backs of his deranged supporters who will be there rooting for him regardless of what he's done so far or what he will do.

He won the election by a mere 70k across three states and if Comey doesn't drop that letter, Clinton wins and we aren't even having this discussion. I know it is popular these days to ignore political wisdom because of Trump's victory. But he isn't going to be reelected with 35-38% support he has now.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Gallup, 10/10

Approve 37 (+1)
Disapprove 56 (-2)

This reverses yesterday's change.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Quinnipiac, Oct 5-10, 1482 RV (change from 2 weeks ago)

Approve 38 (+2)
Disapprove 56 (-1)

[BoAtlantis]

Maybe both parties should have nominated non-pieces of sh*t?

One party did, but she had the impossible task of running against 20+ years of unfounded, illogical, and many times sexist propaganda.  Was Hillary perfect?  No.  Was she the best candidate?  Absolutely not, and she made many mistakes that led to her defeat.  But she wasn't, as you say, a piece of sh*t. There is no politician in the US who does not have a checkered reputation or  questionable values and morals. But she was vastly superior in every way to her opponent; from moral compass, to leadership ability, to intelligence, to composure, to grace, etc etc etc.  She was the only presidential candidate in the history of presidential candidates (non-incumbents) who was literally molded and ready for the job on day 1.

But instead we went with a near literal "piece of sh*t" who is not the master negotiator he claimed to be, nor was he ready or even really willing to take on the role of commander-in-chief.  Someone who quite possibly colluded with a foreign government to meddle in our election on his behalf.  The world's biggest hypocrite; the world's biggest narcissist; the world's greatest liar; and the world's best conman.

Say what you will about Hillary Clinton.  Hate her.  Hate the things that 20+ years of conservative lies tell you.  Even if you consider all of it as truth, she was still better than the utter garbage we elected.

Which is why right-wingers were desperate for an excuse to vote for him. They couldn't argue economy is in the toilet; couldn't argue Hillary doesn't have the experience that Obama lacked in 2008; couldn't argue Trump is the more moral one; can't say he has better policies when he has none except the wall that Mexico will pay for. So they instead stuck to the personality game. Anti-PC Trump versus dishonest Hillary was enough for them.

[BoAtlantis]

Maybe both parties should have nominated non-pieces of sh*t?

One party did, but she had the impossible task of running against 20+ years of unfounded, illogical, and many times sexist propaganda.  Was Hillary perfect?  No.  Was she the best candidate?  Absolutely not, and she made many mistakes that led to her defeat.  But she wasn't, as you say, a piece of sh*t.  There is no politician in the US who does not have a checkered reputation or  questionable values and morals.  But she was vastly superior in every way to her opponent; from moral compass, to leadership ability, to intelligence, to composure, to grace, etc etc etc.  She was the only presidential candidate in the history of presidential candidates (non-incumbents) who was literally molded and ready for the job on day 1.

But instead we went with a near literal "piece of sh*t" who is not the master negotiator he claimed to be, nor was he ready or even really willing to take on the role of commander-in-chief.  Someone who quite possibly colluded with a foreign government to meddle in our election on his behalf.  The world's biggest hypocrite; the world's biggest narcissist; the world's greatest liar; and the world's best conman.

Say what you will about Hillary Clinton.  Hate her.  Hate the things that 20+ years of conservative lies tell you.  Even if you consider all of it as truth, she was still better than the utter garbage we elected.

A++++


Am I reading this right in that WV is actually split on Trump now? That is truly shocking to me, and yet gives me hope. They're not getting what they expected from this president, and maybe that's already sinking in.

Even if that's true true, it could just be that there is a large split among younger and older generation, the latter of whom is much more likely to vote. It understates the true support he has from people that actually vote.

[pbrower2a]

So far I see Donald Trump doing little that gets a President re-elected.   

Does he have to though?  His supporters are die-hard and they'll be showing up to vote no matter what; he could declare himself Jesus and emperor of the world, and they'd cheer him on; he could advocate the opening of extermination camps for all Muslims and they'd praise him for it.  If the other side fails again to get out the vote, I can see him squeaking to another victory simply on the backs of his deranged supporters who will be there rooting for him regardless of what he's done so far or what he will do.

Every Party succeeds in getting out its base to vote. Unopposed elections are rare for House and Senate seats.  Someone will get 27% or more of the vote running against even the slickest campaigner, as with Barack Obama in 2004 for the US Senate.

But what holds true for Donald Trump will also hold true for the Democratic nominee for President; that candidate will get the vote of hyper-partisan Democrats, too. Elections are lost in landslides because a Party fails to get out the less hyper-partisan support. Close elections are decided by the swing voters who decide which nominee has more ability to convince marginal voters to vote.

It's the base voters who do the more active deeds from fundrasing and donation to electioneering.  Every canvassing effort will reach people who say absolutely no -- as in "I'd rather vote for a snake". Maybe people who hear enough rejections will give up on canvassing.

At this stage we have no electoral matchups. We don't even have such a hypothetical matchup as "Generic Democrat" versus Donald Trump in polling. After all, "Generic Republican" and "Generic Democrat" go into hibernation early in campaign season. The best that we have is of approximations.  People who now strongly approve of President Trump will almost certainly vote for him in 2020. People who strongly disapprove of him will almost certainly vote for someone other than him in 2020. Those who "somewhat approve"  will tend to vote for him -- but that is a much-more fickle part of the vote. Those who "somewhat disapprove" will need some strong convincing to vote for him in 2020. Bad first impressions are difficult to undo.   Then there is the really fickle part of the electorate known by the word "undecided", or the vacant "no opinion".

Can President Trump get re-elected? Sure. He wins should he change the political culture, which I don't see him doing. He's not a great orator. He also wins if he should succeed at inflicting early pain that results in policy changes that make life better. If he can't convince people that giving up Obamacare for the profits-first medicine that gives people health so long as they don't end up broke and be priced into the grave, then it is hard to see how he can convince people to support tax 'reforms' that shift the tax burden from the super-rich to the non-rich or (the dream of much of the GOP) to eviscerate labor laws and labor unions while cutting the minimum wage so that Americans get the dubious privilege of full employment on sweating for near-starvation pay. He is not convincing most of us on the 'need' to ravage the environment for quick profits for special interests such as coal barons.

A President starting out this badly can gain by putting an end to a recession, constraining inflation, tending to see civil unrest go into decline, or getting some huge and positive change in foreign relations or military reality. The Trump Presidency begins with an eight-year boom and with steady improvements in the international scene under his predecessor. This President insults about every democratically-elected leader (for which there is no precedent) and rattles his saber on Iran and North Korea. Anybody who expects no recession before 2020 is a fool. Civil unrest and mass demonstrations? Not under Obama, but certainly under Trump.

Very little can go right for this President that has yet to go right, and much can go wrong. But he is already unpopular. He is in worse political shape than Hoover was before the 1929 Stock Market Crash. The Iranian Revolution and the Iranian hostage Crisis caught President Carter unsuspecting and ill-prepared -- but everyone was unsuspecting and ill-prepared. His response to the violent attacks on peaceful protesters in Charlottesville demonstrates how clueless this man is about the moral standards of most people. His self-praise for handling a dangerous situation for hurricane survivors will not set well.

I see him losing.        
      
    

[pbrower2a]

Maybe both parties should have nominated non-pieces of sh*t?

One party did, but she had the impossible task of running against 20+ years of unfounded, illogical, and many times sexist propaganda.  Was Hillary perfect?  No.  Was she the best candidate?  Absolutely not, and she made many mistakes that led to her defeat.  But she wasn't, as you say, a piece of sh*t.  There is no politician in the US who does not have a checkered reputation or  questionable values and morals.  But she was vastly superior in every way to her opponent; from moral compass, to leadership ability, to intelligence, to composure, to grace, etc etc etc.  She was the only presidential candidate in the history of presidential candidates (non-incumbents) who was literally molded and ready for the job on day 1.

But instead we went with a near literal "piece of sh*t" who is not the master negotiator he claimed to be, nor was he ready or even really willing to take on the role of commander-in-chief.  Someone who quite possibly colluded with a foreign government to meddle in our election on his behalf.  The world's biggest hypocrite; the world's biggest narcissist; the world's greatest liar; and the world's best conman.

Say what you will about Hillary Clinton.  Hate her.  Hate the things that 20+ years of conservative lies tell you.  Even if you consider all of it as truth, she was still better than the utter garbage we elected.

A++++


Am I reading this right in that WV is actually split on Trump now? That is truly shocking to me, and yet gives me hope. They're not getting what they expected from this president, and maybe that's already sinking in.

No. That's pbrower's map cherry picking the single worst poll Trump has in every state, and there was a poll a month ago showing him even there, even though it was obviously junk. Other polls have shown him around 60% there.

I have yet to update the polling map. I reject polls by special-interest groups (labor unions, chambers of commerce, and advocacy groups). Outliers happen, and I have shown Trump disapproval diminishing in Pennsylvania and Virginia. Outliers can show real change.  Suppose that the stock market loses 1000 points on three consecutive days, gets a slight 'dead cat bounce', and then continues to erode for a couple months. So approval for President Trump goes from 48-45 in Georgia to 36-55. Is such an outlier then valid? Maybe.

The Morning Consult poll actually looks like an improvement for the President. It is valuable for getting all 50 states and Dee Cee, which statewide polls rarely do.  It is an apples-to-apples, oranges-to-oranges comparison: all states polled similarly, all the similar voting status, and all in the same time frame. Much of what you will see supplants a polling series by Survey Monkey, typically in states with no recent polling.   

   

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

So far I see Donald Trump doing little that gets a President re-elected.   

Does he have to though?  His supporters are die-hard and they'll be showing up to vote no matter what; he could declare himself Jesus and emperor of the world, and they'd cheer him on; he could advocate the opening of extermination camps for all Muslims and they'd praise him for it.  If the other side fails again to get out the vote, I can see him squeaking to another victory simply on the backs of his deranged supporters who will be there rooting for him regardless of what he's done so far or what he will do.

I'd bet that much fewer of his diehard supporters will show up to vote if they don't have a woman or minority to hate.

[BlueSwan]

Maybe both parties should have nominated non-pieces of sh*t?

One party did, but she had the impossible task of running against 20+ years of unfounded, illogical, and many times sexist propaganda.  Was Hillary perfect?  No.  Was she the best candidate?  Absolutely not, and she made many mistakes that led to her defeat.  But she wasn't, as you say, a piece of sh*t.  There is no politician in the US who does not have a checkered reputation or  questionable values and morals.  But she was vastly superior in every way to her opponent; from moral compass, to leadership ability, to intelligence, to composure, to grace, etc etc etc.  She was the only presidential candidate in the history of presidential candidates (non-incumbents) who was literally molded and ready for the job on day 1.

But instead we went with a near literal "piece of sh*t" who is not the master negotiator he claimed to be, nor was he ready or even really willing to take on the role of commander-in-chief.  Someone who quite possibly colluded with a foreign government to meddle in our election on his behalf.  The world's biggest hypocrite; the world's biggest narcissist; the world's greatest liar; and the world's best conman.

Say what you will about Hillary Clinton.  Hate her.  Hate the things that 20+ years of conservative lies tell you.  Even if you consider all of it as truth, she was still better than the utter garbage we elected.

So true.

[pbrower2a]

So far I see Donald Trump doing little that gets a President re-elected.   

Does he have to though?  His supporters are die-hard and they'll be showing up to vote no matter what; he could declare himself Jesus and emperor of the world, and they'd cheer him on; he could advocate the opening of extermination camps for all Muslims and they'd praise him for it.  If the other side fails again to get out the vote, I can see him squeaking to another victory simply on the backs of his deranged supporters who will be there rooting for him regardless of what he's done so far or what he will do.

I'd bet that much fewer of his diehard supporters will show up to vote if they don't have a woman or minority to hate.

They may get one or the other. They may even get someone who is both female and minority (Kamala Harris).

Female or an ethnic minority? After Donald Trump, the best sort of President that we could get is someone with an agenda and temperament like those of Barack Obama no matter what the gender or ethnicity. It's blasphemy to expect anyone to be another Lincoln or FDR, and we are certainly unlikely to end up with another John Kennedy.   

[Virginiá]

Gallup (October 11th)

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

[American2020]

Why the polls are still wrong

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/355066-why-the-polls-are-still-wrong

[BudgieForce]

Why the polls are still wrong

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/355066-why-the-polls-are-still-wrong

The 2016 national polls were not wrong. Im getting sick of this talking point.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

The 2016 national polls were not wrong. Im getting sick of this talking point.

In addition, The Hill is very pro-Trump.

[pbrower2a]

Why the polls are still wrong

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/355066-why-the-polls-are-still-wrong

The 2016 polls did not predict the ability of the Right to wear down about every liberal politician not in an ultra-safe state or district. Do not underestimate the Right for its dedication to make America the sort of neo-feudal monstrosity in which 95% of the people suffer for 2% of the people, emigrate, or die. That is what happened in 2016. Count on the Right having much the same plans for 2018 and 2020; it is far safer than clinching a victory early and having riots in the streets by people who know that the system doesn't even pretend to give them any breaks.  

That's a harsh statement, but that holds true for feudal lords, gangsters, slave masters, and non-Marxist tyrants. Life is to be great for a comparative few who get everything good and horrid for the common man who must compete with each other for the scraps. That's how things go until a violent revolution or a catastrophic defeat in war.

We have a novel form of tyranny in America: government by lobbyists. Our government is becoming more like that of the People's Republic of China, where a formal opposition has no real power but gets the occasional opportunity to plea for scraps from the dominant Party. China splits representation between Communists and non-Communists about 70-30; the American style is to ensure that representation splits about 55-45 for now with the prospect of 60-40 very soon.  

[Blackacre]

PBrower: I think your approval/disapproval map should have more shades, because Trump's national approval is below 40. Perhaps something like:

(if disapproval is higher than approval)
30 and below = Red 90
30-35 = Red 70
35-40 = Red 50
40-45 = Red 40
Above 45 = Red 30

(If approval is higher than disapproval)
60 and above = Blue 90
55-60 = Blue 70
50-55 = Blue 50
45-50 = Blue 40
Below 45 = Blue 30

That way the map can be more helpful in showing the full range of approval and disapproval of the President

[GeorgiaModerate]

SurveyMonkey weekly tracker, Oct 5-11, 16203 adults

Approve 41 (nc), Strongly 21 (-1)
Disapprove 57 (nc), Strongly 45 (nc)

[American2020]

Quinnipac

Approve: 38%
Disapprove: 56%

https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us10112017_Uhj87ke.pdf/

[GeorgiaModerate]

Quinnipac

Approve: 38%
Disapprove: 56%

https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us10112017_Uhj87ke.pdf/

I posted this one further up the page.

[pbrower2a]

PBrower: I think your approval/disapproval map should have more shades, because Trump's national approval is below 40. Perhaps something like:

(if disapproval is higher than approval)
30 and below = Red 90
30-35 = Red 70
35-40 = Red 50
40-45 = Red 40
Above 45 = Red 30

(If approval is higher than disapproval)
60 and above = Blue 90
55-60 = Blue 70
50-55 = Blue 50
45-50 = Blue 40
Below 45 = Blue 30

That way the map can be more helpful in showing the full range of approval and disapproval of the President

Nice idea. The problems are:

1. that I don't have enough verbal distinctions between colors that show on the map. I have "navy", "blue", and "light  blue" showing up to color the rating zones in my legend for blue, and "maroon", "red", and "pink" for shades of red.

2. I think that the critical zone for approval, at least in the  zones under 50 for approval, is between 43 and 45% for any state. Early approval at 45% gives about an 80% chance of winning; approval at 44% gives about a 55% chance of winning; approval at 43% gives about a 30% chance of winning for an incumbent Governor or Senator, and I would guess much the same for an elected President.  Chances for winning go up to about 90% for approval at an early approval of 46% and very close to 100%  for approval at 48%. On the not-so-great side, approval at 42% gives about a 15% chance of winning re-election, and the chance goes rapidly down to near zero.

This does not apply to appointed politicians who have never shown that they can win their seats. Appointed politicians have a very poor record of getting elected after being appointed.

So why is the line where it is? Against the average incumbent, the average challenger in the average election has a chance of the incumbent is struggling to keep approval from slipping below the mid-40s. Approval ratings for a recently-elected politician typically fall within three years (for a governor) or five years (for a Senator) from the level of the election by about 6.5%. But an incumbent who runs a campaign of average quality for an incumbent can usually pick up about 6.5% from approval to the vote share in a binary election. A vote share of 50% is usually needed for re-election. There are better and worse campaigners.

Many people thought that when Obama had approval ratings around 46% that he was doomed to lose.  But think of what else we all knew. We knew that he was a slick campaigner. He exuded optimism. The mainstream media on the whole (even if you include FoX "News") still liked him. Against an average challenger he was going to get a result in the lower fifties. In fact he faced an above-average challenger in Mitt Romney and still won. I'll say this here: had Mitt Romney run for the Republican nomination for President in 2016 he would have won it and he would have won a landslide.  Democrats might have still won the Senate majority, but Romney would be more effective dealing with a Democratic majority in the Senate than Trump is in dealing with a Republican majority in the Senate.   (I suspect that he did not run because of reasons of health -- his wife's health).

So why does the dip happen? Most politicians don't quite achieve their campaign promises. Campaigning gives a politician a very one-sided expression of the uncompromising self in an optimistic setting. Governing and legislating are messy business.

Running for President is like running fifty gubernatorial or Senatorial races (and the effect is the same for Governors and Senators; Presidents have usually been Governors or Senators before running for President), five Congressional races (districts in Maine and Nebraska), and mayor of one city (it is Washington, DC).

OK -- but what about politicians who face a breaking scandal? Those pols are usually secretive about that, and that does not look good in the public mood. Journalists do not plug politicians with troubles from potential indictment for bribery or from exposure of an illegitimate child. Nobody wants to hitch himself to a falling star. The pol with a scandal about to break usually has approval ratings well below a good start for an electoral campaign.

3. It's great to show fine distinctions, but I like to keep them relevant. There may be a huge quantitative difference between a football team down 59-10 at the start of the fourth quarter and another down 28-0 at the start of the fourth quarter. Both teams are going to lose. The team down "only" 28 points? The opposing offense of the team ahead has ground down the defense to the point that the team down is on the brink of collapse.

But this is not the fourth quarter of a football game. Approval below 30%? It might be interesting, but I find it hard to distinguish between having an approval rating of 24% and having an approval rating of 34%. But a distinction between 41% and 44% is gigantic in the prospects for a politician.

I might tinker some with the scale. You have some largely-good selections, but as the 2016 election shows, the People do not elect the president. The states do.                            

[Virginiá]

Gallup (October 12th)

Approve 39% (+2)
Disapprove 54% (-3)

[Person Man]

Gallup (October 12th)

Approve 39% (+2)
Disapprove 54% (-3)

The media blaming a rape scandal on the Democrats?