Trump approval ratings thread 1.3
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:39:52 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Trump approval ratings thread 1.3
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 79
Author Topic: Trump approval ratings thread 1.3  (Read 178009 times)
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,252
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: February 26, 2018, 11:52:37 AM »

Trump closing gap quickly in Huffpost pollster average: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/trump-job-approval

Anybody putting all their midterm hopes on an unpopular Trump should be worried.



Ignoring the fact that they have yet to include the most recent Suffolk and CNN poll.

If you haven’t put Andrew on ignore, please do! He just wants attention like his man child leader

Seriously. You don't even have to ever see their posts ever more with the new Ignore option. I'm tired of seeing people quote LimoLibel.

Had no idea. I've had him on ignore but took him off because he occasionally posts relevant stuff. But today he was super troll'y so might as well perma ignore him.

This
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: February 26, 2018, 01:38:02 PM »

Blank map.



[/quote]

New color scheme, approval and disapproval only (but 100-DIS, as I consider this a ceiling for a Trump vote in any state or district). Backtracking to October

Approval




55% or higher dark blue
50-54% medium blue
less than 50% but above disapproval pale blue
even white
47% to 50% but below disapproval pale red
42% to 46% medium red
under 42% deep red

100-Disapproval




55% or higher dark blue
50% to 54% or higher but not tied medium blue
50% or higher but positive pale blue
ties white
45% or higher and negative pale red
40% to 44% medium red
under 40% deep red

Some random polling data from a post in December -- random except that it involves states of the Mountain and Deep South:

https://twitter.com/politico_chris/status/944007367049515008

The tweet reads: "Trump Job Approval in the South vs. his 2016 result in parentheses:
AR- 48% (61%)
LA- 48% (58%)
MS- 51% (58%)
AL- 53% (62%)
GA- 47% (50%)
SC- 51% (55%)
FL- 42% (49%)
NC- 43% (52%)
VA- 39% (44%)
WV- 59% (68%)
KY- 50% (63%)
MO- 48% (56%)
TX- 45% (52%)
OK- 56% (65%)
TN- 51% (61%)"

I don't know what he's sourcing or if there's any new info here, however I would like to point out that GA only has a paltry 3% shift away from Trump while TX shifted away by 7% and AR did by 13%.

Not using these.

Logged
GeorgiaModerate
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,354


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: February 26, 2018, 03:30:31 PM »

Gallup's weekly approval page hasn't updated yet, but 538 says the new numbers are:

Approve 39 (+2)
Disapprove 56 (-3)
Logged
LimoLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,535


Political Matrix
E: -3.71, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: February 26, 2018, 03:50:21 PM »

Gallup's weekly approval page hasn't updated yet, but 538 says the new numbers are:

Approve 39 (+2)
Disapprove 56 (-3)

Wow.
Logged
UncleSam
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,498


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: February 26, 2018, 05:16:04 PM »

Idk how many times I have to say this but Trump's negative number is NOT the ceiling it is for most candidates. On Election Day 2016 he had a 61% disapproval rating in Wisconsin, but won almost 20% of those who disapproved of him.

It is not valid to cite disapprovals as baked in voters against Trump. There are literally millions of people who openly hate him but would vote for him given almost any excuse or flaw in a Democratic candidate. I'm not saying he will win 20% of those who disapprove of him again in any state, but he may well win 5-10%. And if you give him the undecided voters in such a generous manner (I think you shouldn't, depending on the opposition), then he wins easily when taking that plus third party votes into account based on your map.

Again, however, the key is to win over voters who are undecided on Trump or even who marginally approve of him, while holding almost everyone who disapproves of him. You can't limit yourself just to those who dislike him and tack on a few token undecided voters and expect to get anything beyond a Hillary coalition.
Logged
Dr. Arch
Arch
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,452
Puerto Rico


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: February 26, 2018, 05:18:33 PM »

Idk how many times I have to say this but Trump's negative number is NOT the ceiling it is for most candidates. On Election Day 2016 he had a 61% disapproval rating in Wisconsin, but won almost 20% of those who disapproved of him.

It is not valid to cite disapprovals as baked in voters against Trump. There are literally millions of people who openly hate him but would vote for him given almost any excuse or flaw in a Democratic candidate. I'm not saying he will win 20% of those who disapprove of him again in any state, but he may well win 5-10%. And if you give him the undecided voters in such a generous manner (I think you shouldn't, depending on the opposition), then he wins easily when taking that plus third party votes into account based on your map.

Again, however, the key is to win over voters who are undecided on Trump or even who marginally approve of him, while holding almost everyone who disapproves of him. You can't limit yourself just to those who dislike him and tack on a few token undecided voters and expect to get anything beyond a Hillary coalition.

Correction, they were favorability numbers, not disapprovals.
Logged
GeorgiaModerate
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,354


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: February 26, 2018, 06:31:53 PM »

Idk how many times I have to say this but Trump's negative number is NOT the ceiling it is for most candidates. On Election Day 2016 he had a 61% disapproval rating in Wisconsin, but won almost 20% of those who disapproved of him.

It is not valid to cite disapprovals as baked in voters against Trump. There are literally millions of people who openly hate him but would vote for him given almost any excuse or flaw in a Democratic candidate. I'm not saying he will win 20% of those who disapprove of him again in any state, but he may well win 5-10%. And if you give him the undecided voters in such a generous manner (I think you shouldn't, depending on the opposition), then he wins easily when taking that plus third party votes into account based on your map.

Again, however, the key is to win over voters who are undecided on Trump or even who marginally approve of him, while holding almost everyone who disapproves of him. You can't limit yourself just to those who dislike him and tack on a few token undecided voters and expect to get anything beyond a Hillary coalition.

Your point is well reasoned, but I don't agree with the premise.  I think a lot of the reason Trump won many voters despite an unfavorable view of him was (1) he was running against an unpopular candidate, and (2) many voters were willing to take a chance on Trump, who had zero track record in government, despite an unfavorable view; they thought that he would (or at least might) do well in office.  There was nothing to demonstrate that this wasn't going to happen.

But now he has established a track record, and probably not one that impresses most voters who chose him despite viewing him unfavorably.  (Those who did view him favorably probably love his track record, but they're not the group in question here.)  In other words, I believe that disapproval of Trump as an incumbent will be much harder for him to overcome than an unfavorable impression when he had no track record.
Logged
GeorgiaModerate
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,354


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: February 26, 2018, 07:07:54 PM »

Tarrance Group (R), Feb 17-22, 1018 LV

Approve 43
Disapprove 52
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: February 26, 2018, 10:42:28 PM »

Idk how many times I have to say this but Trump's negative number is NOT the ceiling it is for most candidates. On Election Day 2016 he had a 61% disapproval rating in Wisconsin, but won almost 20% of those who disapproved of him.

It is not valid to cite disapprovals as baked in voters against Trump. There are literally millions of people who openly hate him but would vote for him given almost any excuse or flaw in a Democratic candidate. I'm not saying he will win 20% of those who disapprove of him again in any state, but he may well win 5-10%. And if you give him the undecided voters in such a generous manner (I think you shouldn't, depending on the opposition), then he wins easily when taking that plus third party votes into account based on your map.

Again, however, the key is to win over voters who are undecided on Trump or even who marginally approve of him, while holding almost everyone who disapproves of him. You can't limit yourself just to those who dislike him and tack on a few token undecided voters and expect to get anything beyond a Hillary coalition.

The model that I use is an attempt to predict what will matter to most of us in 2020 in all states -- whether the President will win re-election. I make assumptions to make this prediction, and the easiest is that an incumbent who doesn't muck things up will be re-elected in those bailiwicks in which the public is nearly neutral to generally favorable to his Party. If Donald Trump had nationwide approval ratings in the high forties and a near tie in reputable polls, he would be in roughly the same position as Obama was in eight years ago. My model would have predicted that with Obama having approval ratings nationwide in the high forties and barely above water he would be re-elected so long as he did not face international debacles, personal scandals (in his case, sexual would be at the top if it involved a white woman -- yes, race matters greatly on that one), or an economy going into the tank.

I saw only one poll in which Obama had disapproval go above 50% in a state (Ohio, where he barely did so with a disapproval rating of 51% at the peak of the Tea Party challenge) that he subsequently won. The economy did not tank, international events went well (especially by whacking Osama bin Laden), and he evaded any scandals. That he was again an adequate campaigner and still had something to offer even after he lost his effectiveness in getting legislation passed explains how he could get re-elected despite facing one of the strongest challengers that an incumbent could ever face.  Now just imagine President Romney in an alternative-history scenario after winning the Republican nomination in 2016 and barely winning against Hillary Clinton, and that he is able to get some legislation (even if it is boilerplate conservatism) passed, avoids any personal scandals (especially financial shenanigans), and that the economy isn't in the tank in 2020, then I would be predicting a Romney re-election. But I am assuming that Romney would be a more astute politician and be able to make compromises to soften his opposition. Trump all but says "F--- you" to people who are largely opposed to him.

Consider another President who got about the same percentage of the popular vote in his initial election as Obama got in 2008, a President very different in ideology but having much the same skill set. Ronald Reagan got about 51% of the vote in 1980. By 1984 he was winning over a big chunk of the Anderson vote and winning over people mostly in the South who still considered Jimmy Carter a 'good-old-boy'  attuned to their political culture in 1980. Democrats nominated for President someone that they well regarded for long and faithful service to the Democratic Party, which was obviously irrelevant in 1984. Thi9s model, were it in existence in 1984, would have predicted Ronald Reagan winning 55% of the popular vote and 40-45 states, which would have been an understatement of reality (the political culture changed significantly between 1980 and 1984 due to the rise of the Religious Right.
 
If I saw lots of 45-47 ratings for the President in swing states for President Trump, then the model would be predicting a Trump victory (barring something so horrible as the Fuehrer of North Korea nuking South Korean and Japanese cities and perhaps Hawaii on the side, or a meltdown in the economy analogous to those beginning in 1929 or 2007). But this entails conditions contrary to fact. An incumbent President must satisfy the vast majority of his voters and not hemorrhage enough support that an advantage in the previous election dissipates before the next -- or that he win enough support from people not ready to vote for him the first time. This President has used his power to hurt people who did not vote for him the first time, and those who thought hum insulting in 2016 still do so. 

Trump is way behind Obama at this stage. Approval polls for Obama were remarkably stable from 2020 to 2012, and they were at higher levels. Obama won decisively enough in 2008 that he could lose a little support and still win in 2012. Donald Trump lacks that margin. He must effect change in the political culture to his favor... but he is not the Great Communicator that Ronald Reagan was. Except perhaps in Minnesota, President Trump isn't getting enough support to win any state that he lost in 2016.  He is behind in all states except perhaps Texas that he won by 10% or less. I can see him losing Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, and Ohio. (What is it with Minnesota, where my model shows him in striking distance? He pushed a highly-touted infrastructure program that, had it passed, would have created mining jobs in northern Minnesota, where he made big gains. But that plan failed, and I would not be surprised to see Minnesota slipping back into its usual pattern of being solid, if not strongly, Democratic in statewide and national elections.

Even worse, the President's support in some states that he won decisively  has become razor-thin, as in Indiana and Missouri

An incumbent politician can win election even if 48% of the population thoroughly despises him even if his support is a mile wide and an inch deep. But put the 'strong disapproval' number at 50%, and one's campaign is likely to crash. People supporting the President will have a difficult time keeping up the necessary work to get their President re-elected if most of the people that they meet while canvassing show contempt for the President. Such makes a shambles of get-out-the-vote campaigns.

Disapproval looks hard to undo. It is clear at this point that the 'undecided' potential voters in most states are decidedly right-of-center, which means that the President will likely pick those up  should polls look as they do now about two and a half years from now. But note well: for president Trump to be re-elected he will need miracles. If the economy were in the dumps, then a stronger economy might lift his standings; it is more likely that the economy will go in the dumps. Miracles of foreign policy? That is not his forte. Who do you think he is -- Obama? Reagan? His economic practice seems to include enriching his closest associates; OK, Harding might have gotten  away with that. Change in the political culture, as with a right-wing religious revival as caused Carter support to crater, is not happening and will not happen. The President has very little support from young adults, to put it subtly, and I expect the Millennial Generation to vote in bigger numbers every year.

The only possibility of President Trump winning re-election is that the Democrats nominate someone incredibly inept as a campaigner or tied to a personal scandal that can't go away.
This model does not say that the President is awful; it says that he is not doing what it takes to get re-elected. 
   
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: February 27, 2018, 12:18:57 AM »

Idk how many times I have to say this but Trump's negative number is NOT the ceiling it is for most candidates. On Election Day 2016 he had a 61% disapproval rating in Wisconsin, but won almost 20% of those who disapproved of him.

No doubt, but Trump (favorability 38% on Election Day) was running against Hillary Clinton (favorability 41% on Election Day). A less polarizing Dem than Clinton wouldn't have as much crossover.
Logged
Meclazine for Israel
Meclazine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,661
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: February 27, 2018, 12:44:26 AM »

Trump is no ordinary Candidate/President, and time after time, he has thrown out the rule book and persists where no ordinary person could survive.

The biological analogy is living in an anoxic environment like the deep ocean floor of the Pacific were only sulphide bottom dwelling bacteria exist.

The Don can survive within an extremely biased media scrum with ease. When Anderson Cooper set him up in the 2nd debate at the 6 min mark with that "sexual assault video" ambush, Trump, under enormous pressure, and the debate on the line, did not waiver whatsoever. That is when I realised he could withstand anything, because 99% of people would normally fold under that kind of scrutiny.

In her reply, Hillary Clinton said one true thing "Donald Trump is Different".



Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: February 27, 2018, 01:27:41 AM »

Trump is no ordinary Candidate/President, and time after time, he has thrown out the rule book and persists where no ordinary person could survive.

Usually "ordinary" implies mediocrity in the presence of greatness. Most Presidents have been fare above average for intellectual deftness and formal learning. Plenty of people with the level of intellectual deftness and formal learning of this President who did not have the social advantages are cleaning buildings, working as clerks, or doing raw labor. That is how common a BA degree is now. In the old days one could get away with being self-taught and reaching the heights of political leadership, as did Harry S. Truman. That's over.

"Not ordinary" can also imply that one does things unusually horrible, as in "Charles Manson/Ted Bundy/Timothy McVeigh is not the ordinary criminal". Those fellows were extraordinary in the worst possible sense.  For non-ordinary criminals one can look at mobsters who incinerate the 'book' on ordinary decencies. For them, rules aside from those involving respect for the hierarchy of their crime syndicates do not apply. To them, "rules are for fools". Any criminal deed is fine so long as one does not get caught.

Donald Trump is the President acting with least regard for the long-standing norms of American politics. Newspeak is the usual communication from this President and his cronies. There's nothing wrong with making money from a side business that puts connections to the President to 'good' use. The only valid 'logic' that he accepts is what affirms his authority often on things in which he is far from expert. People who disagree with him are fools, scum, or criminal.  This is the President acting most like a dictator in American history, not so much for his power as for his irresponsibility toward people who fail to recognizer his 'greatness'.   
 
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those sulfide-using bacteria are harmless to us. We would be dead of something else were we to be suddenly transported to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. Biological reality sets the rules for most life-forms; elephants would do badly in Canada, and polar bears would overheat and die rapidly in India.

No, the more fitting analogy in biology is Man himself, who can bend the rules of nature to his benefit more consistently than can any other creature.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sociopaths know how to shrug off such allegations. They can deny or trivialize such accusations, as they expect it. Only when the scrutiny becomes persistent and purposeful do they get into trouble. Yes, Donald Trump is far from ordinary in his ethics, which is about like saying that "Comical Ali" was far from normal in is depictions of objective reality.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

He most certainly is, and not in a benign manner.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,625
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: February 27, 2018, 01:49:57 AM »

Trump is no ordinary Candidate/President, and time after time, he has thrown out the rule book and persists where no ordinary person could survive.

The biological analogy is living in an anoxic environment like the deep ocean floor of the Pacific were only sulphide bottom dwelling bacteria exist.

The Don can survive within an extremely biased media scrum with ease. When Anderson Cooper set him up in the 2nd debate at the 6 min mark with that "sexual assault video" ambush, Trump, under enormous pressure, and the debate on the line, did not waiver whatsoever. That is when I realised he could withstand anything, because 99% of people would normally fold under that kind of scrutiny.

In her reply, Hillary Clinton said one true thing "Donald Trump is Different".

Hugh Hewitt, is that you?
Logged
Meclazine for Israel
Meclazine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,661
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: February 27, 2018, 04:11:48 AM »

Trump is no ordinary Candidate/President, and time after time, he has thrown out the rule book and persists where no ordinary person could survive.

"Not ordinary" can also imply that one does things unusually horrible, as in "Charles Manson/Ted Bundy/Timothy McVeigh is not the ordinary criminal".

Criminal it is then. Nice description.
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: February 27, 2018, 09:32:15 AM »

Quinnipiac Poll of Florida is coming out later today.
Logged
super6646
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 590
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: February 27, 2018, 09:50:43 AM »


Only on atlas...
Logged
BudgieForce
superbudgie1582
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,298


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: February 27, 2018, 10:31:38 AM »

I find it kind of disgusting that people are actively claiming Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster of 2016, therefore they have the most accurate approval tracker now. Not only were they consistently R friendly in 2016, but they only moved closer to the average during the last two weeks of the campaign so they wouldn't look stupid. Now even Rasmussens Twitter account is claiming they were amongst the most accurate, it's pretty gross.
Logged
GeorgiaModerate
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,354


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: February 27, 2018, 10:37:11 AM »

I find it kind of disgusting that people are actively claiming Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster of 2016, therefore they have the most accurate approval tracker now. Not only were they consistently R friendly in 2016, but they only moved closer to the average during the last two weeks of the campaign so they wouldn't look stupid. Now even Rasmussens Twitter account is claiming they were amongst the most accurate, it's pretty gross.

I've also wondered if they might have changed their methodology recently.  Looking at their daily results, there's almost a discontinuity between the results through Feb 1 and the numbers afterward.  This isn't impossible, but it seems unlikely in a poll that uses a rolling average.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: February 27, 2018, 10:40:29 AM »

I find it kind of disgusting that people are actively claiming Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster of 2016, therefore they have the most accurate approval tracker now. Not only were they consistently R friendly in 2016, but they only moved closer to the average during the last two weeks of the campaign so they wouldn't look stupid. Now even Rasmussens Twitter account is claiming they were amongst the most accurate, it's pretty gross.

For an election the right model is the one that fits the electorate. If a large number of liberal-tending voters drops out of the election, then a pro-Republican pollster of course gets it right.

Logged
henster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,976


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: February 27, 2018, 10:42:54 AM »

I remember Rass had one of Obama's best showings after 2012 because they were modeling after that electorate.
Logged
BudgieForce
superbudgie1582
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,298


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: February 27, 2018, 10:49:32 AM »

I find it kind of disgusting that people are actively claiming Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster of 2016, therefore they have the most accurate approval tracker now. Not only were they consistently R friendly in 2016, but they only moved closer to the average during the last two weeks of the campaign so they wouldn't look stupid. Now even Rasmussens Twitter account is claiming they were amongst the most accurate, it's pretty gross.

I've also wondered if they might have changed their methodology recently.  Looking at their daily results, there's almost a discontinuity between the results through Feb 1 and the numbers afterward.  This isn't impossible, but it seems unlikely in a poll that uses a rolling average.

Their more detailed results used to be behind a paywall but I don't think they're even doing that anymore. Honestly, if a pollster doesn't provide any transparency with their methodology, the aggregates should stop including them.
Logged
LimoLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,535


Political Matrix
E: -3.71, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: February 27, 2018, 11:24:55 AM »

Rasmussen

Approve: 50
Disapprove: 48

Wow. Trump's best numbers in many many months.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: February 27, 2018, 12:01:03 PM »

Rasmussen

Approve: 50
Disapprove: 48

Wow. Trump's best numbers in many many months.

Correction:

Approve: 50i
Disapprove: 48i

Modified to suggest that those numbers are not real.
Logged
OneJ
OneJ_
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,834
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: February 27, 2018, 01:08:44 PM »

Quinnipiac Poll of Florida is coming out later today.

The GOLD standard. Smiley

But seriously, I'm glad that they we have another pollster polling this state other than the same pollsters.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,625
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: February 27, 2018, 01:21:32 PM »

Quinnipiac Poll of Florida is coming out later today.

The GOLD standard. Smiley

But seriously, I'm glad that they we have another pollster polling this state other than the same pollsters.


Numbers are out: 42-54
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 79  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.076 seconds with 12 queries.