Trump approval ratings thread, 1.4

[pbrower2a]

Old thread here.

We are rapidly approaching 2000 posts, so bring over the posts from the 1.3 thread here upon which you expect to build. I anticipate the 1.3 forum being closed shortly.

Oh, yes -- start posting here if you want responses to your posts.

[pbrower2a]

Blank map for your use.

Without electoral votes and with no distinction for districts:

[pbrower2a]

So probably doesn't mean anything, and I'm cherry picking, but most of Trump's more favorable polls show even(or close to it) party i.d:

Marist -12 approval:
35% - Democrat
27% - Republican
36% - Independent

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_Nature-of-the-Sample-and-Tables_Pres.-Trump-Congress-and-the-Midterm-Elections_July-2018_181807241056.pdf#page=3

Quinnipiac -20 approval:
31% - Democrat
25% - Republican
38% - Independent

https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us07242018_demos_ufgp12.pdf/

Morning Consult -6 approval:
35% - Democrat
34% - Republican
25% - Independent

https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/180736_crosstabs_POLITICO_v1_DK.pdf

I know we're not supposed to read too much into party i.d, but its pretty obvious some pollsters are seeing very different electorates right now.

 

It could be that Morning Consult recognizes fewer 'independent' voters, probably accepting that people who voted with the GOP in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 despite claiming to be independent might as well be Republicans now.  Quinnipiac sees fewer partisan voters and more independent voters.

It is possible to have different polling results based upon one's screen. "Adults" includes people unlikely to vote. Registered voters will find voting easy if they so wish. Both of these are easy to determine.

So who is a 'likely voter'? Good question. Someone on life support in terminal care is hard to write off even if the person hasn't missed a vote in over 60 years. Habits may not die, but the person will.  In my county, the election officials read the obituaries and disqualify absentee votes from persons who can be identified as decedents. On the other side, what of someone who turns eighteen a couple days before the election, who has not yet registered to vote but shows signs of registering at the first possible moment,  and considers voting just slightly less of a rite of passage than driving a motor vehicle or graduating from high school?

Some people born in as late as 2002 who have never voted will vote in the 2020 election. Nobody can predict who those people are.

If one sees changes in predictors of voting based on how certain demographics will vote, and so far that appears as approval and disapproval, then we may have cause for believing that the political climate has changed. Quinnipiac just had a poll  in which it connected people distrustful of both parties voting largely for Republicans beginning in 2010 and lasting through 2016 -- only to find that such voters have swung sharply against Republicans including the President.  I don't have to discuss why such voters swung sharply R in 2010 or why they have suddenly swung as they have. I do not need to connect such to other demographic characteristics as religion, ethnicity, education, income, or region. A vote is a vote.  Maybe I will do as I am prone -- showing a model of how such changes  expectations of the 2020 election if that alone is applied as a shift in voters from 2016 to 2020.

[pbrower2a]

Vermont (VPR-Vermont PBS)

28% approve
61% disapprove

http://projects.vpr.net/vpr-vermont-pbs-poll

Vermont will be one of the worst two or three states for the President in 2020.

Michigan, Emerson:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.emerson.edu/sites/default/files/Files/Academics/ecp-pr-mi-7.23.pdf

55% or higher dark blue
50-54% medium blue
less than 50% but above disapproval pale blue
even white
46% to 50% but below disapproval pale red
42% to 45% medium red
under 42% deep red

States and districts hard to see:

CT 39
DC 17
DE 39
HI 33
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 45
NE-02 38
NE-03 55
NH 39
RI 30
VT 32

Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.

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

States and districts hard to see:

CT 41
DC 20
DE 43
HI 36
NH 49
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 55
NE-02 46
NE-03 66
RI 30
VT 36


Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.

*With the explicit question of whether the President should or should not be re-elected, or 100-DIS if such is all that is available:


Re-elect/do not re-elect if known; 100-DIS otherwise

100-DIS

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 (or 55% do-not-reelect or higher)
40% to 44% medium red (or 50 to 54% do-not-reelect or higher)
under 40% deep red (or 50% or less do-not-reelect if do-not re-elect if do-not-reelect is higher than reelect)
Ties for elect and re-elect are also in white.

States and districts hard to see:

CT 41
DC 20
DE 43
FL 37-54
HI 36
NH 49
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 55
NE-02 46
NE-03 66
RI 30
VT 36


Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.


Nothing from before November 2017. Polls from Alabama and New Jersey are exit polls from 2017 elections.  

[pbrower2a]

Read down to see the relevant material at https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/cagle-vs-kemp-headlines-runoff-day-georgia-n893971:


Polling of a significant part of the electorate: people who hold both Parties in contempt:

So how are these kinds of voters breaking now? Well, our latest NBC/WSJ poll finds that Democrats are over-performing among voters who hold negative views of both parties (representing 13 percent of the sample). Here’s the past and current congressional preference among these voters:

- 2010 merged NBC/WSJ poll: 49 percent GOP, 23 percent DEM (R+26)
- 2014 merged NBC/WSJ poll: 51 percent GOP, 24 percent DEM (R+27)
- 2018 merged NBC/WSJ poll (through June): 50 percent DEM, 36 percent GOP (D+14)
- 2018 NBC/WSJ poll from July: 55 percent DEM, 25 percent GOP (D+30)

What’s more in our current poll, these voters disproportionately are down on Trump (68 percent disapprove of his job, versus 52 percent of all voters), and they are enthusiastic about the upcoming midterms (63 percent of them have high interest, versus 55 percent of all voters who say this).

Democratic candidates are increasingly seen as being out of the mainstream

Those numbers above are good news for Democrats in the NBC/WSJ poll. Here’s some bad news, however: Democratic candidates for Congress are increasingly seen as out of the mainstream — a change from 2012 and 2016.

According to our poll, 33 percent of voters view Democratic congressional candidates as in the mainstream, versus 56 percent who say they are out of step. That’s essentially the same score that GOP congressional candidates get — 33 percent mainstream, 57 percent out of step.

But the 33 percent viewing Democratic candidates in the mainstream is a drop of 15 points from 2016 and 12 points from 2012 (while the GOP numbers have been pretty flat).

Comment: this suggests a Blue Wave in 2018. That is a 57% swing in a significant part of the electorate, probably comparable to the swing between the near-landslide victory for Barack Obama and the rise of the Tea Party to political influence.

It also suggests that Donald Trump will lose, possibly in a landslide, taking a bunch of Republican Senators (echo of the 2014 election that gave Republicans control of the Senate) with him.
[/quote]

from the previous month:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So let's see how a swing of 57% of 18% of the electorate  shifts the vote from  2016 to 2020.  That is 10.2% of the vote! That is without discussing demographic shifts (such as an increasing size of the Hispanic population in a state like Texas) or shifts in the vote in certain demographics (I can only speculate that farmers and ranchers will turn against Trump should his tariffs and trade war hurt farmers and ranchers, especially those who depend upon revenue from exports).  

The 10.2% shift that this change suggests flips every state in blue -- including Iowa.  That comes to 161 electoral votes!

2016 result among states decided by 10% or less:

[/quote]

8% or more -- saturation 7
4% to 7.99% -- saturation 5
1.5% to 2.99% -- saturation 3
under 1.5% -- saturation 2

States in gray look too far away to be affected by a shift in votes from 2016 to polling in 2018.

(The next-closest states were South Carolina and Alaska, which would still go for Trump -- and everything in any shade of red would be a strong win for the Democrat at 10.1% or higher). The result:

8% or more -- saturation 7 (9 if over 10%)
4% to 7.99% -- saturation 5
1.5% to 2.99% -- saturation 3
under 1.5% -- saturation 2

the Democratic nominee 413
Trump 125

Even without Texas going to the Democrat, Trump loses much as the elder Bush did in 1992.

[pbrower2a]

Marist just tweeted that approval ratings for the President are execrable in Minnesota (which he barely lost), Michigan (which he barely won), and Wisconsin (which he barely won). In each, the President's approval is in the mid-30s.

[pbrower2a]

Marist just tweeted that approval ratings for the President are execrable in Minnesota (which he barely lost), Michigan (which he barely won), and Wisconsin (which he barely won). In each, the President's approval is in the mid-30s.

It is amazing how rapidly the Midwestern states have turned against Trump. The tax cuts and his failure to reverse outsourcing are probably the main reasons why, and I think the tariffs will hurt him further. I still think Trump has a 50-50 chance in winning Wisconsin and Michigan in 2020, but it's going to be tough.

He has a better chance at winning Wisconsin than Michigan. His margin of victory was smaller in Michigan and it voted more so for Obama in 2012 than Wisconsin.

They're both tossups IMO but he's more likely to win Wisconsin or Pennsylvania than Michigan. If you put a gun to my head I think he loses all three.

Disapproval in all three states is above 50%, so winning any one of them will be tough. The difference between the three states in current approval ratings is insignificant.

President Trump wins these states together or loses them together. Note well that he is doing badly in Arizona, Florida, and Ohio, states more sympathetic to Republicans.

I am holding off on showing the polling results here in the event that Marist asks the question "Will you vote to re-elect President Trump or will you vote against re-electing him in 2020?", as Marist did for Arizona, Florida, and Ohio. The answer came to 35-57 in Arizona, 37-54 in Florida, and 34-58 in Ohio.  I'd like to see a similar question answered for in the Cold, Wet North.  Heck, I far prefer this to my 100-DIS number,

[pbrower2a]

Marist just tweeted that approval ratings for the President are execrable in Minnesota (which he barely lost), Michigan (which he barely won), and Wisconsin (which he barely won). In each, the President's approval is in the mid-30s.

In case you wonder why I was so slow to put up the polling numbers for these three states, Marist asked a question even more telling than whether people approve or disapprove of the President's performance. The response is even more devastating than my 100-DIS model, which may be a bit conservative in estimating the chance of a Trump loss. Approval of the President is horrid in these three states, but even if the President won the decided on approval vs. disapproval he would lose all three states --   if barely.



These are devastating, suggesting a loss analogous to that of Carter in 1980. Of course, Carter actually won Minnesota in 1980, but then Minnesota was the most Democratic state in the Union as shown in the solitary win by Mondale in 1984. Minnesota has drifted away from being the strongest Democratic state, and I can easily imagine it being slightly more R than the national average in a Democratic blowout.  
  




As in 2008, 2012, and 2016 these states were very close to each other (differing by a margin of about 2%), and will likely be so again in 2020. I still have but three states for which I have the answer to the question of re-election or bring in someone else... but that is enough to suggest that President Trump will lose to a Democrat who will win at least as decisively as Obama in 2008. Sure, I would love to see this question asked of voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. Have patience, folks.  

 California, PPIC  -- I found the disapproval numbers from mid-July, and for likely voters approval is 34 and disapproval is 64.

http://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/ppic-statewide-survey-july-2018.pdf

Old (mid-July), but necessary.

55% or higher dark blue
50-54% medium blue
less than 50% but above disapproval pale blue
even white
46% to 50% but below disapproval pale red
42% to 45% medium red
under 42% deep red

States and districts hard to see:

CT 39
DC 17
DE 39
HI 33
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 45
NE-02 38
NE-03 55
NH 39
RI 30
VT 32

Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.

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

States and districts hard to see:

CT 41
DC 20
DE 43
HI 36
NH 49
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 55
NE-02 46
NE-03 66
RI 30
VT 36


Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.

*With the explicit question of whether the President should or should not be re-elected, or 100-DIS if such is all that is available:


Re-elect/do not re-elect if known; 100-DIS otherwise

100-DIS

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 (or 55% do-not-reelect or higher)
40% to 44% medium red (or 50 to 54% do-not-reelect or higher)
under 40% deep red (or 50% or less do-not-reelect if do-not re-elect if do-not-reelect is higher than reelect)
Ties for elect and re-elect are also in white.

States and districts hard to see:

CT 41
DC 20
DE 43
FL 37-54*
HI 36
MI 28-62*
NH 49
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 55
NE-02 46
NE-03 66
RI 30
VT 36


Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.


Nothing from before November 2017. Polls from Alabama and New Jersey are exit polls from 2017 elections.  

[pbrower2a]

... Marist asks the question "Will you vote to re-elect President Trump or will you vote against re-electing him in 2020?", as Marist did for Arizona, Florida, and Ohio. The answer came to 35-57 in Arizona, 37-54 in Florida, and 34-58 in Ohio.

Wow.
I must have missed those numbers when they were first released.
Are the numbers really that high? That's huge!

They are that bad for the President, and the overt question is better than my 100-DIS model in which the incumbent has a chance of winning to the extent that he can get a plurality by winning over the undecided vote.  Even more definitive results are available if one has a match-up, but the Democrats have yet to nominate someone -- and it is far from certain whom they will nominate.

Answers to the binary choice 're-elect or do not re-elect' suggest that approval is even more telling than whether the President has simply offended too many people with incompetence or with offense to the sensibilities of too many people.

I have figured that he has been clever enough to load distress upon people who were never going to vote for him while appealing to the subliminal values of those who can still support him.

So do enough people want to re-elect him? This question assumes that the incumbent President is the dominant factor in deciding whether to vote for him in 2020. As I see it, Democrats are in so powerful a position against Trump that they could win with a mirror-image of him, someone similarly corrupt, intellectually-hollow, unprepared for the office, and pathologically narcissistic -- who upon taking office exploits ethnic resentments and uses the government largely to reward special interests on the Left. I do not see that happening. The Democratic nomination will have people who have political experience and records. Maybe they nominate someone bland and lacking in sizzle -- let us say a new Al Gore.  But that will be fine if things go well; that nominee will win the Presidency once and be re-elected if most things go right.

[pbrower2a]

Honestly, I think they could end up budging due to Trump interacting with a Democratic Congress, but I think it might help him more than hurt him. Giving him Pelosi-Schumer to play off of rather than unified GOP control which just highlights how incompetent and ineffectual he is.

I've been wondering a lot about this, and I'm still not sure. On one hand, yes, he can blame stuff on Democrats in Congress, sure. But on the other hand, there are probably going to be a lot of investigations into his administration. Knowing what we know about Trump, it's very possible that scandals could end up offsetting any gains he may have from the blame game with Congress. But I'm also just not sure how effective it is to try and pass the buck to Congress. Americans don't seem to care about anyone but the president. I imagine that is why cable news isn't actually about news anymore, but rather 24/7 coverage of what the president says and does.

I know of a state governor (Jerry Brown, D-CA) who took a 180-degree turn on big government and taxes once a referendum demonstrated which way the wind was blowing.  But this said, the young Jerry Brown (who is easy to confuse with the old Jerry Brown, who coincidentally is the same person) didn't have reeking scandals and had not displayed anywhere near the incompetence or ultra-partisanship that Donald Trump has shown. He got re-elected.

President Trump has so pervasively offended so many liberals on core values that Democratic leaders of the House or Senate that Democratic leadership can intensify the waiting game on him, cooperating with him only on something obvious or yielding on things fully symbolic in return for huge concessions on things that he has supported. He will have to make compromises on an appointment to the Supreme Court in the event of a vacancy. If he wants an infrastructure program it won't have privatization to monopolistic gougers as an objective.  He will be swatted down if he makes outrageous statements, so he might do that less often.

Enough damage has been done to him as President, most of it his own doing, that without change in his policies he is doomed to defeat in an electoral landslide analogous to that that ended the Presidencies of Hoover and Carter at one term. With concessions to liberal sensibilities he sets himself up to defeat by the Real Thing, and I don't refer to a tourist trap on Interstate 10 in southeastern Arizona.   

The question might change from how awful he is to whether he is right for America, which is an improvement.  People who usually don't vote for Republicans vote in Michigan and Wisconsin, and demographics catch up with him in Arizona and Florida. If he is that big a disappointment in Ohio, just think what that means for Pennsylvania. In view of Wisconsin and the fact that Iowa usually votes in tandem with Wisconsin, I cannot see the President winning Iowa. Minnesota is out of the question. Sure, I would love to see Marist ask the question to voters in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. But I am not in the decision-making process at Marist. For all I know they may never ask this question again on a poll -- or, at a lesser level, they might next pick Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York. Or perhaps Quinnipiac or PPP starts asking this question.

I  think this question more telling than my 100-DIS model, and I show my results both ways for the sake of consistency. 100-DIS is still more favorable to the President, and it is what I am stuck with for 44 states and the District of Columbia as well as the independently-voting Congressional districts of Maine and Nebraska -- at least for now.   

[pbrower2a]

I’d be leery of the “deserves reelection” vs “give someone else a chance” numbers if only because someone else could be Generic R, Generic D, or even Santa Claus. It’s a bad number in context, obviously, but it isn’t as informative as we think IMO

You are welcome to believe that. I could think of an irrelevant question for 2020 -- that if the 22nd Amendment were to disappear, would you vote for Donald Trump or Barack Obama if you had the choice. We will not have that choice.

I have so far used the 100-DIS model on the ground that those who disapprove of the President will not vote for him. They might vote for the Democrat -- or if they are too 'conservative' to vote for the Democrat, then they might vote for some conservative or free-market purist, which could include someone running a vanity campaign that basically says "my business expertise is more relevant to running this country well than is that of Donald Trump". That could be someone in high technology, oil, agribusiness, investment banking, or heavy equipment.  Donald Trump is simply a landlord, and he knows little about business enterprise outside his milieu.

I almost expect a strong Third Party or independent challenge to Donald Trump because he offends so many conservative interests.

To be sure, we should always be aware of our assumptions. We largely assume:

1. That Donald Trump will be the nominee for President -- that he will not decide not to run, that he will not die in office, and that he will not removed for diminished capacity (as after entering an irreversible coma).

2. That we will not have a military coup. Sure, we have never had one. But Seven Days in May is becoming much more plausible with this President, if for very different reasons. Doddering old leader? Check. Highly unpopular leader? Check. "Too liberal"? The opposite. "Too squeamish about taking harsh measures"? Exactly the opposite.

I would not rule out that the military would turn on him rather than soil itself in aggressive war against Iran or Venezuela. Yes, the military has not intervened in the government at any time  in American history, and 240 years of civilian control of the military will come to an end only under exceptional circumstances.

So imagine that you are a four-star general and you must choose between overthrowing Donald Trump or becoming complicit in war crimes. You don't know what you would do? Even I can't speak for myself.

3. That the elections of 2020 will not be rigged. Watch the elections this November and see how they go before you answer whether the elections of 2020 will be rigged or won't.

4. That the Democrat will not be exposed in having done something discreditable -- insider trading, having sex with minors, being involved in a business failure the result of malfeasance, having a dishonorable discharge from the military, or having a criminal record. That is clearly in the category of 'unforeseen events'  that have nothing to do with polling.

5. That we can derive any conclusions from polling. By November 2010 we could see Obama within easy reach of winning re-election even if his Party was severely defeated in the midterm election -- it would take a spirited campaign by him and competent strategy as a candidate to turn approval in the 45-47% range into either a bare majority or even a plurality. It is a reasonable assumption that a spirited campaign and good campaign strategy were good for turning something like 45% approval into 51% of the vote. Obama ran a competent enough with which to win despite a disapproval rating in the mid 40s around September 1 (just after the Republican national convention, I guess).  44% + 7% = 51%, so it looks as if he did what he needed.  

I look at recent polling numbers for Donald Trump, and he will be lucky to get 46% of the popular vote. Sure, he won with 46% of the popular vote because Hillary Clinton ran up the vote totals in places like California and New York -- but just look at the polling for Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Those look really bad. The poll of Pennsylvania had Trump disapproval in the mid-fifties.

That disapproval of a nominee is in the 50s may not assure that that nominee will lose 54-46 to the opponent. Maybe it will be more like 49-46-5, which only looks sort of close.

6. That Democrats will not be facing a strong left-wing alternative that guts their support. This is the most likely thing to go wrong for the Democratic nominee for President. I cannot yet rule it out.

But I can't completely rule out such things as an invasion from outer space, a zombie apocalypse, the Coming of a Messiah, or some event that stirs up some expressions of patriotism that pull the President out of the polling doldrums, either.  

[pbrower2a]

I’d be leery of the “deserves reelection” vs “give someone else a chance” numbers if only because someone else could be Generic R, Generic D, or even Santa Claus. It’s a bad number in context, obviously, but it isn’t as informative as we think IMO

This. And we can add general "favourability" as well, which proved a useless metric in the 2016 election.

Approval is a bit more useful, but even that ignores that the election in reality is a binary choice between two candidates.

Frankly, I love polls as much as anybody else, but basically polls don't start to give a solid indication of much until both parties have picked their candidates. But at least we know that the majority disapproves of the terrible president, so in theory, a democrat should be favoured if the candidate is electable.

I found favorability (do you like the President or some other elected official?) relevant only very early in his term of office. Favorability polls occasionally pop up, and I now ignore them except to compare them to something else. Initially there were plenty of favorability polls, but those have largely been abandoned. Performance matters now, and people like what they have seen or don't.

It's hard to see whether events cause changes in polling or whether the results will stick. Obama approval ratings skyrocketed for a short time after Seal Team 6 whacked Osama bin Laden, but that uptick didn't last long enough to allow the President to get anything like a 55-45 split of the vote. It is pointless to predict how an event or economic news (which could include the prices of commodity futures) could affect polls until we see polls with connections to demographics. Obama did badly among farmers and ranchers despite doing nothing bad to them. We shall see about Donald Trump, whose trade war can do more harm to anyone whose income depends heavily upon export prices. For good reason we rarely see polls of Kansas, Nebraska, or the Dakotas. But I don't give quantitative predictions. 

Demographics may not be causes, but they are certainly mirrors.

[pbrower2a]

I think is somewhat interesting that the President has a better approval rating in Minnesota than in Wisconsin and Michigan.

Obama won Minnesota by a smaller margin than those in which he won Michigan and Wisconsin in 2008, and by close to the same margin by which he won Wisconsin in 2012 and less than by which he won Michigan in 2012.  Minnesota has a lower ceiling for Democrats than he does in many other states, but the floor for Democrats in Minnesota has been just under 50% since 1972. The last times that the Republicans won big in Minnesota was for Eisenhower...and if you have ever seen my overlay of the Eisenhower and Obama elections and compared the personalities of both Presidents, you would not find such so ironic. 

In the event of a nationwide blowout for the Democratic nominee (some Democrat 57 and Trump 43) which might allow the Democrat to win 400 or so electoral votes -- Texas deciding under/over 400, you might see Minnesota going 55-45 for the Democrat while America as a whole goes 57-43. Oh, Minnesota leans Republican?

No. Minnesota simply isn't very elastic in its voting. It's going to be about even in a Republican blowout (second-best state for McGovern in 1972, and best for Mondale in 1984) and close to the national average in a Democratic blowout (1964, 1992, 1996, and arguably 2008).

[pbrower2a]

Suffolk, Nevada.

46-49 favorability (which I do not use anymore on my maps)

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/Suffolk_Nevada_July_2018_27823.pdf

[pbrower2a]

Trump 46/49 in Georgia.

You know the joke about Georgia, don't you? It's that Atlanta is a very sophisticated city surrounded by Georgia. A similar joke can be made of Chicago and Illinois or (almost) Indianapolis and Indiana.

Not my favorite pollster -- but the 2018 midterm election looks like a potential disaster for Republicans.

Republicans might be able to canvass in this state -- just avoid black and Hispanic voters, but at this level I am seeing more support for the African-American female Democrat running for Governor of Georgia than there ever was for some black fellow running from Illinois
 for President.  Senators Isakson and Perdue have approvals in nearly the same area as President Trump. Mercifully for Republicans, neither is up for re-election in 2018. In 2020 and 2022 they will be vulnerable.

Democrats have edges in Secretary of State and the general ballot for the House of Representatives.  Greater Atlanta is probably no less D than such places as Cleveland . But it is one giant metro area dominating the politics of a state, something like Phoenix -- if with a different ethnic mix and about seven times as much rain as Phoenix -- which also has trouble with air quality, rain or not. The President's environmental policies can hurt him in Georgia. 46-49? I have seen wilder polling of Georgia, and I have just tossed one such poll on this map. The 100-DIS model says that Georgia is still possible for Donald Trump.,

It is risky to draw conclusions from one pollster to another, let alone try to extrapolate an answer to an unasked question...  but if you compare the Marist polls of Arizona. Florida (neighboring!). and Ohio to the Gravis poll of Georgia, and making an analogue for Georgia one gets

st    app     elect/not reelect
    
AZ   42-48     35-57
FL    42-46    37-54
OH   42-49    34-58

GA   46-49     39-58  (estimate)

Based on what I see of the Marist polls of three states that Trump won by margins of 3.5%, 1.17%, and 8.07% in 2016 -- a state that he won by 4.09%  should be very much in play. I have seen worse polls of Georgia for Donald Trump. Things get really bleak for President Trump should the Democrat win the gubernatorial election , and a Democratic nominee can make campaign appearances with the Governor practically at will as Obama could not.  

No, I am not showing this extrapolation on the map. I do not show any estimates other than 100-DIS. But I can treat Georgia as a pure toss-up at this point. It is worse for Republicans in 2020 than it was for them in 2008 or 2016.

55% or higher dark blue
50-54% medium blue
less than 50% but above disapproval pale blue
even white
46% to 50% but below disapproval pale red
42% to 45% medium red
under 42% deep red

States and districts hard to see:

CT 39
DC 17
DE 39
HI 33
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 45
NE-02 38
NE-03 55
NH 39
RI 30
VT 32

Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.

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

States and districts hard to see:

CT 41
DC 20
DE 43
HI 36
NH 49
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 55
NE-02 46
NE-03 66
RI 30
VT 36


Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.

*With the explicit question of whether the President should or should not be re-elected, or 100-DIS if such is all that is available:


Re-elect/do not re-elect if known; 100-DIS otherwise

100-DIS

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 (or 55% do-not-reelect or higher)
40% to 44% medium red (or 50 to 54% do-not-reelect or higher)
under 40% deep red (or 50% or less do-not-reelect if do-not re-elect if do-not-reelect is higher than reelect)
Ties for elect and re-elect are also in white.

States and districts hard to see:

CT 41
DC 20
DE 43
FL 37-54*
HI 36
MI 28-62*
NH 49
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 55
NE-02 46
NE-03 66
RI 30
VT 36


Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.


Nothing from before November 2017. Polls from Alabama and New Jersey are exit polls from 2017 elections.  

[pbrower2a]

Quinnipiac has an upcoming poll on Texas to be released at 2PM EDT. Q usually releases its polls in the early morning, but the state is Texas.

[pbrower2a]

Discussion and debate over Trump’s approval are painfully boring at this point. His aggregates haven’t budged in almost four months.

But we get more substance to polls. For six states we now have the overt question of whether to re-elect or not re-elect the President. In five states that he won and one that he barely lost he gets results that suggest that he would lose ever one of them decisively.

[pbrower2a]

Quinnipiac has an upcoming poll on Texas to be released at 2PM EDT. Q usually releases its polls in the early morning, but the state is Texas.

As promised

TEXAS

(36 electoral votes).

From Quinnipiac:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Texas' college grads still approve of the President 56-42, which is lower than one used to expect.

Senator Ted Cruz has a positive approval rating barely above 50 (50-42, both approval and favorability), but only a 6-point gap over his challenger Beto O'Rourke (49-43).

Governor Abbott has a large, but shrinking lead over his Democratic challenger.

https://poll.qu.edu/texas/release-detail?ReleaseID=2559


At this point I must consider Texas a toss-up for 2020. Donald Trump is the worst cultural match for Texas as a Republican Presidential nominee since Barry Goldwater.  

Texas is the difference between a Democrat winning the state as did Barack Obama in 2008 or Bill Clinton in the 1990s -- and an Eisenhower-style win. It has looked like the state containing the 400th electoral vote for a Democrat since about 1992.

55% or higher dark blue
50-54% medium blue
less than 50% but above disapproval pale blue
even white
46% to 50% but below disapproval pale red
42% to 45% medium red
under 42% deep red

States and districts hard to see:

CT 39
DC 17
DE 39
HI 33
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 45
NE-02 38
NE-03 55
NH 39
RI 30
VT 32

Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.

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

States and districts hard to see:

CT 41
DC 20
DE 43
HI 36
NH 49
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 55
NE-02 46
NE-03 66
RI 30
VT 36


Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.

*With the explicit question of whether the President should or should not be re-elected, or 100-DIS if such is all that is available:


Re-elect/do not re-elect if known; 100-DIS otherwise

100-DIS

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 (or 55% do-not-reelect or higher)
40% to 44% medium red (or 50 to 54% do-not-reelect or higher)
under 40% deep red (or 50% or less do-not-reelect if do-not re-elect if do-not-reelect is higher than reelect)
Ties for elect and re-elect are also in white.

States and districts hard to see:

CT 41
DC 20
DE 43
FL 37-54*
HI 36
MI 28-62*
NH 49
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 55
NE-02 46
NE-03 66
RI 30
VT 36


Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.


Nothing from before November 2017. Polls from Alabama and New Jersey are exit polls from 2017 elections.  

[pbrower2a]

Discussion and debate over Trump’s approval are painfully boring at this point. His aggregates haven’t budged in almost four months.

But we get more substance to polls. For six states we now have the overt question of whether to re-elect or not re-elect the President. In five states that he won and one that he barely lost he gets results that suggest that he would lose ever one of them decisively.

So are red states getting redder then? If he is losing support in swing states but his national support is staying put, it has to fill in somewhere.

Atlas red or the more commonly-used red in American politics?

Approval ratings for President Trump are uncannily stable, and that seems to reflect that people who disapproved of his Presidency early have been becoming more intense in their disdain for him. He has been successful so far in loading the pain onto the same people. No American President has been successful at that -- unless you mean South American President, as in Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

Ordinarily 46% of the popular vote isn't enough to win the Presidency, but Trump won the right votes, which is barely possible in a 2% difference between the winner and loser of the popular vote.  Considering that we have not had a President Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, McCain, or Romney, Trump is an unlikely winner. To win again, he needs to gain support -- either from those who voted for Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, or Hillary Clinton just to have a chance to win in 2020.

I doubt that Trump could lose more support in ultra-partisan Democratic states such as California, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York. His losses of support are where they can be -- in states that he either barely lost (Minnesota and New Hampshire) or lost by any margin. Going from 67-26 to 55-44 in West Virginia would hurt him in a re-election bid.  But going from a 1% margin of victory in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to even a 1% loss defeats him if he isn't picking up Minnesota (he won't lose Minnesota while winning Michigan or Wisconsin) . If he is losing a state that he won by more than 8% (Ohio) he has no chance of winning Pennsylvania. Then there is Florida...and then there is Arizona.

Polls for the President from Georgia and Texas are awful for a Republican. Those states have not voted for a Republican nominee for President since 1994 and 1976, respectively. Trump absolutely needs both, but he is now sure of neither.

Republican-leaning states (Atlas blue) seem to be drifting away from Trump. The strong Democratic states cannot go more D.  The Democratic nominee for President is going to run up Obama-like or Reagan-like margins in those states. 

[pbrower2a]

Discussion and debate over Trump’s approval are painfully boring at this point. His aggregates haven’t budged in almost four months.

But we get more substance to polls. For six states we now have the overt question of whether to re-elect or not re-elect the President. In five states that he won and one that he barely lost he gets results that suggest that he would lose ever one of them decisively.

So are red states getting redder then? If he is losing support in swing states but his national support is staying put, it has to fill in somewhere.

Eh. He got 46% of the vote in 2016 and is polling today around ~41%, so you should expect state polls to have him ~4-6 or so off his election result. Some states he's significantly lower than that, others he's held strong.

Popularity =/= NPV share. His favorability was at 38.7% when he won 46.1% of the NPV.

...which explains why I have relied upon 100-DIS as reasonable ceiling for the vote share of the  incumbent President. It worked well with Obama, who barely won Ohio after getting even one disapproval rating above 50% (just barely -- 51% in Ohio)  in any state that he eventually won in 2012. It is extremely difficult for any incumbent to undo even  'slight' disapproval. If his disapproval is 47% he has a chance of getting as much as 53% of the vote by winning over people then undecided through a shrewd and spirited campaign. Obama did that at his level despite having approval numbers in the mid-40s nationwide -- but his disapproval ratings were consistently below 50%. He won with a narrow national margin against one of the better challengers that a President ever faced and won against.  

Canvassers will be turned away when they come to the door of a home in which the people oppose the incumbent. They won't even get to hear a message tailored to their concerns. Undecided? They might have a little curiosity.  

This time I am talking about a differential change to 2020 from 2016. In 2016 Donald Trump had promises. He already has a record of successes (such as they are) and failures. President Trump will be unable to run away from his record lest it trip him up. I could be wrong, but I do not see him making 180-degree turns to take positions opposite what has been unpopular in his agenda.

So does the main opponent get all who disapprove of the incumbent President? Hardly. Of the President has 54% disapproval in a state, then that means that he can get no more than about 46% of the vote there. That does not say who will get the 54% of the vote. If as in Florida the Democratic nominee has no reasonable chance in a normal election to get 52% of the popular vote, then at the least some conservative alternative will get at least2% of the vote. That could be some combination of Third Party or independent nominees. Indeed there is no promise that the Democrat will even get 46% of the vote. Yes, under the right circumstances, Trump could beat the Democrat. But how much of the ceiling will the Third Party or Independent nominee take from Donald Trump?

Imagine this scenario. Some business tycoon runs what would be in most years a vanity campaign (after Trump, such is possible); he claims that his experience in private industry is more relevant than that of Donald Trump, and that as a principled, genuine conservative he will undo the damage of Trump and forestall an 'ultra-liberal' Democratic nominee. If he can show that his experience in, let us say the oil business, is more relevant than Donald Trump's experience in real estate and schlock television... he cuts into Trump support, and takes away some of the Trump ceiling.

I look at the more telling (even if they seem exaggerated) polls  that ask the question of whether or not to re-elect the President -- and those look even less promising to the President than approval and disapproval. The problem is that I have only six states for which I have data on this question. The good news is that there could hardly be a better selection of states.        

[pbrower2a]

Here is some partial polling data from Kansas:

Question 2: Do you approve or disapprove of the job performance of President Donald Trump?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not bad -- until you see the crosstabs!

It's 64-29 among Kansas Republicans, and 50-50 among libertarians.


No mention of Democrats. Telling, but obviously incomplete.
 

http://winwithjmc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Kansas-Executive-Summary-V2-Release-Version.pdf

[pbrower2a]

Here is some partial polling data from Kansas:

Question 2: Do you approve or disapprove of the job performance of President Donald Trump?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not bad -- until you see the crosstabs!

It's 64-29 among Kansas Republicans, and 50-50 among libertarians.


No mention of Democrats. Telling, but obviously incomplete.
 

http://winwithjmc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Kansas-Executive-Summary-V2-Release-Version.pdf

Well, it's a Republican primary poll:

Question 1: Do you plan to vote in the August 7 Republican primary? (Those who do not plan to vote are excluded from taking the rest of the survey)

The point.  I would ordinarily expect support for a Republican President in the 80s among Kansas Republicans. This really is poor for the President in Kansas.  Sure, it is Kansas, where Democrats are about 35% of the electorate. But this is bad for Trump.

[pbrower2a]

I will inevitably repeat myself periodically until November 2020, but it is important to remember that Trump won almost one-fifth of Voters who disapproved of him.

Read down to see the relevant material at https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/cagle-vs-kemp-headlines-runoff-day-georgia-n893971:


Polling of a significant part of the electorate: people who hold both Parties in contempt:

So how are these kinds of voters breaking now? Well, our latest NBC/WSJ poll finds that Democrats are over-performing among voters who hold negative views of both parties (representing 13 percent of the sample). Here’s the past and current congressional preference among these voters:

- 2010 merged NBC/WSJ poll: 49 percent GOP, 23 percent DEM (R+26)
- 2014 merged NBC/WSJ poll: 51 percent GOP, 24 percent DEM (R+27)
- 2018 merged NBC/WSJ poll (through June): 50 percent DEM, 36 percent GOP (D+14)
- 2018 NBC/WSJ poll from July: 55 percent DEM, 25 percent GOP (D+30)

What’s more in our current poll, these voters disproportionately are down on Trump (68 percent disapprove of his job, versus 52 percent of all voters), and they are enthusiastic about the upcoming midterms (63 percent of them have high interest, versus 55 percent of all voters who say this).


So here is how an even swing goes of voters holding both Parties in contempt  (a big part of the electorate in 2016_ look at the current President, looking only at states that went 6% or more against Trump or 10% or less for him as a margin, as those are the states most amenable to a shift

8% or more -- saturation 7 (9 if over 10%)
4% to 7.99% -- saturation 5
1.5% to 2.99% -- saturation 3
under 1.5% -- saturation 2

the Democratic nominee 413
Trump 125

Even without Texas going to the Democrat, Trump loses much as the elder Bush did in 1992.

Surprisingly this is close to the polling results. President Trump is underwater with approval ratings just under 50 in Georgia, Texas, and (my model is not allowed to show this) Montana.

[pbrower2a]

...


So my point still stands: If Trump wants to get reelected, he ought to work hard to bring his approval rating up. Otherwise, he's risking defeat. It's not like it will take another Obama 2008 or Reagan scenario to topple him if his numbers are low.

I don't think Trump's approval will ever rise above 45% but I'm still worried. What guarantee do we have that he won't drag his opponent down? Trump's path to reelection isn't a positive campaign campaign and a message of keeping peace and prosperity (though a good economy would certainly help), it's turning out the 40% core support he has and dragging his opponent down so that 8-10% of the electorate will hate his opponent even more than they hate Trump (and then hope the EC bails him out). I can totally see that happen if Harris or Warren is the nominee. Heck, I'd probably be part of the 8-10% if Sanders or Warren is the nominee .

Beyond any question, Donald Trump is far more adept at debasing political life than at elevating it. No politician except in an ultra-safe bailiwick can ever win re-election solely by winning the Base and only the Base. But perhaps he can sow dissent among potential opponents, use blackmail and other dirty tricks, cull the electorate until it is the sort that will vote for him, use patronage, and of course use copious deceit and intimidation. We have the first President with overt connections to crime syndicates, so beware. Oh, so he is German and Scots? That makes him neutral between the old Sicilian Mafia and Russian Mafia.

I expect him to use the same tricks in 2020 that he used in 2016. Unless he has brutality to enforce them he might not be as successful.  Just look at the (dis)approval ratings and especially the responses in six states to the question "re-elect or not re-elect".  

OK, so could he adapt to a Democratic majority in one or both Congresses? I doubt it. We all know him -- do you see him as unduly rigid? I do. I cannot see him making compromises  for political advantage or survival. This is not a give-and-take personality who can decide -- 'OK, my side lost the election, so maybe I need make some adaptations and adjustments.  I cannot see him winning re-election in a free and fair contest. '

OK, so this thread is more about electoral trends than about political personalities. This is Leip's Atlas of Elections, and not Leip's Atlas of Political Psychology.    
  

[pbrower2a]

The question at the end is often which electorate model is valid. Which people vote -- or do not vote?

One way to win what would otherwise be a close election is to campaign with the objective of demoralizing the opposition. Thus the campaign tries to make voting seem futile. ":It's not your turn". "We have the money and that is all that matters in politics".  "Only losers  vote for your nominees".  Or "Admit it now -- your candidates either are crooks or don't know what they are doing -- we know better than you what is best for you".

This time we have a President that many Americans thoroughly hate. We have never had that. We have had failed Presidents like Hoover, Carter, and Dubya, but nobody for which the contempt is so strong.

Even with the caveat that who votes matters, any large new constituency (let us say young people with a new political culture), any migration of voters in large numbers (let us say from California to Arizona or Texas), the dying-off of a generation (such as voters of the New Deal era as they got very old), or any large group of people that changes its pattern of voting (think of Mormons as Eisenhower cultivated them in the 1950s or well-educated people in the latter part of the Double-Zero Decade),

Donald Trump and the GOP did an excellent job in 2016 not so much in selling what would eventually be a failed Presidency and a dubious agenda but in demoralizing the usual voters for the Democratic Party.  What he cannot do in 2020 will be to run from a record of failure -- including either stagflation or an economic meltdown.