Trump approval ratings thread 1.5

[GeorgiaModerate]

AJC Poll for Georgia:

Trump approval:

Approve: 40
Disapprove: 56

https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/ajc-poll-kemp-approval-ratings-the-rise-trump-still-underwater/5EDalXwOSNvonieS90ixEN/

I doubt his approval is actually anywhere near that low but I am more optimistic about GA flipping than NC. Call me crazy but I think GA is a legitimate tossup.

Note that the poll question was actually favorability rather than job approval (the article is sloppy with their terminology).

I think Georgia isn't quite a tossup yet (it might be with the right Democratic candidate).  But it's certainly in play.

[pbrower2a]

I can't figure why Georgia could become more hostile to Trump than are Florida or North Carolina.  It looks as if Georgia pols can grab onto the coattails of Trump... and drown (figuratively, of course).

AJC Poll for Georgia:

Trump approval:

Approve: 40
Disapprove: 56

https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/ajc-poll-kemp-approval-ratings-the-rise-trump-still-underwater/5EDalXwOSNvonieS90ixEN/

I doubt his approval is actually anywhere near that low but I am more optimistic about GA flipping than NC. Call me crazy but I think GA is a legitimate tossup.

I've seen mostly horrid polls for Trump in Georgia.

Approval and disapproval ratings of Donald Trump:

With cumulative electoral vote totals in each category.

55% and higher 8
50-54% 9
49% or less and positive 38
tie (white)
44-49% and negative 76
40-43% 51
under 40%  144

An asterisk will be applied to any state in which the President's approval rating is above 43% for which the disapproval rating is 50% or higher.

No segregation of districts in Maine and Nebraska -- yet.

27 more states, and 193 electoral votes to go!    

To Trump or not to Trump, as I put it:

8% or higher margin against Trump -- maroon
4-7.9% against Trump -- medium red
under 4% margin against Trump -- pink

I have yet to see exact ties or 'better' for Trump.

[Person Man]

AJC Poll for Georgia:

Trump approval:

Approve: 40
Disapprove: 56

https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/ajc-poll-kemp-approval-ratings-the-rise-trump-still-underwater/5EDalXwOSNvonieS90ixEN/

I doubt his approval is actually anywhere near that low but I am more optimistic about GA flipping than NC. Call me crazy but I think GA is a legitimate tossup.

I think North Carolina and Georgia will be considered a bellwether from 2016 on. The lean has weakened enough the next Democratic president to win both states provided he wins comfortably in the EV.

[Annatar]

AJC Poll for Georgia:

Trump approval:

Approve: 40
Disapprove: 56

https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/ajc-poll-kemp-approval-ratings-the-rise-trump-still-underwater/5EDalXwOSNvonieS90ixEN/

I doubt his approval is actually anywhere near that low but I am more optimistic about GA flipping than NC. Call me crazy but I think GA is a legitimate tossup.

Note that the poll question was actually favorability rather than job approval (the article is sloppy with their terminology).

I think Georgia isn't quite a tossup yet (it might be with the right Democratic candidate).  But it's certainly in play.

The poll sample is 66% college grad or more, only 34% non-college, literally a complete inversion of the actual reality.

https://twitter.com/B_M_Finnigan/status/1116405621102981125

[Brittain33]

AJC Poll for Georgia:

Trump approval:

Approve: 40
Disapprove: 56

https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/ajc-poll-kemp-approval-ratings-the-rise-trump-still-underwater/5EDalXwOSNvonieS90ixEN/

I doubt his approval is actually anywhere near that low but I am more optimistic about GA flipping than NC. Call me crazy but I think GA is a legitimate tossup.

Note that the poll question was actually favorability rather than job approval (the article is sloppy with their terminology).

I think Georgia isn't quite a tossup yet (it might be with the right Democratic candidate).  But it's certainly in play.

The poll sample is 66% college grad or more, only 34% non-college, literally a complete inversion of the actual reality.

https://twitter.com/B_M_Finnigan/status/1116405621102981125

Thank you, knew this could not be an accurate read of a state where Brian Kemp would have only narrowly lost a fair election last year.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://news.gallup.com/poll/248633/post-mueller-report-trump-approval-back-high.aspx

With that rate Trump will win reelection in landslide! 

[Dr. Arch]

https://news.gallup.com/poll/248633/post-mueller-report-trump-approval-back-high.aspx

With that rate Trump will win reelection in landslide! 

What rate, exactly? A trend line that's basically 0?

[Person Man]

https://news.gallup.com/poll/248633/post-mueller-report-trump-approval-back-high.aspx

With that rate Trump will win reelection in landslide! 

What rate, exactly? A trend line that's basically 0?

It’s an obvious outlier if you even look at even Republican poll of polls.

[Thatkat04]

Gallup has always been notoriously noisy. The issue now is that since they've switched from weekly to monthly, we have to wait another 4 weeks to see if its actual movement or not. And it since its Gallup, its more than likely noise.

[ProudModerate2]

https://news.gallup.com/poll/248633/post-mueller-report-trump-approval-back-high.aspx


With that rate Trump will win reelection in landslide! 

What rate, exactly? A trend line that's basically 0?

Exactly.
A "poorly educated" trump supporter with no basic understanding of statistics.

[pbrower2a]

Poorly-educated people do not understand statistics. Statistics are not particularly difficult math, except for calculations.

They don't understand probability well, either. 

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Me, after reading comments after an obvious joke >>>

[Dr. Arch]

Me, after reading comments after an obvious joke >>>

One does not joke with stats.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Me, after reading comments after an obvious joke >>>

One does not joke with stats.

83% of professional statisticians disagree with this.

[Crumpets]

Me, after reading comments after an obvious joke >>>

One does not joke with stats.

83% of professional statisticians disagree with this.

THIS IS NOT NORMAL!

[Dr. Arch]

Me, after reading comments after an obvious joke >>>

One does not joke with stats.

83% of professional statisticians disagree with this.

THIS IS NOT NORMAL!

[GeorgiaModerate]

Emerson, April 11-14, 914 RV (1-month change)

Approve 43 (nc)
Disapprove 49 (-1)

Biden 53, Trump 47
Sanders 51, Trump 48
O’Rourke 51, Trump 49
Harris 50, Trump 50
Buttigieg 49, Trump 51
Warren 48, Trump 52

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

There hasn't been a gold-standard-poll in almost 3 weeks now. Are they waiting for the release of Barr-Mueller's report?

[Thatkat04]

There hasn't been a gold-standard-poll in almost 3 weeks now. Are they waiting for the release of Barr-Mueller's report?

Well that's possible. But since polling has continued to get more time consuming and expensive, there is less actual incentive to do it. Since we're over a year away from the next major election, these polling droughts aren't unexpected in my opinion.

[pbrower2a]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=297289.0
Old thread.

This will soon be the new thread for polling involving Donald Trump. When I start this thread (and I am not opening it until after the old thread has 1950 or so posts -- it is just past 1900) I want something that contains 'my' utilities and perhaps yours, as well as the latest compilations of data relevant in the new thread.

But "1.4" is moribund due to getting filled. The 2000th, "witching post" is fast approaching. Things might get interesting when much of the Mueller report is available for us to  (ahem!) mull over, but that will probably appear heavily in this thread.

Please do not post here until I fully open this thread.  For now I do not welcome your posts. I have my own stuff to install, including utilities and historical basics. I am going to open and close this thread until I put in it what I consider necessary as a start. Keep using "1.4" to report polls and polling data.      

[pbrower2a]

Blank map for your use.

Without electoral votes and with no distinction for districts:

[pbrower2a]

The fundamental beginning of the 2020 Presidential campaign -- states and districts within 10% of being even in the 2016 Presidential election:


2016 result among states decided by 10% or less:

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. Should any such state go into play, then differences between 2016 and 2020 ar profound in the extreme. This range of states is between 203 and 413 electoral votes. Remember that if such a state as Oregon goes into play for Trump, then the Democrat is in supreme trouble and at risk of losing a landslide. On the other side, if a state such as Missouri goes into play, then Trump is at risk of a landslide loss.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Shouldn’t the title be 1.5?

[pbrower2a]

Assumptions that we can all reasonably make, lest everything be void:

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. The 2018 Congressional, Senatorial, and Gubernatorial elections looked clean enough.

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 campaign 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.

7. That there will be no event that changes American political culture by identifying the President with some rush of patriotism or a movement toward a right-wing 'religious revival' to the benefit of 'conservative' politics.  I see nothing of the sort. Today's young adults are seemingly abandoning religion.    

But I can't completely rule out such things as an invasion from outer space, an eruption of a supervolcano or meteor strike that does great damage to human populations, a zombie apocalypse, or the Coming of a Messiah, either.  Any of these makse the Presidential election an irrelevant concern. Were I to get a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer with a prognosis of three months to live, I would be finding better things to do with my life than posting here.

[pbrower2a]

This is the (apparently) objective Lichtman test that has usually been right in determining which party wins the majority of the popular vote in a Presidential election. To be sure our system of electing the President has the States, and not the People, electing the President, so a winner of less than the plurality can get elected President, as in 2000 and 2016. It is still theoretically possible for Donald Trump to win reelection with a Democratic majority of the vote as Democrats run up huge majorities for President in states with 9 to 55 electoral votes (CO, MD, MA, WA, VA,  NJ, IL, NY, and CA) while barely losing some critical states as Hillary Clinton did in 2016.  But -- if the Democrats get an even swing of 1% of the vote from 2016 to 2020, then Trump loses Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and his re-election bid. To be sure, even swings do not happen.  


.................

(revision: I consider the statement of former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld that he is running for the nomination for President through the Republican Party unambiguous evidence that Trump faces a serious primary challenge from someone with bona fide credentials as an elected Republican with a significant history of public service. I am also calling the President's anti-immigration stance an effective change in American politics even if I find it abominable. Lichtman does not ask whether the change that a President effects  (such as a large tariff) is to the good or bad of the country.    

1.    Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
2.    Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
3.   Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
4.    Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
5.    Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
6.    Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
7.    Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
8.    Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
9.    Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
10.    Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
11.    Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
12.   Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
13.   Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

1. GIGANTIC NEGATIVE. We now have a definitive answer on November 6, 2018. The GOP not only lost seats in the House of Representatives, but also its majority. This is usually a negative for practically any administration,
2. NOW NEGATIVE There could be, but that is yet well enough into the future that we can't say anything.
 
I'm not saying that Bill Weld will succeed in knocking out Trump, but his campaign will weaken Trump. This has become an unambiguous negative, and it could get worse for the President. The last two incumbent Presidents who faced a serious primary challenge (Ford and Carter) lost their re-election bids. In view of his experience, Bill Weld is a serious candidate. Effective Presidents do not face primary challenges. To be sure, I cannot yet say that Weld is as effective as Reagan in 1976 or Ted Kennedy in 1980 -- but he demonstrates a weakness of this President. Some GOP constituencies dislike Trump. The primary challenges to LBJ in 1968 created chaos.
 
Rivals for the nomination  are rarely effective in bringing all their early breakaway supporters back to the fold.
  
3. A Republican will be President in 2020 and the incumbent will be running even if something happens to President Trump. Pence would run for re-election.
4. I think that there will be, but that is too far into the future for any discussion yet.
5. Way too early to tell. Ask again in August or September 2020.
6. The Obama economy had a growth rate unusually high, as it was a recovery from a nasty recession. This will be impossible to meet.
7. NOW POSITIVE -- if for all the wrong reasons He hasn't yet. The tax bill is it. I expect more efforts at deregulation of industry, union-cracking, and privatization even if those prove unpopular. In view of the anti-immigrant policy that our President has, he now gets a positive. Lichtman does not judge whether the effects are good or bad, as in the past with a huge tariff bill. Consequences could lead to the strengthening of negatives, as in domestic unrest.
8. GIGANTIC NEGATIVE.  Sure, the President did not directly inspire one of his supporters to send bombs to Democratic politicians and celebrities, but he consider himself lucky that none of them blew up a target. Donald Trump may be no antisemite (Nazi-style antisemitism is racist), but the creep who mowed down eleven Jews in a Pittsburgh synagogue did so out of a concern that the  specific Jews had been  supporting immigration of non-white people. The frequent polite demonstrations from the Women's March on have not been unrest, but they can certainly call attention to his awfulness and aid in organizing an electoral opposition.  
9. GIGANTIC NEGATIVE.  This is the most systematically and severely corrupt Administration in American history. The legal problems keep piling up.
10. Likely but it has yet to happen. NOW NEGATIVE. I do not trust the deal with North Korea, and this President is insulting so many of America's traditional allies that something will go bad. The tariff is a disaster waiting to happen. I'm calling it now for reasons shown above on America's loss of credibility among its traditional allies. This is a matter of timing, and I could have done it earlier.  I do so now, not that anything has changed abruptly. Remember how badly he bungled the response to the deaths of four Special Forces soldiers in Niger? Maybe not, but I saw that as a portent of trouble. 
11. The nuke deal with North Korea? There is no enforcement in place. The President would need China and ideally also Russia as an enforcer.
12. Trump already seems much less charismatic now than in 2016. He still has charisma with his cult. That will not be enough.
13. We have no idea who the Democratic nominee will be.

Two clear blue, six red, four green (has not happened yet but still can), one purple (ambiguous). He now has no room for any one of them going red.

Any bad result from the Mueller report or exposure of misdeeds involving Assange merely intensifies the ninth key already in flaming Atlas red.


The Lichtman test is not of my making, and it offers ambiguities for interpretation -- but  I have been slow to recognize any one of these turning against the President, choosing to recognize them only when they have become irrevocable  -- if only in my opinion. I am tempted to believe that pervasive corruption will be enough (as with an economic meltdown for Hoover or with catastrophes of foreign policy or continuing stagflation for Carter) to make this President unsuited to re-election in itself. Trump is on the margin of failure as it is, in accordance with the Lichtman test.

(Please do not comment in this thread until I invite discussion.  I am still setting up my utilities and historical data for now, and I will not even put up polling data until I am ready to open this thread and close "1.4").