The Official Trump 1.0 Approval Ratings Thread

[KingSweden]

NC (High Point University)

Adults: 36-52 disapprove
RV only: 36-51 disapprove

HPU showed Hillary winning NC by 1%.

http://www.highpoint.edu/src/files/2017/02/50memoA.pdf

This looks less dubious than that FL poll, if only because they include undecideds

[pbrower2a]

NC (High Point University)

Adults: 36-52 disapprove
RV only: 36-51 disapprove

HPU showed Hillary winning NC by 1%.

http://www.highpoint.edu/src/files/2017/02/50memoA.pdf

Consistent with the poll of Florida by Florida Atlantic University... and 8% worse than for Trump nationwide as shown in Gallup polls?


Unless Democrats are regaining the Carter 1976 coalition, this is absurd. Strange things can happen with a highly-unpopular President.

What could be happening?

1. Outliers may be telling us something. As elections of 2010, 2014, and 2016 show, outlier points of data may be right. But even if they are exaggerations, Florida and North Carolina are at least as hostile to Donald Trump as the nationwide polls by Gallup.

2. President Trump may prove to be a poor cultural match for parts of the South, even if in two states that are marginally Southern. The core South may have seen President Obama as a d@mn-Yankee pol more than as a black man. Southerners have their own idea of what black people are, and those are not people with a recent African ancestor. Could Donald Trump be even more of a d@mn-Yankee than Obama?

I'd like to see Obama approval as a check. It's hard to quantify "niceness", but if Obama barely lost both states and fares better than Trump, then these results are somewhat consistent.

3. President Trump has been having a difficult Presidency because he has bungled so much early. Later polls may reflect this. If the polls showed Michigan and Wisconsin with such approval ratings, then would you accept them? We have accepted polls in this range in California and New Jersey.

4. These two states got polled often in 2012, 2014, and 2016. Both have been  essential to a Republican win of the presidency, but neither has been necessary.  I expect much the same for 2018. I am tempted to show the two states with the   Gallup national average than with the statewide polls by colleges that few people know  about outside of the states.  I can treat them as 42/52, which is the Gallup average.

NC (High Point University)

Adults: 36-52 disapprove
RV only: 36-51 disapprove

HPU showed Hillary winning NC by 1%.

http://www.highpoint.edu/src/files/2017/02/50memoA.pdf

This looks less dubious than that FL poll, if only because they include undecideds

I can adjust them to the Gallup nationwide poll.
 

[pbrower2a]

Florida, North Carolina

Possible outlier polls emerged, suggesting that Donald Trump has a very troubled Presidency, at least as shown in two states that he barely won in November. A cautious approach is to figure that the two states disapprove of the President at roughly the same rate as the nationwide polls of Gallup show. The letter G will be added to the number of electoral votes for each state because even if I believe that approval in the mid-thirties in these two states is an exaggeration, approval in the low 40s is not.

These two states got polled often in recent years, so I expect replacements soon enough. 


Favorability:

Probably our best approximation until about March.


Approval:

Not likely useful until March.


Even -- white



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

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

White - tie.
 
Colors chosen for partisan affiliation.  

*National poll, and not a state poll -- the national poll is much more flattering to the President, who is shown in deep trouble in that state, and is likely closer to reality.

[GlobeSoc]

Oh boy oh boy oh boy let's get Jimmy Carter in a time machine

[Sorenroy]

Just a quick question:

If Trump's approval is 45-55 (-10%) and the margin of error is 3%, does that mean that both numbers have a MoE of 3% (between 42-58 (-16%) and 48-52 (-4%)), or does it mean that the difference has a MoE of 3% (between 43.5-56.5 (-13%) and 46.5-53.5 (-7%)). I assume it's the first but I'm not sure.

[Blackacre]

Just a quick question:

If Trump's approval is 45-55 (-10%) and the margin of error is 3%, does that mean that both numbers have a MoE of 3% (between 42-58 (-16%) and 48-52 (-4%)), or does it mean that the difference has a MoE of 3% (between 43.5-56.5 (-13%) and 46.5-53.5 (-7%)). I assume it's the first but I'm not sure.

Both numbers have a MoE of 3, so you are correct that the range is between -16 and -4

[Wiz in Wis]

2/4/2017:
Disapproval 53%
Approval 42%

Gallup.

Fun fact... Ronald Reagan had a 42% approval rating, or worse, between July and October 1982.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1982

Yeah, but this isn't 1982 anymore. The country is more polarized today.

Okay... I wonder what Obama's Gallup approval rating was in say, November 2010, before his party lost 63 seats in the House?

11/1/2010

Approve 44%
Disapprove 48%

But... Obama may be an outlier. Let's look at GW Bush, who lost 31 seats in 2006:

11/4/2006

Approve 38
Disapprove 54

Hmmm.... that "polarization" argument is not holding up so well.

[Mr. Morden]

I'm not sure it makes sense to look at historical averages covering both parties when trying to predict midterm losses in the House.  At the moment, at least, there's a pretty significant asymmetry between the two parties in terms of how efficiently their voters are distributed geographically, such that the Dems would need a rather substantial margin of victory in the national House popular vote in order to win back the chamber.  Trump might be unpopular, but unless the people who don't like him are geographically distributed in an optimal way, it won't matter.

[Gass3268]

Gallup

Approval: 42% (+/-0)
Disapproval: 54% (+2)

[Virginiá]

Hmmm.... that "polarization" argument is not holding up so well.

The polarization argument in this context is really just a cop-out, imo. Let's take the often-cited (by TNVol too I think?) number of "45%" that, say, Republicans can always count on. If Republicans get 45% in the House PV, odds are Democrats are probably bringing in 51% - 53%. By House standards that is basically a landslide loss, and in the range of what Democrats need to take over the chamber. If you look back in history, rarely have parties gotten less than 44% in the House PV, and it wasn't necessary to go lower to lose big (but it did happen sometimes, like 1974, and it caused huge losses).

I think the polarization argument applies more to presidential races, where the intense focus on 2 well-defined candidates has a more powerful polarizing effect. The 20th century was filled to the brim with landslide elections, and polarization today largely prevents landslides like '36, '64, '72, '84, etc, and that makes it appear more substantial than it really is.

But, for the record, I don't really believe in the "45% always" rule. I just wanted to point out that in elections for the House, it doesn't really change anything anyway.

-

Edit: As for the geographical sorting issue, I put this down:

www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/house-2016-how-a-democratic-wave-could-happen/



I'd a venture a guess that if Obama could have won roughly that many GOP-held districts with a 5-7 pt. PV win, a Democratic House PV win in the same range (obviously with some changes due to the suburban/rural sorting seen under Clinton/Trump) could probably achieve similar, even if maybe somewhat weaker effects. We'd just need to recruit some pretty good candidates and hope the GOP brand is sufficiently garbage to get voters to toss out incumbents.

[Wiz in Wis]

Hmmm.... that "polarization" argument is not holding up so well.

The polarization argument in this context is really just a cop-out, imo. Let's take the often-cited (by TNVol too I think?) number of "45%" that, say, Republicans can always count on. If Republicans get 45% in the House PV, odds are Democrats are probably bringing in 51% - 53%. By House standards that is basically a landslide loss, and in the range of what Democrats need to take over the chamber. If you look back in history, rarely have parties gotten less than 44% in the House PV, and it wasn't necessary to go lower to lose big (but it did happen sometimes, like 1974, and it caused huge losses).

I think the polarization argument applies more to presidential races, where the intense focus on 2 well-defined candidates has a more powerful polarizing effect. The 20th century was filled to the brim with landslide elections, and polarization today largely prevents landslides like '36, '64, '72, '84, etc, and that makes it appear more substantial than it really is.

But, for the record, I don't really believe in the "45% always" rule. I just wanted to point out that in elections for the House, it doesn't really change anything anyway.

-

Edit: As for the geographical sorting issue, I put this down:

www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/house-2016-how-a-democratic-wave-could-happen/



I'd a venture a guess that if Obama could have won roughly that many GOP-held districts with a 5-7 pt. PV win, a Democratic House PV win in the same range (obviously with some changes due to the suburban/rural sorting seen under Clinton/Trump) could probably achieve similar, even if maybe somewhat weaker effects. We'd just need to recruit some pretty good candidates and hope the GOP brand is sufficiently garbage to get voters to toss out incumbents.

This is my point exactly. Let's look at 2006. Nancy Boyda won KS-02. Now, how the hell does that make sense? She lost in 2008 as "polarization" brought that district back into the fold, but between 2006 and 2008, a fair number of "PVI R+5" districts fell to the Dems. In fact, that's why the 2010 midterms were so stacked against the Dems... they had been picking off seats they really had no business winning. So, in 2018, I cannot see a reason to think that the average R+5 seat is "safe" because of polarization.

And there are plenty of R+2, R+3 seats that will fall in a wave. In fact, Polarization probably increases the chance of the Dems winning the House! Think about it... the last three midterms have been super great for the party not in the White House - out of power partisans are infuriated and over-represent themselves. Why would 2018 suddenly be different?

[Mr. Morden]

Well, one thing I'd note is that the tipping point seat in the House in 2016 was UT-4, Mia Love's district, and she won by a 12.5% margin.  That is, if you had a uniform nationwide swing towards the Dems from the GOP's actual ~1% national victory margin, it would need to be as big as 12.5 points in order to win the House.

Of course, the swing wouldn't be uniform, but the point is, on the surface that makes it look like a rather large structural advantage for the GOP.  Is that different from what the Dems faced in the last decade?  I don't know.  I suppose I could look up the tipping point seat in 2004, to see if it looked just as daunting for the Dems to take the House in 2006, but I'm too lazy to do so. 

Would also note, of course, that Trump was already unpopular in November 2016, at the time that the voters were reelecting a Republican Congress.  Does that matter?  If the incoming president is unpopular to begin with, and simply remains unpopular two years in, does that impact the opposition's ability to pick up seats in the House?  I don't know.

[Gass3268]

Quinnipiac:

Approve 42%
Disapprove 51%

Source

[Absolution9]

I find it doubtful that the Dems win back the house in 2018 short of truly terrible approval for Trump/Reps.  My logic is simplistic but I think sound:  married white home-owners are the core midterm voting population (and best distributed geographically) and this group has trended heavily away from the Dems in the past 8 years.  I think its a trend that wont be easily reversed in the short term.

[The Other Castro]

I find it doubtful that the Dems win back the house in 2018 short of truly terrible approval for Trump/Reps.  My logic is simplistic but I think sound:  married white home-owners are the core midterm voting population (and best distributed geographically) and this group has trended heavily away from the Dems in the past 8 years.  I think its a trend that wont be easily reversed in the short term.

Some groups don't need to trend towards Dems, they just need to not vote. Trump's failure to live up to  some of the wilder expectations he has set could turn many people off from showing up.

[Hindsight was 2020]

I find it doubtful that the Dems win back the house in 2018 short of truly terrible approval for Trump/Reps.  My logic is simplistic but I think sound:  married white home-owners are the core midterm voting population (and best distributed geographically) and this group has trended heavily away from the Dems in the past 8 years.  I think its a trend that wont be easily reversed in the short term.

No rural whites are what's trending right an they don't do midterms a lot

[Mr. Morden]

Quinnipiac:

Approve 42%
Disapprove 51%

Source

Gender gap remains huge:

men: 50% approve, 43% disapprove
women: 35% approve, 58% disapprove

fav/unfav %:
Pence 43/39% for +4%
Trump 43/52% for -9%
Bannon 14/41% for -27%

On the executive order…

“Do you support or oppose suspending immigration from "terror prone" regions, even if it means turning away refugees from those regions?”
support 44%
oppose 50%

“Do you support or oppose suspending all travel by citizens of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen to the U.S. for 90 days?”
support 46%
oppose 51%

“Do you support or oppose suspending the immigration of all refugees to the U.S., regardless of where they are coming from, for 120 days?”
support 37%
oppose 60%

“Do you support or oppose suspending all immigration of Syrian refugees to the U.S. indefinitely?”
support 26%
oppose 70%

“Do you think President Trump's executive order on immigration makes the nation more safe, less safe, or doesn't it affect the safety of the nation?”
more safe 38%
less safe 39%

“Do you think exceptions to President Trump's immigration order should be made for Iraqi citizens that helped the U.S. military, or not?”
yes 76%
no 17%

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Pence will go down after today.

[Absolution9]

I find it doubtful that the Dems win back the house in 2018 short of truly terrible approval for Trump/Reps.  My logic is simplistic but I think sound:  married white home-owners are the core midterm voting population (and best distributed geographically) and this group has trended heavily away from the Dems in the past 8 years.  I think its a trend that wont be easily reversed in the short term.

No rural whites are what's trending right an they don't do midterms a lot

Rural is a bit of a misnomer, its really whites outside of major metro areas (1.5M +).  Every metro area in PA and upstate NY trended toward Trump.  Metro regions like Buffalo, Scranton, Syracuse, Allentown aren't exactly rural (trend was consistent across the country).  

[pbrower2a]

I'm not sure it makes sense to look at historical averages covering both parties when trying to predict midterm losses in the House.  At the moment, at least, there's a pretty significant asymmetry between the two parties in terms of how efficiently their voters are distributed geographically, such that the Dems would need a rather substantial margin of victory in the national House popular vote in order to win back the chamber.  Trump might be unpopular, but unless the people who don't like him are geographically distributed in an optimal way, it won't matter.

Whether President Trump will be unpopular in the late summer and early autumn of 2018 is yet to be known. But if he should be unpopular enough, Democrats will have  enough of an edge in the national popular vote for the House that they can swing as many as 42 House seats by winning districts that are up to R+5... enough for an unambiguous majority. That would take about a 55-45 split in the vote.  But if enough people want to constrain him, that is what they will have to do.

[Wiz in Wis]

Well, one thing I'd note is that the tipping point seat in the House in 2016 was UT-4, Mia Love's district, and she won by a 12.5% margin.  That is, if you had a uniform nationwide swing towards the Dems from the GOP's actual ~1% national victory margin, it would need to be as big as 12.5 points in order to win the House.

Of course, the swing wouldn't be uniform, but the point is, on the surface that makes it look like a rather large structural advantage for the GOP.  Is that different from what the Dems faced in the last decade?  I don't know.  I suppose I could look up the tipping point seat in 2004, to see if it looked just as daunting for the Dems to take the House in 2006, but I'm too lazy to do so. 

Would also note, of course, that Trump was already unpopular in November 2016, at the time that the voters were reelecting a Republican Congress.  Does that matter?  If the incoming president is unpopular to begin with, and simply remains unpopular two years in, does that impact the opposition's ability to pick up seats in the House?  I don't know.

Two thoughts.

1) I wonder if uncontested seats drive this in favor of the GOP. The tipping point may depend on a few competitive seats having no credible Dem run. For example, no GOPer ran against Ron Kind in WI-03. That was a seat Trump won. Same thing with the Dallas area seat Hillary won.

2) I wonder if a number of people, assuming Hillary would win, voted GOP to "keep things in check" - now, they may flip.

[Wiz in Wis]

I'm not sure it makes sense to look at historical averages covering both parties when trying to predict midterm losses in the House.  At the moment, at least, there's a pretty significant asymmetry between the two parties in terms of how efficiently their voters are distributed geographically, such that the Dems would need a rather substantial margin of victory in the national House popular vote in order to win back the chamber.  Trump might be unpopular, but unless the people who don't like him are geographically distributed in an optimal way, it won't matter.

Whether President Trump will be unpopular in the late summer and early autumn of 2018 is yet to be known. But if he should be unpopular enough, Democrats will have  enough of an edge in the national popular vote for the House that they can swing as many as 42 House seats by winning districts that are up to R+5... enough for an unambiguous majority. That would take about a 55-45 split in the vote.  But if enough people want to constrain him, that is what they will have to do.

2006 Dems won the national popular vote by around 8%, so that's totally doable.

Also... odd finding... the GOP won the House of Reps popular vote in 2016 by a 1% margin... Dems gained 6 seats... so, the Dems are really only facing a national PVI penalty of around 2%. A 6% Dem margin would be enough to win the House if that is applied broadly.

[Mr. Morden]

I'm not sure it makes sense to look at historical averages covering both parties when trying to predict midterm losses in the House.  At the moment, at least, there's a pretty significant asymmetry between the two parties in terms of how efficiently their voters are distributed geographically, such that the Dems would need a rather substantial margin of victory in the national House popular vote in order to win back the chamber.  Trump might be unpopular, but unless the people who don't like him are geographically distributed in an optimal way, it won't matter.

Whether President Trump will be unpopular in the late summer and early autumn of 2018 is yet to be known. But if he should be unpopular enough, Democrats will have  enough of an edge in the national popular vote for the House that they can swing as many as 42 House seats by winning districts that are up to R+5... enough for an unambiguous majority. That would take about a 55-45 split in the vote.  But if enough people want to constrain him, that is what they will have to do.

2006 Dems won the national popular vote by around 8%, so that's totally doable.

Also... odd finding... the GOP won the House of Reps popular vote in 2016 by a 1% margin... Dems gained 6 seats... so, the Dems are really only facing a national PVI penalty of around 2%. A 6% Dem margin would be enough to win the House if that is applied broadly.

Wait, I'm sorry, you'll have to explain that logic to me.  Why would a 6% Dem. margin be enough to win the House?  I don't follow.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Gallup 2/6/17:
Disapproval 54%
Approval 42%

[Wiz in Wis]

I'm not sure it makes sense to look at historical averages covering both parties when trying to predict midterm losses in the House.  At the moment, at least, there's a pretty significant asymmetry between the two parties in terms of how efficiently their voters are distributed geographically, such that the Dems would need a rather substantial margin of victory in the national House popular vote in order to win back the chamber.  Trump might be unpopular, but unless the people who don't like him are geographically distributed in an optimal way, it won't matter.

Whether President Trump will be unpopular in the late summer and early autumn of 2018 is yet to be known. But if he should be unpopular enough, Democrats will have  enough of an edge in the national popular vote for the House that they can swing as many as 42 House seats by winning districts that are up to R+5... enough for an unambiguous majority. That would take about a 55-45 split in the vote.  But if enough people want to constrain him, that is what they will have to do.

2006 Dems won the national popular vote by around 8%, so that's totally doable.

Also... odd finding... the GOP won the House of Reps popular vote in 2016 by a 1% margin... Dems gained 6 seats... so, the Dems are really only facing a national PVI penalty of around 2%. A 6% Dem margin would be enough to win the House if that is applied broadly.

Wait, I'm sorry, you'll have to explain that logic to me.  Why would a 6% Dem. margin be enough to win the House?  I don't follow.

I was a bit inarticulate, but you actually prove my point above. You said Mia Love won with a 12.5% margin, when the Dems are down 1% nationally... well, if you increase the Dems by 6%, and the GOP drops by 6%, then that's 12%. I should have said swing, not margin.