Trump approval ratings thread, 1.4

[twenty42]

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.

[Virginiá]

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

Sure, comparisons to his 2016 favorability will be relevant if he draws another opponent as unpopular as he is or manages to drag them down to his level, which depending on the candidate, will not be that easy.

Popularity/approvals/favorables still matter. It's just that 2016 taught us that when you pit two candidates against each other who are about as unpopular as the other, the one that is slightly more popular is not guaranteed to win.

[UncleSam]

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

Sure, comparisons to his 2016 favorability will be relevant if he draws another opponent as unpopular as he is or manages to drag them down to his level, which depending on the candidate, will not be that easy.

Popularity/approvals/favorables still matter. It's just that 2016 taught us that when you pit two candidates against each other who are about as unpopular as the other, the one that is slightly more popular is not guaranteed to win.

They really weren’t that close though. Hillary got much closer to her favorability in terms of NPV than Trump did. Trump won like 70% of those who disapproved of them both.

[Virginiá]

I don't remember her exact favorability average in the run up to election day, but I do recall that it was in the dumps but higher than Trump's.

They really weren’t that close though. Hillary got much closer to her favorability in terms of NPV than Trump did. Trump won like 70% of those who disapproved of them both.

And I'm sure there are reasons for that, and maybe even influenced a good bit by the Comey stuff and the general swing of the news cycle against Clinton at the end, but my point is still the same: His approval ratings and favorable numbers still matter. Mikado's post was not wrong, at least in the sense that the Trump's approvals will weigh on his electoral performance. This idea that because Trump was unpopular when he won the electoral college in 2016, that his approvals no longer matter, really needs to die. It ignores the other half of the equation of 2016.

If Trump is still unpopular in 2020 like he is now (or worse), and he goes against a Democrat in 2020 who is modestly popular like past non-Hillary candidates, it's going to hurt him, and given that he barely won his first election, there is a good chance it'll deny him a 2nd term. He really needs to get those approvals up above or at 50 by election day.

[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.        

[twenty42]

I don't remember her exact favorability average in the run up to election day, but I do recall that it was in the dumps but higher than Trump's.

They really weren’t that close though. Hillary got much closer to her favorability in terms of NPV than Trump did. Trump won like 70% of those who disapproved of them both.

And I'm sure there are reasons for that, and maybe even influenced a good bit by the Comey stuff and the general swing of the news cycle against Clinton at the end, but my point is still the same: His approval ratings and favorable numbers still matter. Mikado's post was not wrong, at least in the sense that the Trump's approvals will weigh on his electoral performance. This idea that because Trump was unpopular when he won the electoral college in 2016, that his approvals no longer matter, really needs to die. It ignores the other half of the equation of 2016.

If Trump is still unpopular in 2020 like he is now (or worse), and he goes against a Democrat in 2020 who is modestly popular like past non-Hillary candidates, it's going to hurt him, and given that he barely won his first election, there is a good chance it'll deny him a 2nd term. He really needs to get those approvals up above or at 50 by election day.

I hate to burst your bubble here, but Dems have only nominated two “popular” candidates in the past 50 years.

[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

[GeorgiaModerate]

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)

[CookieDamage]

I don't remember her exact favorability average in the run up to election day, but I do recall that it was in the dumps but higher than Trump's.

They really weren’t that close though. Hillary got much closer to her favorability in terms of NPV than Trump did. Trump won like 70% of those who disapproved of them both.

And I'm sure there are reasons for that, and maybe even influenced a good bit by the Comey stuff and the general swing of the news cycle against Clinton at the end, but my point is still the same: His approval ratings and favorable numbers still matter. Mikado's post was not wrong, at least in the sense that the Trump's approvals will weigh on his electoral performance. This idea that because Trump was unpopular when he won the electoral college in 2016, that his approvals no longer matter, really needs to die. It ignores the other half of the equation of 2016.

If Trump is still unpopular in 2020 like he is now (or worse), and he goes against a Democrat in 2020 who is modestly popular like past non-Hillary candidates, it's going to hurt him, and given that he barely won his first election, there is a good chance it'll deny him a 2nd term. He really needs to get those approvals up above or at 50 by election day.

I hate to burst your bubble here, but Dems have only nominated two “popular” candidates in the past 50 years.

I know I'm petty and very combative but you are just extremely lazy and respond to arguments with the most asinine and sleazy manner. Go to Twitter, you'll fit right in amongst the Trump supporters there.

[KingSweden]

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)

64% approval among the GOP in a state as consistently Republican as Kansas seems low

[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.

[Brittain33]

I hate to burst your bubble here, but Dems have only nominated two “popular” candidates in the past 50 years.

That's 1 more than Republicans nominated.

[Badger]

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.

[Virginiá]

I hate to burst your bubble here, but Dems have only nominated two “popular” candidates in the past 50 years.

Candidates:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any of those favorable/approve numbers save for 1992 (assuming his election week #s were poor) and 2004 would do, and in Obama's case, would do extremely well. And even for someone with Kerry's numbers, which are still comfortably better than Trump's average, there are a number of things that Trump has to deal with that he didn't in 2016, a fired up Democratic base for one. Second, he actually has a record to run on this time, and it's not pure roses, particularly with the tariffs and healthcare issues. Third, it's unlikely his opponent will be dogged by constant scandal and an FBI investigation literally right up to election day, whereas Trump is a walking scandal machine, and has been every single day since he announced in 2015. It's actually kind of amazing how reliably controversial he has been.

There was a reason a lot of hay was made about the historic nature of the unpopularity of 2016's candidates. The fact is, candidates generally aren't that disliked before even being elected. Sure, you can get someone who is slightly more disliked than liked (eg Kerry / Romney), but nothing on the scale of Hillary or Donald.


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.

[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.

[mvd10]

I hate to burst your bubble here, but Dems have only nominated two “popular” candidates in the past 50 years.

Candidates:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any of those favorable/approve numbers save for 1992 (assuming his election week #s were poor) and 2004 would do, and in Obama's case, would do extremely well. And even for someone with Kerry's numbers, which are still comfortably better than Trump's average, there are a number of things that Trump has to deal with that he didn't in 2016, a fired up Democratic base for one. Second, he actually has a record to run on this time, and it's not pure roses, particularly with the tariffs and healthcare issues. Third, it's unlikely his opponent will be dogged by constant scandal and an FBI investigation literally right up to election day, whereas Trump is a walking scandal machine, and has been every single day since he announced in 2015. It's actually kind of amazing how reliably controversial he has been.

There was a reason a lot of hay was made about the historic nature of the unpopularity of 2016's candidates. The fact is, candidates generally aren't that disliked before even being elected. Sure, you can get someone who is slightly more disliked than liked (eg Kerry / Romney), but nothing on the scale of Hillary or Donald.


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 .

[KingSweden]

I hate to burst your bubble here, but Dems have only nominated two “popular” candidates in the past 50 years.

Candidates:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any of those favorable/approve numbers save for 1992 (assuming his election week #s were poor) and 2004 would do, and in Obama's case, would do extremely well. And even for someone with Kerry's numbers, which are still comfortably better than Trump's average, there are a number of things that Trump has to deal with that he didn't in 2016, a fired up Democratic base for one. Second, he actually has a record to run on this time, and it's not pure roses, particularly with the tariffs and healthcare issues. Third, it's unlikely his opponent will be dogged by constant scandal and an FBI investigation literally right up to election day, whereas Trump is a walking scandal machine, and has been every single day since he announced in 2015. It's actually kind of amazing how reliably controversial he has been.

There was a reason a lot of hay was made about the historic nature of the unpopularity of 2016's candidates. The fact is, candidates generally aren't that disliked before even being elected. Sure, you can get someone who is slightly more disliked than liked (eg Kerry / Romney), but nothing on the scale of Hillary or Donald.


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 .

At the same time, you have to weigh what’s more important: stopping Trump’s contempt for institutions and norms, or policies you might not like when enacted.

[mvd10]

I hate to burst your bubble here, but Dems have only nominated two “popular” candidates in the past 50 years.

Candidates:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any of those favorable/approve numbers save for 1992 (assuming his election week #s were poor) and 2004 would do, and in Obama's case, would do extremely well. And even for someone with Kerry's numbers, which are still comfortably better than Trump's average, there are a number of things that Trump has to deal with that he didn't in 2016, a fired up Democratic base for one. Second, he actually has a record to run on this time, and it's not pure roses, particularly with the tariffs and healthcare issues. Third, it's unlikely his opponent will be dogged by constant scandal and an FBI investigation literally right up to election day, whereas Trump is a walking scandal machine, and has been every single day since he announced in 2015. It's actually kind of amazing how reliably controversial he has been.

There was a reason a lot of hay was made about the historic nature of the unpopularity of 2016's candidates. The fact is, candidates generally aren't that disliked before even being elected. Sure, you can get someone who is slightly more disliked than liked (eg Kerry / Romney), but nothing on the scale of Hillary or Donald.


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 .

At the same time, you have to weigh what’s more important: stopping Trump’s contempt for institutions and norms, or policies you might not like when enacted.

I guess I'd probably end up 'supporting' whatever hopeless neoconservative third party bid pops up in the end. I'm very glad to be Dutch .

[Brittain33]

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.

It's worth thinking of those voters as comprising two very different groups: less-partisan people who didn't like Trump but who disliked Clinton more, and partisan Republicans who disapproved of Trump but voted for him as their party's candidate. The latter are mostly unwinnable for Dems but I do think many of them now approve of Trump. The former are winnable.

[KingSweden]

I hate to burst your bubble here, but Dems have only nominated two “popular” candidates in the past 50 years.

Candidates:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any of those favorable/approve numbers save for 1992 (assuming his election week #s were poor) and 2004 would do, and in Obama's case, would do extremely well. And even for someone with Kerry's numbers, which are still comfortably better than Trump's average, there are a number of things that Trump has to deal with that he didn't in 2016, a fired up Democratic base for one. Second, he actually has a record to run on this time, and it's not pure roses, particularly with the tariffs and healthcare issues. Third, it's unlikely his opponent will be dogged by constant scandal and an FBI investigation literally right up to election day, whereas Trump is a walking scandal machine, and has been every single day since he announced in 2015. It's actually kind of amazing how reliably controversial he has been.

There was a reason a lot of hay was made about the historic nature of the unpopularity of 2016's candidates. The fact is, candidates generally aren't that disliked before even being elected. Sure, you can get someone who is slightly more disliked than liked (eg Kerry / Romney), but nothing on the scale of Hillary or Donald.


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 .

At the same time, you have to weigh what’s more important: stopping Trump’s contempt for institutions and norms, or policies you might not like when enacted.

I guess I'd probably end up 'supporting' whatever hopeless neoconservative third party bid pops up in the end. I'm very glad to be Dutch .

Sometimes I debate decamping myself and my wife to Sweden but stuff seems to be getting pretty hairy there too

[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.    
  

[Hindsight was 2020]

FWI Trump’s at 50/49 in Rasmussen. You may now point and laugh

[Virginiá]

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 .

He could end up dragging them down, but what I meant was that he isn't some master of slime who can tarnish anyone's image beyond repair, even if he spends a lot of time trying. It's debatable how much damage he himself was responsible for with Clinton, as she created most of her own problems either from slip-ups on the trail or actions during her tenure as SoS, of which led to an FBI investigation that dogged her the entire time she was campaigning. If the 2020 Democratic candidate doesn't have any major scandals and no major slip-ups during the campaign trail, it's going to be hard for Trump to turn them into a pariah beyond the core of his base (those who strongly approve of him, which is significantly less than 40 in many polls). I think his influence is weaker beyond that part of his base, and it will take more than just him running his mouth to push them to hate someone.

Just my 2 cents, though.

[BudgieForce]

FWI Trump’s at 50/49 in Rasmussen. You may now point and laugh

If they ever wonder why no one is donating to their GoFundMe, its that.

[GeorgiaModerate]

FWI Trump’s at 50/49 in Rasmussen. You may now point and laugh

If they ever wonder why no one is donating to their GoFundMe, its that.

I'm surprised Trump hasn't tweeted about this yet.