Trump approval ratings thread 1.3

[pbrower2a]

Blank map.

[pbrower2a]

I see evidence that the gaps are getting bigger. We shall see this proved  or disproved in statewide polling.   

[pbrower2a]

Cook PVI ratings:

Color and intensity will indicate the variance from a tie (ties will be in white) with  in a 50-50 election with blue for an R lean and red for a D lean. Numbers will be shown except in individual districts

int      var
2        1-4%
3        5-8%
5        9-12%
7        13-19%
9        20% or more

Cook PVI assumes a 50-50 Presidential election, reasonable since 2000 because except for the 2008 Presidential election all such exception, those five all were basically even for almost the entire electoral season. One can use polling to predict whether the next Presidential election will be a 50-50 proposition, and if not, how far the likely reality diverges from that assumption.

Based on 2012 and 2016 Cook PVI shows that the average Republican nominee will carry Alabama 59-41 and Florida 52-48; that the nominees will tie in New Hampshire and Pennsylvania; and that the Democratic nominee will win Michigan by 51-49 and New York 62-38. Of course, even in a 50-50 election, cultural affinities and the emphases will matter greatly. So could demographic trends. We will talk about that for Arizona and Texas.   

For DC (not measured) and Congressional districts that vote independently of states, I have common sense for Dee Cee and the congressional votes for those districts.

DC -- way out of reach for any Republican.

ME-01 D+8
ME-02 R+2

NE-01 R+11
NE-02 R+4
NE-03 R+27

(data from Wikipedia, map mine)

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

Here  is the Gallup data for 2017. Figuring that this is an average from early February to late December, I will have to assume an average date of July 15 or so for the polling data. This is now rather old data, and in some cases obsolete. For example, I see Trump support cratering in the Mountain and Deep South (seer below). the Mountain South and Deep South are going back to a populist phase (the South has typically oscillated between the  two) or whether The Donald is beginning to appear as a bad match for either part of the South.  This data (or later polling) is not  intended to show anything other than how support appears at some time or at an average of times. As a general rule, new polling supplants even better old  polling.

So here  is the Gallup polling with a number  of 100-DIS reflecting what I consider the ceiling for Donald Trump. This is lenient to the extent that I assume that he can pick up most undecided voters but recognizes that undoing disapproval at any stage requires miracles. By definition, miracles are unpredictable.

 Gallup data from all polls in 2017 (average assumed  in mid-July):

*Approval lower than disapproval in this state

for barely-legible numbers for DC and some states -- CT 37 DC 11 DE 42 HI 40 MD 35 RI 38

Lightest shades are for a raw total of votes that allows for a win with a margin of 5% or less; middle shades are for totals with allow for wins with 6 to 10% margins; deepest shades are for vote percentages that allow wins of 10% or more. Numbers are for the projected vote for Trump.

I assume that President Trump will reach (1) just short of winning if he is behind, or (2) the ceiling that 100-DIS suggests if he is ahead. Basically I expect him to pick up the undecided vote to a large extent if he is behind because as badly as he is behind in some states, the undecided are clearly right-of-center.  That is not charity; it is caution. People who have given up on him already are unlikely to give him a second chance. The mirror image would apply if the Democratic incumbent were having trouble with outrageous behavior. 

.................   

This is polling from October or later.

 I use 100-DIS as a reasonable ceiling for the Trump vote in 2020. Thus:

Lightest shades are for a raw total of votes that allows for a win with a margin of 5% or less; middle shades are for totals with allow for wins with 6 to 10% margins; deepest shades are for vote percentages that allow wins of 10% or more. Numbers are for the projected vote for Trump.

I use a 'favorability' rating for Illinois because such is all that is available and at this stage, favorability and approval are close when there is no active campaign.

Note -- if Trump is underwater in the polling, then the results come out in pink. 

..........

Now, for the variance between  100-DIS from recent polling and Cook PVI.   

Variation from PVI (polls from October 2017 and later):

Orange implies that President Trump projects to do better than Cook PVI based on 100-DIS. In Minnesota I have a 49-47 poll with which to work, and people in that thread tell me that the pollster who got those results is suspect. So the President is doing 2% better in California in accordance with 100-DIS than Cook PVI suggests. Not significant, obviously, because that is the difference between losing the Golden State 60-40 instead of 62-38.

This is likely the last that you will see of my  analysis of polling based on deviation from Cook PVI. I think we can be assured that President Trump is doing worse, in general in  polling, than something consistent with a 50-50 split of the popular vote.

This data is from mid-February.

[pbrower2a]

Blank map.

[/quote]

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

Approval

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

100-Disapproval

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

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

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

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

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

Not using these.

[pbrower2a]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[pbrower2a]

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

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

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He most certainly is, and not in a benign manner.

[pbrower2a]

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

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

[pbrower2a]

Rasmussen

Approve: 50
Disapprove: 48

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

Correction:

Approve: 50i
Disapprove: 48i

Modified to suggest that those numbers are not real.

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Senator Bill Nelson (D): approval 48-34
Senate race: Nelson (D) 46 - Scott (R) 42
Senator Marco Rubio (R) 38-53


https://poll.qu.edu/florida/release-detail?ReleaseID=2523


New color scheme, approval and disapproval only (but 100-DIS, as I consider this a ceiling for a Trump vote in any state or district). Backtracking to October The Quinnipiac poll of Florida supplants the one poll that I have from October.

Approval

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

100-Disapproval

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

[pbrower2a]

Lindsey Graham has become a mealy-mouthed politician, alternately standing up to Donald Trump on an issue and then yielding to him. South Carolinians might be able to tell you more than I can. If there is deterioration in his performance as a Senator they would know better than I.

Here's a general rule: the locals know better than you do if you do not live in that state or within the range of media that cover that area.

[pbrower2a]

Yes, I ignore wobbles. 4% is my minimum. Movements within the margin of error are statistically insignificant. Over time, a couple such movements may have some meaning.

[pbrower2a]

A recent poll suggests most Michiganders don’t like Donald Trump or the job he’s doing as president.

The poll by EPIC MRA shows that slightly more than a third (36%) of those asked had a favorable opinion of Trump, while slightly more than half (55%) had an unfavorable view of him.

When asked how he’s done as president so far, his positive number was about the same (37%), while his negative number grew slightly (60%).

http://wlns.com/2018/03/01/poll-most-michiganders-dont-like-trump/

Accepting the 'positive' as an approval measure as it relates to performance.  

South Carolina, for which I have seen no polls for nearly a year:

South Carolina: Winthrop University, Feb 17-25

Approve 42  (no change from last Spring)
Disapprove 50 (+3)

Approval ratings for Governor Henry McMaster (R) 47-25
Senator Lindsey Graham (R) 38-48
Senator Tim Scott (R) 53-28
Congress of the United States (majority R in both Houses)

11-78 overall; 7-88 Democrats, 20-69 Republicans

This is consistent with the most recent polls showing support of President Trump in near collapse in the  Deep and Mountain South.

A Texas poll is a favorability poll and it will not be used in the face of a recent approval poll.


Approval

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

100-Disapproval

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


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

[pbrower2a]

Updated for Florida, Michigan, and South Carolina:

Color and intensity will indicate the variance from a tie (ties will be in white) with  in a 50-50 election with blue for an R lean and red for a D lean. Numbers will be shown except in individual districts

int      var
2        1-4%
3        5-8%
5        9-12%
7        13-19%
9        20% or more

Cook PVI assumes a 50-50 Presidential election, reasonable since 2000 because except for the 2008 Presidential election all such exception, those five all were basically even for almost the entire electoral season. One can use polling to predict whether the next Presidential election will be a 50-50 proposition, and if not, how far the likely reality diverges from that assumption.

For DC (not measured) and Congressional districts that vote independently of states, I have common sense for Dee Cee and the congressional votes for those districts.

DC -- way out of reach for any Republican.

ME-01 D+8
ME-02 R+2

NE-01 R+11
NE-02 R+4
NE-03 R+27

(data from Wikipedia, map mine)

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

Variation from PVI (polls from October 2017 and later):

Orange implies that President Trump projects to do better than Cook PVI based on 100-DIS. In Minnesota I have a 49-47 poll with which to work, and people in that thread tell me that the pollster who got those results is suspect. So the President is doing 2% better in California in accordance with 100-DIS than Cook PVI suggests. Not significant, obviously, because that is the difference between losing the Golden State 60-40 instead of 62-38.

This is likely the last that you will see of my  analysis of polling based on deviation from Cook PVI. I think we can be assured that President Trump is doing worse, in general in  polling, than something consistent with a 50-50 split of the popular vote.

Oh well, I have at least made this analysis more concise. With South Carolina offering a poll, I now have every state in the former Confederacy. My interpretation of data from the South is that President Trump is beginning to seem like an obnoxious d@mnyankee.

The sea of green suggests at this time that Donald Trump will face an electorate that will split against him.

[pbrower2a]

On the other hand, these are horrible numbers for Trump out of Michigan.

EPIC-MRA Feb 24-27

Underwater in Favorability 36-55
Underwater in Approval 37-60

He won Michigan.

http://wlns.com/2018/03/01/poll-most-michiganders-dont-like-trump/

What is happening in Michigan? Those numbers can't just be the Detroit area. TBH, I could see Trump tanking hard in the Dutch West as well as some booming college towns...

There may have been electoral hanky-panky in Michigan. The Democratic voter-contact list was hacked, with likely Democratic voters removed and Republican voters added. Democrats trying to turn out the vote near election day ended up telling Republicans to go out and vote while ignoring Democrats. The hacked voter list messed up canvassing by Democrats. That  is the worst possibility  -- that Trump did not win Michigan fair-and-square and polling results si9nce the election show such.

But that does not count for the huge margin. Donald Trump ran as a populist, often taking positions to the Left of Hillary Clinton. Once President he showed his true colors as a crony capitalist who believes that no human suffering is in excess so long as it turns, indulges, or enforces a profit.

His tax policy hurts the well-educated middle class and the 'blue-collar elite' that consists of people who still have well-paying blue-collar jobs, which both largely own their own homes. Trump's policies (any surprise here?) strongly favor landlords, which should hardly surprise anyone.  Michigan real estate in the Detroit area is cheap by national standards, but property taxes are brutal for valuations in Michigan due to a tax base in a state that has lost much of its industrial base. His tax policies   Capping the deduction for property taxes hurts home-owners.  Because Michigan has a non-growth economy, more people can own their own homes than can people in places with economic booms.

He threatened to tax a fantasy income of graduate students, which means that he should be about as popular in Ann Arbor and East Lansing as the KKK in Detroit.

He has done nothing for blue-collar workers that he seduced into voting for him... and he has done nothing for agriculture which is quickly becoming the #2 industry in the definitive Rust Belt state.

He has also set forth to ease the ravaging of the environment. Much recreation in Michigan is outdoors -- which is not so great for hunters, fishermen, hikers, and campers.  Michigan is an environmentalist state because of sportsmen.

...As is typical of a demagogue, he made promises that he could never keep. Except for his thinly-concealed bigotry and misogyny he kept much of his anti-human agenda (government for, by, and of plutocrats like him and "$crew you!" to everyone else. He has betrayed those who voted for him expecting more prosperity for people not already super-rich. In Michigan, many people think that his middle initial "J" stands for "Judas".

Note also that this polling follows the highly-publicized school shooting in Parkland, Florida; Donald Trump badly bungled his response to that.

My model has Donald Trump doing even worse than Jimmy Carter did in Michigan in his re-election bid. Jimmy Carter got 42% of the vote in Michigan in 1980. Sure, Carter got only 46% of the vote in 1976 in Michigan, but he got that challenging a favorite son.

It wouldn't take much of a shift of votes from R to D for Trump to lose Michigan in 2020.  But look also at Florida, which was also a close state in 2016. Donald Trump is gaining nowhere, and Michigan + Florida will be enough to make Donald Trump a one-term President.  

...I would really love to see polls of Arizona and Pennsylvania, wouldn't you?  

  

[pbrower2a]

I have not once heard the theory that Dems were accidentally turning GOPers out.

The Democratic voter list was hacked. As one who usually canvasses for Democrats in major elections, that was a strong suspicion. 

[pbrower2a]

I have not once heard the theory that Dems were accidentally turning GOPers out.

The Democratic voter list was hacked. As one who usually canvasses for Democrats in major elections, that was a strong suspicion. 

NGP VAN was hacked. Guccifer 2.0 found a 0-day exploit and used it to get into Clinton's campaign. That system is so old and unwieldy. It hasn't fundamentally changed in a decade.

True. It was developed for the 2006 campaign.

[pbrower2a]

I am careful to avoid predicting what any forthcoming indictment will be about. If such hacking as I saw with the Michigan VAN happened in other states and in numbers large enough to distort the electoral results to the extent that the results of the 2016 elections for President or some Senate seats became shams, then we may have not had a free and fair election.

Michigan did not have a Senate contest, but Pennsylvania and Wisconsin did... and Trump won bare victories there as did two of the biggest corporate stooges in the US Senate. There were other close senate races in Missouri and North Carolina, where Hillary Clinton had no reasonable chance of winning.

The worst possible interpretation of the 2016 Presidential election is a political coup through a rigged election. In such a case, democracy may have died in America in favor of government by cliques of well-heeled plutocrats who get to choose who our representation is where such is critical to determining that government by the Master Class, for the Master Class, and by the Master Class shall not perish in what will increasingly become an inequitable and repressive society. We already have a fascist economy, basically Big Government in the service of economic elites. Sure, there will be pockets of safe places for liberals who get to enjoy the privilege of paying New York rents on West Virginia incomes.

I give this warning to Republicans: if they think the Russians can help them, then think about what the Chinese can do. They are much more adept at manipulating databases, and they have strong incentives to have a more economically-equitable America. Destitute people are unlikely to buy as many consumer goodies made in China than are people with solid incomes. What the Russians may have done in 2016 the Chinese can do bigger and better -- and be far more adept at keeping the secret -- than could the Russians -- even in 2018, let alone 2020.

[pbrower2a]

Here is the last poll that we had from Pennsylvania, the state from which I most crave seeing a poll. This polling is from late September, but it is highly likely that a poll of the Keystone State would be about the same now. It is from  the last page of "Trump approval ratings thread 1.1" and we are now in thread 1.3. It looks much like the most recent polling from Michigan, and Michigan  is one of the states that votes most like Pennsylvania.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://abc27.com/2017/10/09/poll-finds-low-approval-ratings-for-wolf-casey-trump/

A bit old now. Susquehanna Polling tends to skew Republican, so this is was awful.


Polling maps showing this data (and it will be shown once unless I se a poll of similar vintage from Arizona):



ONE-TIME DISPLAY TO SHOW A POLL FROM PENNSYLVANIA FROM SEPTEMBER 2017:  


Approval

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

100-Disapproval

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

[pbrower2a]

I’m not a mod but this is some serious tinfoil stuff here and also not immediately related to the question of POTUS’s current approval ratings and the trends thereof. We should get back on topic.

Recognized. Polling can of course suggest when some skulduggery has happened.

The problem isn't that the discussion of electoral hacking is tinfoil stuff. The problem is that reality is beginning to look like something that in most times looks like tinfoil stuff.

Back to the discussion of polling -- fine. 

[pbrower2a]

Ipsos/Reuters, Feb. 25 - March 1, 1488 adults

Approve 38 (-3)
Disapprove 57 (+3)

Ipsos is getting really bad with the harsh swings weekly. The results look great, though. Reaction to "Guns first, then due process"?

...and other stuff. Most people will not be affected by seizures of firearms if they tell a psychologist that they are contemplating suicide or that a court puts a restraining order in a divorce proceeding that precludes a seemingly-violent spouse is to be denied access to firearms.

The "Guns first, then due process" line came later than the asinine proposal to allow teachers and school administrators to keep guns in school, I would rather that a rattlesnake slither into a classroom than that anyone -- including I -- bring a firearm into a classroom. (A cop, OK..., if for legitimate purposes).

Of course I could be wrong on the cause. I assume nothing about a cause for an improvement or deterioration of any rating for any politician. Correlation is not causality, but it can suggest such. 

[pbrower2a]

Virginia, generally considered a swing state in the last three Presidential elections and nearly a swing state in 2004. Either Virginia is no longer a swing state in Presidential election, this poll is way off the mark, or Virginia is fairly close to the national average and the President's plans to get re-elected are in deep trouble.

37-60 (-23) in Virginia.

http://wasoncenter.cnu.edu/stewart-leads-gop-senate-primary-but-66-undecided-majority-of-va-voters-strongly-disapprove-of-trump/

52% strongly disapprove.

Senator Tim Kaine -- 53% favorability, and he would get 56% of the vote against any of three of the  proposed Republican opponents.

From the source:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

also:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This sounds like something that Voltaire would have put into the speech of his character Doctor Pangloss, who in more recent times might have seen a bright spot in the sinking of the Titanic. Donald Trump, should he be the Republican nominee for President, looks to be the first Republican nominee for president to lose the state twice since Thomas E. Dewey.

Wisconsin. Marquette University Law School

Approval 43-50
(Would someone please post the link?)

https://law.marquette.edu/poll/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/MLSP44Toplines.pdf

I just did. You are welcome.


Rhode Island

WPRI-TV, CBS-12, Providence, Rhode Island/Roger Williams Poll

(Rhode Island, in case you remember how I bloated Texas when I posted a poll)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Trump’s personal ratings are only slightly higher, with 35% of voters viewing him favorably and 64% viewing him unfavorably.

http://wpri.com/2018/03/05/wpri-12-rwu-poll-march-2018/

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

States hard to see:

RI 30

100-Disapproval

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

States hard to see:

 RI 30


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

[pbrower2a]

Nebraska may have only five electoral votes, and except for one instance all of its electoral votes (Second Congressional District, basically Greater Omaha inside Nebraska in 2008) have gone for the Republican nominee for President after the LBJ landslide of 1964. But Nebraska can be a big political story in 2020 -- and even 2018.

Trump is only +2 in Nebraska

46% Approve
44% Disapprove

Source

The incumbent Governor and Senator Deb Fischer (who flipped a US Senate seat from D to R in 2012, not a good year for Republicans) have their work cut out to get re-elected.

Approval, Governor Pete Ricketts (R, incumbent) 37-40; deserves to be re-elected 39-42  
Approval, Senator Deb Fischer (R, incumbent) 34-42; deserves to be re-elected 34-42

Trump approval overall, 46-44

But the three districts vote separately as in only one other state (Maine)

NE-01 45-46 (eastern Nebraska except for greater Omaha. including Lincoln)
NE-02 38-54 (greater Omaha within Nebraska)
NE-03 55-34 (central and western Nebraska, including Scottsbluff and Grand Island)

With the recognition that this poll has large numbers of undecided, perhaps because Nebraska has never been a pivotal state in any Presidential election or in the composition of Congress, it may not be the sort of state that pays much attention to elections of any kind.

For a state that is usually reliably Republican in its voting patterns, this is a very bad sign for Republicans in 2018 and for President Trump in 2020. Not very often does Nebraska say much about the national political scene, but on the whole this is a very bad sign for Republicans. Of courser, NE-03 is one of the surest electoral votes for a Republican, and if a Republican nominee for President got only 20 or fewer electoral votes, he would get NE-03. But when NE-01 and the state at large are shaky for the President, let alone the incumbent Governor and Senator up for re-election in 2018, the GOP is in really bad shape nationwide.

I do not believe that Nebraska's political culture has undergone a transformation; I simply see Donald Trump as a great disappointment in the Cornhusker State.  

Note that I have needed to alter the legend to accommodate a bare lead with 45%.
 
Approval:

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:

RI 30
NE-01 45
NE-02 38
NE-03 55

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 negative pale blue
ties white
45% or higher and positive pale red
40% to 44% medium red
under 40% deep red

States and districts hard to see:

 RI 30
NE-01 55
NE-02 46
NE-03 66


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. Polls from Alabama, New Jersey, and Virginia are exit polls from 2017 elections.  

[pbrower2a]

FWIW...

Morning Consultant released within the past few days job approval/disapproval numbers for Trump for all 50 states for 2/18 compared against 1/17.

https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump/

Apologies if someone already posted this, as I just checked back into this thread for the first time in quite a few months, so might have missed someone else posting it.

These numbers in many cases appear to be significantly different from data from other sources for various states, but one of the things that really stood out for me was Trump's relative weakness in the MidWest/ Great Plains / Mountain West.

Make of it what you will, but might be worth throwing into the aggregated data or at least a placeholder for states with no data, or little recent data...

These polls give the rosiest picture of Trump polling except perhaps for Rasmussen. The measure of net approval suggests that President Trump would lose everything that he lost in 2016 -- and Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin if he were up for re-election. The Democrat would win 285 electoral votes against him.  I do not know what filter Morning Consult uses, and it must be more lenient toward Trump than any other pollster.  But even that is no assurance that Trump would win. He would barely lose, but the difference between losing 285-253 is no legally different from losing 375-163 which I predict based upon 100-disapproval. (in that I also project Trump to lose Florida, Arizona, Ohio, North Carolina, Georgia, and NE-02, with the possibility of even more losses).

One of the telling states is Indiana, where Morning Consult has Trump approval at 49% and disapproval at 46%. 100-disapproval gives the President a ceiling of 54% of the vote in Indiana, and I would giver long odds for the Democratic nominee winning Indiana. But this said, Indiana is typically about R+10, and any Democratic nominee who has lost Indiana by 10% or less since 1900 has won nationwide.  Hillary Clinton lost it by 19%, but that shift suggests that such states as Michigan, Minnesota, Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were vulnerable to Trump. Obama lost it by a bit over 10% in 2012 and barely won re-election. Kerry lost it by 20%, which should have suggested that trying to win the election by winning Ohio was at best a quixotic enterprise. Gore lost it by 15%, which suggested that lots of states that barely went for Clinton (especially New Hampshire and Ohio) were vulnerable -- and he lost those.    Bill Clinton lost it by 6% or so twice -- but won Ohio.

Indiana was one of the worst states for Kennedy in 1960, and Kennedy barely won nationally while losing Indiana by 11%. Carter lost it by 8% in 1976 and got elected. Truman barely lost Indiana (about 1%, and that is the third-best performance by a Democrat in Indiana in Indiana in eighty years)... anyone who put up the headline "Dewey Wins!" should have seen otherwise base3d on Indiana alone.

Here is a good guide to the 2020 election: look at the margin of victory for the Republican nominee in Indiana, and you will see this early because Indiana is one of the first two states to close all polling places. If it is 10% or so less, then the Democratic nominee wins. If the Democratic nominee wins it, then  the Democratic nominee at the least has a regional landslide (Obama 2008) or even an overpowering landslide (LBJ in 1964 or FDR in 1932 and 1936). Indiana has some relevance to how neighboring states Ohio and Michigan vote.

[pbrower2a]

Indiana really stood out for me, even on the Morning Consultant Poll as a potential indicator that Trump's approvals are dropping hard within the Industrial Midwest, which in theory is a place where his image of being an economic protectionist and "Anti-War" Republican, combined with American Nativism attitudes regarding immigration should be a somewhat decent fit at the Presidential Level.

What IS a bit bizarre is how close the IN/OH net approval numbers are in '18, according to Morning Consultant.

Additionally, my reference to the Great Plains States, appears to indicate a massive collapse of Trump support in the Grain Belt running down from ND to OK, not to mention MT ( 1/2 Grain Belt 1/2 Mountain West)....

Why would that be case?

Obviously approvals/disapprovals of Presidential job performance won't necessarily translate into 2020 GE Pres numbers, regardless of the Democratic nominee against Trump, but one must wonder about what is going on in rural areas of ND/SD/KS/NE/OK/MT, since generally the "Urban Metro population" in these States is somewhat lacking outside of a few places like the Kansas suburbs of KC, Metro Omaha/Lincoln in NE, Tulsa/OKC in OK....

The only explanation for these massive swings would have to be a collapse in Trump approval ratings among small town and rural voters in many of these places.

I do wonder to what extent the suffering family farmers of America, facing the worse collapse in Global Commodity Prices since the late 1980s for many agricultural products might be starting to swing against the Trump brand which early on talked a lot about Farmers, but really hasn't done crap other than alienate trading partners when the ag sector started to increasingly shift towards exporting ag commodities for dimes on the dollar about 5 years ago.

Not trying to do a Casey Jones style train derailment of the thread, but look at the Morning Consultant net only 6-9% approvals in ND/SD/KS/NE/MT and tell me something isn't happening there even in the "Rosy Trump" scenario....   

Keep at it Pbrower2a and would be interesting to see two different sets of maps (Rosy Trump approvals vs Crappy Trump approvals).....

If I notice Trump hemorrhaging supp0rt in the Mountain and Deep South, I have less data about rural America. It turns out that while Doug Jones won the Senate seat that Jeff Sessions vacated to be Attorney General, approval for Trump in the exit polls fell to just under 50% and were even. I do not know what to make of this, except that Alabama has not gone for a Democratic nominee for President since 1976 even if Bill Clinton was the nominee in 1992 and 1996. Consider that Arkansas and Alabama have similar demographics.

If Donald Trump is getting known as an  obnoxious d@mnyankee  in the South, he may be developing a reputation as an abrasive city-slicker in rural areas.

Commodity prices have gone far into the political background as Republicans have largely wiped out Congressional Democrats in farm areas. It may be hard to remember, but there used to be Democrats who put a focus on farm issues -- like commodity prices. Republicans have turned the agenda entirely to taxes and have come close to wiping out farm-state Democrats from Congress. I am sure that they figured that Senator Heidi Heitkamp would be the easiest to defeat in 2018. But here is the problem with the GOP focus on taxes: taxes matter if one has an  income and not at all if one doesn't. If commodity prices crater, farmers get burned, and no tax cut can save them from the economic hardships therefrom.

As I see it, President Trump is the problem for the GOP. They would not have this problem if Mitt Romney were President. He offends the sensibilities of intelligent people, and there are plenty of intelligent people out there. He has a revolving door for White House staff, staffers having almost the same level of employee turnover that  one sees among fast-food workers. He knows about as much about rural issues in America as the usual urban dweller... but most urbanites know that they know little about farming and agricultural economics.

Add to this -- rural areas are quite conservative about sex, national loyalty, and corruption. We have yet to see the full significance of the $135K payout to Stormie Daniels. Now what was that for? For a billionaire this is chicken feed. For someone with genuine costs of living and (I presume) bad habits normal in her  (ahem!) profession, including lavish consumerism, one could run through the $135K very fast. Careers in her line are short, and they do not lead to the sort of work that most people want to get into. It is easy to see that she would want more money. (Advice to American youth -- if you are a you heterosexual male, pick a wife for every important aspect of life except sex appeal. Develop some personal loyalty. Divorces are costly and don't be disappointed when she begins to become less attractive than the Playmate of the Month. Be the sort who can have a 60-year marriage).

People fell for a myth, and the myth is proving to be a pig in the poke. I do not see a recovery in this President's approval ratings.
 

[pbrower2a]

Gravis has him 46-50 in Missouri.

http://orlando-politics.com/2018/03/12/gravis-marketing-2018-poll-the-state-of-missouri/

Much-maligned poster, but we don't get that many polls of Missouri.I make little of the category change, as the polling change is well within the margin or error. More troubling for President Trump in a re-election bid are that his disapproval in a state that hasn't voted for a Democratic nominee for President since 1996 seems to be reversing its R trend, and especially that a pollster has his disapproval in the "Show Me" state at the 50% level.

President Trump would have to pick up about every possible undecided voter and do better than 50-50 among new voters to win Missouri if this poll is not only credible but accurate. As in 2008, Missouri is roughly at the divide (for Democrats) between Obama 2008 and (Bill) Clinton in 1992 or 1996, which isn't much of a divide.

At this point I see the polarization of America on Presidential politics diminishing markedly. Figuring that Oklahoma will probably be the third-best state for the President in 2020, I can imagine the President winning most likely  four (possibly three or five depending on the Dakotas) with 60% or more of the popular vote in those states.

Senator Claire McCaskill is at roughly a 50-50 chance of holding onto her Senate seat unless the Republicans nominate a wacko to run against her, in which case she wins as in 2012.

Trump is not very popular in New Jersey (Quinnipiac):

32% Approve
63% Disapprove

Source

Approval:

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:

NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 45
NE-02 38
NE-03 55

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 negative pale blue
ties white
45% or higher and positive pale red
40% to 44% medium red
under 40% deep red

States and districts hard to see:

NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 55
NE-02 46
NE-03 66


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. Polls from Alabama, New Jersey, and Virginia are exit polls from 2017 elections.