Trump approval ratings thread, 1.4

[The Mikado]

It was kind of thrilling to see if he would reach the depths of Nixon and 2nd term Bush, but his approvals are so stable that it's become very boring to watch this. It also seems unprecedented for how stable his numbers are. I mean, even the strong disapproval has been locked in more or less.

Considering Trump chews through what should be presidency-ending scandals every week, it's fair to say that one of the only plausible ways to make these numbers budge is a recession.

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

[The Mikado]

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.

[The Mikado]

Minnesota: Emerson University:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.emerson.edu/sites/default/files/Files/Academics/ecp-mn-8.11-pr.pdf

Not changing the map for this one poll, as it changes little. I anticipate other polls, though, this week.


Tennessee -- Gravis

Trump approval 54- 41

Do you remember when Tennessee was the most progressive state in the South? That's over even if you no longer consider Virginia 'Southern'.

http://orlando-politics.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Tennessee-August-12-2018-v2.pdf

When??

The 1950s and 1960s. It's completely accurate to describe TN from that period that way.

[The Mikado]

Note how much lower No Opinion is with Trump. His Approval Minus Disapproval is a better comparison.

[The Mikado]

New Hampshire: Praecones Analytica for the NH Journal.  Aug. 13-15, 626 registered voters (landline IVR + online)

Approve: 41
Disapprove: 54

GCB: D 44, R 41

If the 2020 presidential election were held today, how likely would you be to vote to re-elect Donald Trump?

Very likely 36
Somewhat likely 5
Somewhat unlikely 7
Not at all likely 50

I know it's never a good mindset to just assume the next election is a given, but I'm finding it difficult to see how Trump wins 2020 if he keeps getting polls like this. Not only has he permanently alienated basically everyone who didn't vote for him, which is already more than enough to lose by a 2008-level margin, but he's also been shaving a few points off his original base of support, which would bring him closer to double digit loss territory.

Trump's strategy basically has to rely on holding FL and PA, two states that have been critical swing states for decades. As much is novel about Trump, that hasn't changed.

If Trump carries both, race is Likely R bordering on safe. If he carries one, it's Lean D. If he loses both, it's Likely D bordering on Safe.

[The Mikado]

What part of "I will definitely not vote for him" can be interpreted as "but I will vote for him in 2020"?

Easy to overinterpret.

a) These people might stay at home.
b) These people might end up hating the democratic candidate even more.
c) These people might vote third party or write-in a candidate.
d) Voter suppression.
e) Last minute partisan come-together.
f) A LOT of people actually said they would never vote for Trump in 2016, but still ended up doing so.

I'm not saying that Trump is winning. He really shouldn't be winning with numbers like these, especially not if the democratic candidate is someone electable. But complacency/overconfidence remains the democrats worst enemy. In 2016, democrats on this forum and elsewhere were all too happy to proclaim the race all over after Khan/McCain/Kovaleski/Kelly/Pussygate. That complacency alone cost us the election (hell, Comey probably wouldn't have sent the letter had he not been confident in Hillary winning). It shouldn't happen again.

a) which explains the need for get-out-the vote drives for all politicians. Voter participation, which had been unusually high in 2008 and only slightly less so in 2012, was unusually low in 2016.

b) the large number of potential of Democratic nominees is scary. It is usually easy to sort through the best, with the early front-runner getting caught in some personal sleaze and the Party coming to a quick and inept consensus. The biggest hazard to a challenger is someone who siphons votes from his own side of the political spectrum.

c) Democrats thought that votes for Gary Johnson and Evan McMullen would hurt Donald Trump even more. Trump was careful to avoid talking about the environment (at which he is an unmitigated disaster), privatization of the public sector (he spoke of infrastructure, which promised jobs, but really meant more layers of profit in everything anyone uses -- like high tolls on what are now free highways), tax cuts (although he ignored admitting that he would use tariffs essentially as sales taxes on many imports). Then there was dog-whistle bigotry. Trump is a rogue, but for many who voted for him he would be 'their' rogue.

d) It is tempting to shady pols, but it might not be effective this time. We can watch the midterm elections to see where Republicans lose any possible advantage from administering the elections.

e) I expect Republicans to get scared and decide that this is the last time for them to have any chance to replace the federal income tax with regressive sales taxes, eviscerate unions, privatize public assets to monopolistic profiteers, get Supreme Court justices who will outlaw abortion and even contraception and find ways to limit homosexual rights or even making voting contingent on tax-paying, income, or not collecting relief ... I see some of these Republicans scared of an FDR. 

I look at the polls and I almost see a first-term President losing as badly as Carter or Hoover. Trump is not Carter, who is not Hoover. I recognize a natural floor of 40% of the popular vote for even the most troubled incumbent.

Seeing Democrats vilify the personality of 'their' President could cause right-leaning people to 'circle the wagons'.
 
f) The big problem may be that as in 2016, Trump so sullies the political process that people decide that voting is not worth it.   

Voter turnout, as a % of Voting Eligible Population, was up from 2012 to 2016, though. (58% in 2012, 59% in 2016)

[The Mikado]

What part of "I will definitely not vote for him" can be interpreted as "but I will vote for him in 2020"?

Easy to overinterpret.

a) These people might stay at home.
b) These people might end up hating the democratic candidate even more.
c) These people might vote third party or write-in a candidate.
d) Voter suppression.
e) Last minute partisan come-together.
f) A LOT of people actually said they would never vote for Trump in 2016, but still ended up doing so.

I'm not saying that Trump is winning. He really shouldn't be winning with numbers like these, especially not if the democratic candidate is someone electable. But complacency/overconfidence remains the democrats worst enemy. In 2016, democrats on this forum and elsewhere were all too happy to proclaim the race all over after Khan/McCain/Kovaleski/Kelly/Pussygate. That complacency alone cost us the election (hell, Comey probably wouldn't have sent the letter had he not been confident in Hillary winning). It shouldn't happen again.

a) which explains the need for get-out-the vote drives for all politicians. Voter participation, which had been unusually high in 2008 and only slightly less so in 2012, was unusually low in 2016.

b) the large number of potential of Democratic nominees is scary. It is usually easy to sort through the best, with the early front-runner getting caught in some personal sleaze and the Party coming to a quick and inept consensus. The biggest hazard to a challenger is someone who siphons votes from his own side of the political spectrum.

c) Democrats thought that votes for Gary Johnson and Evan McMullen would hurt Donald Trump even more. Trump was careful to avoid talking about the environment (at which he is an unmitigated disaster), privatization of the public sector (he spoke of infrastructure, which promised jobs, but really meant more layers of profit in everything anyone uses -- like high tolls on what are now free highways), tax cuts (although he ignored admitting that he would use tariffs essentially as sales taxes on many imports). Then there was dog-whistle bigotry. Trump is a rogue, but for many who voted for him he would be 'their' rogue.

d) It is tempting to shady pols, but it might not be effective this time. We can watch the midterm elections to see where Republicans lose any possible advantage from administering the elections.

e) I expect Republicans to get scared and decide that this is the last time for them to have any chance to replace the federal income tax with regressive sales taxes, eviscerate unions, privatize public assets to monopolistic profiteers, get Supreme Court justices who will outlaw abortion and even contraception and find ways to limit homosexual rights or even making voting contingent on tax-paying, income, or not collecting relief ... I see some of these Republicans scared of an FDR. 

I look at the polls and I almost see a first-term President losing as badly as Carter or Hoover. Trump is not Carter, who is not Hoover. I recognize a natural floor of 40% of the popular vote for even the most troubled incumbent.

Seeing Democrats vilify the personality of 'their' President could cause right-leaning people to 'circle the wagons'.
 
f) The big problem may be that as in 2016, Trump so sullies the political process that people decide that voting is not worth it.   

Voter turnout, as a % of Voting Eligible Population, was up from 2012 to 2016, though. (58% in 2012, 59% in 2016)

Voting share going down is this weird zombie myth that won't stay down. It doesn't even make intuitive sense when you remember that 129 million people voted in 2012 vs 137 million in 2016. The population isn't growing fast enough for that to be anything like a lowering in participation rates.

[The Mikado]

I do find it amazing how Bush's approval rating was over 20 pts lower than a guy who has all three networks and 2/3 cable networks talking scandal, impeachment, Watergate-style stories on him 24/7. In todays day and age, I see 44-50% approvals and I kinda shrug and say, "Meh". If it was 22% or 24%, then I'd be like, "Holy cow."

It took Bush 2 terms of disasters to get there. Trump is little over a quarter through his first term

Today exactly marks the 40% point of Trump's (first?) term.

[The Mikado]

I don't think Trump's approvals will change more than 2-3 points in either direction until at least the midterms. That might shake things up a bit.

TBH, Trump right now is about two points below where Obama's approvals were when Obama managed to lose like 60 House seats in 2010. Just worth keeping in mind.

[The Mikado]

2018 is a hugely-different environment than was 2016. 2016 had a midterm-like turnout, and 2018 looks as if it will be more like a general election.

What the hell are you talking about?

VEP Highest Office from Elect Project:

2000: 54.2%
2004: 60.1%
2008: 61.6%
2012: 58.0%
2016: 59.2%

2016 is not at all out of line with standard general election turnout. 2018, even at the high estimates, will end up somewhere around 45%-50% turnout. (Still way better than any midterm in recent memory, of course)

[The Mikado]

When President Trump is even in Georgia in approval and disapproval  (no Democratic nominee has won the  state since 1992) and Texas (no Democratic nominee has won the state since 1976), he is in deep trouble. 

The key is Trump, like all politicians, but to a greater degree in his case, can convince a number of Voters who disapprove of him to still hold their nose and pull the lever for him in the voting booth. Republicans tend to be better at this than Democrats in demonizing their opponent. Hillary Clinton was a perfect example.

In short, while I think Trump is on borrowed time, don't underestimate the number of people who will still potentially choose him as the lesser of two evils.

In 2016, Trump did, at the end of the day, dominate among voters who disapproved of both candidates.

Per CNN's exit poll:

both unfavorable 18%


Clinton 30%   
Trump 47%   
Other 23%

(Nearly the entirety of Other came from the both unfavorable camp)

The question is how many of those "Disapprove of both, vote Trump" voters are because Trump was the change option in 2016: the GOP were out of the White House and he represented a shift. He's now an incumbent president.

[The Mikado]

There's a big difference between the election being Dem 46, Trump 43, Other 11, and the election being, like, Dem 55, Trump 43, Other 2. Not sure which of the two you're describing.

[The Mikado]

https://twitter.com/politico_chris/status/1086328457049473024

This is new, right?

[The Mikado]

When that opposition Party goes extreme and holds a take-no-prisoners approach to the President, as against Truman in 1946 and 1947 or against Obama in 2011 and 2012.

You should also add Clinton. A big chunk of Clinton's recovery in 1995 was due to Newt Gingrich's antics bringing Bill Clinton's Presidency back to life due to having an intensely unlikable rival that he could constantly score points off of.