The Official Trump 1.0 Approval Ratings Thread

[pbrower2a]

Lee Iaccocca, a far smarter and more astute business executive than Donald Trump, recognized that although he had saved Chrysler from bankruptcy in the 1980s he did not have as broad a knowledge as was necessary for being President. Just because he had worked wonders in business did not mean that he could do the same in something far more complicated. Profit-and-loss creates simple criteria of success and failure in business.

The Professor of Constitutional Law is looking all the better every day.

[pbrower2a]

Baiting educated 'elites'?

[pbrower2a]

I notice a paucity of statewide polling. Nothing so far for

Colorado
Georgia
Maine
Minnesota
Nevada
Ohio
Wisconsin

[pbrower2a]

Gallup:

43% (nc)
51% (nc)

It doesn't seem like his congressional address gave him much of a bounce.

Usually Presidential speeches give the President a little boost.

Donald Trump isn;t exactly Barack Obama at that. Or Ronald Reagan,

[pbrower2a]

He can hold over his base for so long with media attacks and nativist immigration rhetoric before they get restless. I have read about a factory in IN shutting down and jobs shipped to Mexico and nothing from Trump and coal plant closing in OH/AZ. At some point parts of his base will realize he is not delivering for them.

The news sites that cater to his base and Fox will likely just blame liberals for nothing happening. They won't understand that Republicans control Congress as well and can do what they want so they can pull the wool far over their eyes.

I don't think this works. The public blames the President and the party of the President for everything no matter who controls Congress, barring very unusual circumstances like a government shutdown. It just hasn't been anywhere near long enough for conservatives to start losing faith yet. Wait until the fall or next year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdowns_of_1995%E2%80%931996

Still, while the Republican base will stand by him, I suspect most will indeed blame Trump.

True. It takes grave failure of results or severe turpitude to cut into support from the partisan base. The two biggest failures of incumbent Presidents in re-election bids in the last century (Hoover and Carter) had nothing to do with moral turpitude. (If you want to consider Taft, it's that someone who had been a fine President took the Republican base from him).

Most Presidents must start by doing something unpopular but necessary, like reforming a tax code, withdrawing from an unpopular war in a way that leaves some hurt feelings for many Americans, showing mercy to social pariahs, firing a popular General who has Caesar-like tendencies, imposing new or raising existing taxes, taking some military action that poses some risks, or enforcing a widely-opposed ruling of the Supreme Court. Truly-effective Presidents make it work and make well known that such is inevitable or even good. Not-so-good Presidents put such decisions off and allow the consequences to fester, make sure that special interests get to profiteer from the decision at the expense of everyone else, find pariahs to treat badly, or try to put the blame on unpopular people.

At this point I expect President Trump to go down to a Carter-like or Hoover-like defeat in 2020. Note well: he is not Herbert Hoover and he is not Jimmy Carter. Hoover got elected on religious bigotry  (anti-Catholic sentiment) of which  he wisely stayed clear and on status quo in the American economy.  Unfortunately for Hoover the economy melted down and he had no idea of how to fix it. Carter barely got elected against an inept campaigner (does that sound familiar?) only to lose to someone more resolute and convincing the next time... but he had no idea of how to deal with cost-push inflation, which then would have been to raise taxes to reduce conspicuous consumption  and give tax breaks to investors. (Reagan did not raise taxes on consumption, but left that to the states who raised sales taxes; he did cut taxes for investors).

I can't predict what will take President Trump down. Maybe he will let the Federal Reserve run the economy and avoid a 1929-style or 2007-style meltdown (the two began much the same). Maybe he will offend so many sensibilities (not to say that the opposing sensibilities don't overlap).  Maybe he will misjudge the intentions of a foreign power or sponsor regime change that turns a shaky ally into a vituperating enemy -- think of Iran with Carter as President. Visible cronyism, corruption, and scapegoating will get unpopular fast. His capricious handling of "Dreamers" makes me wonder if I am next. Does America have a Gulag in its future?

The President's slogan "Make America Great Again" is much of his political capital. Things will have to go very well for him -- well enough for white Christians to accept the restoration of what many Americans consider unthinkable today. Such will depend upon rapacious plutocrats and brutal managers getting what they want, basically a return to the norms of the Gilded Age, and such giving Americans more pay to support conspicuous consumption on an unprecedented level. Such will fail. First, economic successes of the Gilded Age depended upon basic, innovative technologies that investors could exploit cheaply or simply even if on a gigantic scale. Second, conspicuous consumption is impossible where people are shoehorned into tiny apartments as is the norm in some Northeastern cities and much of California (and those places are where the high-paying jobs are). Third, elite indulgence in the presence of widespread hardship hardly supports social concord. Fourth, it all implies degradation of cultural, spiritual, and moral life while destroying the environment.

The technology and widespread prosperity that Americans enjoy by contrast to the Gilded Age make Trump's ideal of a return to the political and economic norms of the Gilded Age with simply higher productivity and higher technology cannot work.  If "greatness" implies ultra-cheap labor and WASP supremacy, then I would be offended. I have empathy, something inconsistent with a harsh social order or a dictatorial government.  

[pbrower2a]

Gallup:

43% (nc)
51% (nc)

It doesn't seem like his congressional address gave him much of a bounce.

3/4 update:
Gallup:

43% (nc)
51% (nc)

Def no speech bounce... but no drop from Sessions either, yet.

Evidence that he is preaching to the choir.

[pbrower2a]

FL (University of North Florida, 973 RV)

44% approve
51% disapprove

Link

US (CNN, 1.025 adults)

45% approve
52% disapprove

Link

Favorability:

Probably our best approximation until about March.


Approval:

Not likely useful until March.


Even -- white



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

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

White - tie.
 
Colors chosen for partisan affiliation.  

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

[pbrower2a]

Florida:
Approve: 46%
Disapprove: 44%
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/floridians-mostly-feeling-optimistic-heading-age-trump

This is from Florida Chamber Political Institute, FYI.

So for the first time we have a poll that must be rejected because it comes from a union, trade association, political campaign, or advocacy group.

[pbrower2a]

This is more than ordinary loss of support. This does not translate into polling, but all in all I expect people to scratch their heads at 9PM EST on November 2, 2020 as Michigan is a quick call for the Democratic nominee for President and wonder how Donald Trump could have won the state in 2016.

I doubt that the discriminatory behavior against Muslim travelers does well for President Trump.  Yes, Dearborn is a no-go zone -- if you are a drunk, addict, pimp, or prostitute wandering in from Detroit.  I can live with that sort of 'no-go zone'.

[pbrower2a]

Georgia 6 (Trafalgar Group)

52% approve
41% disapprove

http://us13.campaign-archive2.com/?u=99839c1f5b2cbb6320408fcb8&id=7962184199&e=32e0d75bb8

Trafalgar was the best pollster in 2016, predicting the Trump wins in PA etc.

Probably a good poll of the Sixth District. Not to be confused with Georgia itself.

[pbrower2a]

Gallup seems very consistent.

[pbrower2a]

Rasmussen 3/5 - 3/9, 1500 LV  

Approve      48%(-1)
Disapprove 52%(+1)

Strongly:
Approve      32%(-1)
Disapprove 43%(+2)

Obama-effect...

It just keeps getting worse.

[pbrower2a]

So, when Trump keeps his mouth shut for an extended period of time, his approvals go up, but when he says something stupid, it goes down?

Yeah, it's been that way since the very beginning, as far as I can tell.

Someone noted on CNN I believe a few months ago that they believe the President "polls bad". So as in the campaign, perhaps we should take any polls, good or bad, with a grain of salt.

No poll is perfect. Note the 'margin of error'. The definitive poll is the election.

Donald Trump masterfully played desperation and resentments. Other pols had no solution for the end of the age in which industrial toil was adequate for living a good life. We liberals never had a problem with industrial workers getting paid well for doing jobs that many of us could never have done except at gunpoint. People deserve to be paid well for doing those jobs. But will economic reality comply?

The 'Establishment' Right, the Chamber of Commerce types who believe that a healthy economy that fosters corporate profits will create a just order, turned to importing instead of manufacturing about 35 years ago to undercut manufacturing. So we have plenty of stuff made in foreign sweatshops instead of in America. But even without Big Business becoming importers instead of manufacturers we would still have the problem of saturation of manufactured needs.  We have gone from having to buy to get thoroughly-new stuff to replace stuff as it wears out, becomes dowdy, or becomes technologically obsolete. 

Are there still people using VHS or cassette tapes? Still watching CRT televisions? Those who do might get to enjoy a 1990s lifestyle cheaply. If one is poor in America one might do that. I would encourage people just starting out in life to do so while they amass some savings. You can't eat style.

Liberals have traditionally been good at standing with labor unions as the best means for achieving fair pay and good working conditions. Big Business hates unions, preferring to use fear as a tool of management. People scared of hunger might take a pay cut just to hold a job when jobs are scarce -- and of course keep jobs scarce. The only difference between modern capitalists or executives on the one side and feudal princes or antebellum planters is that capitalists and executives can't get away with what feudal prices and antebellum planters used to get away with. If you wonder how the antebellum planters dealt with the reality of slavery with its exploitation and dehumanization of slaves, then historical records show that those exploitative, dehumanizing slave-masters saw themselves as benefactors to 'their (and in a very possessive sense of the pronoun)' slaves and could not imagine how non-slave-holding Northerners who had small farms or small businesses could be so dense as to not see a 'reality' so self-evident to the slave owners. 

Yes, I see the economic elites getting away with pathological narcissism and even sociopathic behavior that few of us could get away with. As someone who has been humbled in cr@ppy jobs in which subordination and deference are necessary traits of survival, I cannot escape resentment of people who treat others badly for personal gain. 

But we liberals cannot create jobs unless we can promise big infrastructure projects like Boston's  Big Dig or what has become the Pat Tillman Bridge on what will eventually be Interstate 11 or 13 connecting Las Vegas and Phoenix. Donald Trump has promised some big infrastructure projects, but those imply crony capitalism and 'looter' privatization. Giving public water projects to private monopolists and transforming current freeways into toll roads might not go over so well.

Donald Trump played the populist card that nobody else dared play, but he turned it in for the  profits-first ideology of Club for Growth, FreedomWorks, and the other corporate interests which took over the Establishment while playing up bigotry that gentlemen now avoid. Now we see what we have. Donald Trump isn't going to convince liberals to give up their values even if he gets good economic results. He's going to need to create a vibrant economy, and the most that he can offer is another speculative boom... as if people who don't remember the housing boom of the Double-Zero decade want a repeat of the corrupt boom and the inevitable bust.

[pbrower2a]

Rasmussen 3/5 - 3/9, 1500 LV  

Approve      48%(-1)
Disapprove 52%(+1)

Strongly:
Approve      32%(-1)
Disapprove 43%(+2)

Obama-effect...

Rasmussen 38 - 3/12, 1500 LV  

Approve      47% ( -1)
Disapprove  53% (+1)

Strongly:
Approve      31% (-1)
Disapprove  42% (-1)

Rasmussen shows -6 vs Gallup -4

Crazy theory could he start doing worse in Rasmussen because consertives are more pissed over the health care bill?

Who knows -- we may be seeing the start of some splits among 'conservatives' on some key issues. 'Conservatives' toed the line quickly around the new President.

[pbrower2a]

At this point I project that as an average campaigner for re-election he would lose about 52-48 against the average challenger even if the economy doesn't go into the tank, no scandal erupts, and no military or diplomatic calamity happens.

[pbrower2a]

New PPP poll of WI-01 (Paul Ryan's district):

Trump:

50% Favorable
47% Unfavorable

Ryan:

49% Favorable
44% Unfavorable

This is a district Trump won by 10%.

Terribly unflattering. If this district expresses a general shift of 5% the vote in Wisconsin, then a state that went for him by less than 1% would be a bare loss for him if nothing really changes before 2020. Should the economy tank or the American good fortune (having Obama as President might have made that possible for eight years) of not having military or diplomatic calamities come to an abrupt and shocking end, then the President could be facing a landslide loss in a re-election bid.

This and extant polls of Michigan and Pennsylvania suggest that if the 2016 election were held again, Trump would lose.  Support for the rest of the Trump agenda also looks weak even in this district.

Paul Ryan looks as if he would squeak by in a re-election bid. But that bodes ill for many other incumbent Republicans in the House.

[pbrower2a]

New PPP poll of WI-01 (Paul Ryan's district):

Trump:

50% Favorable
47% Unfavorable

Ryan:

49% Favorable
44% Unfavorable

This is a district Trump won by 10%.

It's a Democratic Internal, for an anti-Ryan PAC.

Even if so it says some things. If things were all peachy and rosy for House Republicans, then Donald Trump and Paul Ryan would have something like 60% approval or favorability in that district.

Some other questions:

Q5 Would you support or oppose an independent investigation into Russia’s involvement in the
2016 Presidential election?

(Support 50%, oppose 40%)

Q6 Do you support or oppose taking away funding for essential healthcare services like birth
control and cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood health centers in Racine, Kenosha,
and Delevan?

(Support 37%, oppose 55%)

Q7 Do you support or oppose Paul Ryan and the Republicans’ new health care bill, which would
cause millions to lose their health insurance?

(Support 37%, oppose 46%)


Q8 What comes closest to your view of what should happen with Medicare and Social Security: do you think we should protect and strengthen them, do you think we should expand them, or do you think we should cut them?

(Protect and strengthen 77%, expand 11%, cut 8%)

Q9 Some in Congress have proposed selling off national public lands, like national forests,
national monuments, and wildlife refuges. Do you support or oppose this proposal?

(Support 18%, oppose 77%)

Q10 The Trump Administration is proposing budget cuts to the Department of Interior and a hiring freeze, which could mean fewer park rangers, fewer wildland firefighters, limited wildlife
monitoring, and a limited ability to address the backlog of maintenance needs in America’s
National Parks.  Do you support or oppose these budget cuts?

(Support 35%, oppose 55%)

Q11 The Trump Administration is proposing a 97% decrease in money to clean up the Great
Lakes. Do you support or oppose these budget cuts?

(Support 25%, oppose 62%)

Q12 President Trump just ordered the EPA to rescind clean water rules, a move that would
reduce protections for 60% of the nation’s waters from toxic pollution and put the drinking
water of 117 million people at risk.  Do you support or oppose this?

(Support 28%, oppose 60%)

(Geographic reality on Q11: Paul Ryan's WI-01 lies on the shore of Lake Michigan).

In these questions we already see how Democrats can frame the 2018 midterm and 2020 general election. Speakers of the House rarely get defeated in re-election bids, and Paul Ryan is unlikely to be in danger of losing his House seat, but they can easily become House Minority Leaders when things go bad for their Party. Sure, this might be an internal poll by a Democratic group... but don't be surprised if the next poll of Wisconsin shows Donald Trump with something like a 40% approval rating.

[pbrower2a]

New PPP poll of WI-01 (Paul Ryan's district):

Trump:

50% Favorable
47% Unfavorable

Ryan:

49% Favorable
44% Unfavorable

This is a district Trump won by 10%.

Trump got 52%.
MOE of this poll is about 4%
PPP was AWFUL during the election. For instance they had Clinton +7 in WI...
It is not even a public poll.

Just saying.

Hillary Clinton got only 39% of the vote in this district. That is a 12% margin. Paul Ryan will probably win this district in 2018 despite standing for some unpopular measure; that is how it is with someone who wields power in the House. After all, he might be good for getting a desirable highway or public-transportation project passed in his district under a Democratic administration in 2021 or so.

PPP missed the sudden swing for Demagogue Don; it quit polling on Wisconsin rather early. But current polls seem to be showing Americans just about everywhere recognizing his agenda (just create more profit as the collection of rent, and dismantle nearly 90 years of social progress to resuscitate 'dirty' industry) as a non-solution to their personal distress.

[pbrower2a]

This is probably just an outlier just like the 45-49 number earlier this week was. Real number is probably aound net negative high single digits.

Middle single digits.

PPP hasn't polled approval ratings of rattlesnakes yet.

[pbrower2a]

New Jersey, the Q.

Trump -- approve 34%, disapprove 59%. No change in the map.

[https://poll.qu.edu/new-jersey/release-detail?ReleaseID=2439

Favorability:

Probably our best approximation until about March.


Approval:

Not likely useful until March.


Even -- white



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

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

White - tie.
 
Colors chosen for partisan affiliation.  

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

[pbrower2a]

A legit PPP national poll of registered voters: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2017/PPP_Release_National_31517.pdf

Approve 43% (-2)
Disapprove 50% (+2)

They also poll the generic House ballot here:

Dems 46%
GOP 41%

It's really early, of course, but a 5 point popular vote win wouldn't be enough for the Dems to take back the House, given the GOP's structural advantage in how the district lines are drawn.

Obviously, sustained or intensifying unpopularity of President Trump can grow that gap.   

[pbrower2a]

They also poll the generic House ballot here:

Dems 46%
GOP 41%

It's really early, of course, but a 5 point popular vote win wouldn't be enough for the Dems to take back the House, given the GOP's structural advantage in how the district lines are drawn.

5% is roughly where it was at for much of 2016. Just like with Hillary, it imploded as Trump surged in the end. Five points is simply not enough, and doesn't indicate people are turning on Republicans - yet. Once we start seeing double digit numbers - even low, like 10, 11 points, or consistently high-single digits (8-9) on a regular basis, I think that is when the GOP should worry.

Double-digit numbers as a difference indicate that the GOP has big problems to solve, probably best while figuring things out as the minority party. 

[pbrower2a]

Just a quarter of young Americans have a favorable view of the Republican Party, and 6 in 10 have an unfavorable view. Majorities of young people across racial and ethnic lines hold negative views of the GOP.

The Democratic Party performs better, but views aren't overwhelmingly positive. Young people are more likely to have a favorable than an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party by a 47 percent to 36 percent margin. But just 14 percent say they have a strongly favorable view of the Democrats.

Views of the Democratic Party are most favorable among young people of color. Roughly 6 in 10 blacks, Asians and Latinos hold positive views of the party. Young whites are somewhat more likely to have unfavorable than favorable views, 47 percent to 39 percent.

As for Trump, 8 in 10 young people think he is doing poorly in terms of the policies he's put forward and 7 in 10 have negative views of his presidential demeanor.

Results of the 2020 election will not be pretty for Donald Trump, at least among the youngest voters. 

[pbrower2a]

President Trump isn't winning acceptance as a good and effective President from those who voted for Hillary Clinton. Grudging acceptance of him as President? Sure. Lots of people by now must have the misconception that his middle name begins with the letter F by now -- and it doesn't stand for Francis, Franklin, Frederick, or Felix.  Or even "Fido".  He has done little to build trust. He's still waging a grudge against someone who can never be President again.

It is below his vote, and at this stage he will need miracles just to avoid losing his three closest wins of 2016 -- Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin -- in 2020. That's before I even discuss Florida, Iowa, and North Carolina.

Americans wondered what it would be like to have a non-politician as President, and they are finding out.

[pbrower2a]

Americans wondered what it would be like to have a non-politician as President, and they are finding out.

That's doing non-politicians a bit of an injustice, since Donald Trump is a special kind of non-politicianperson. I assume that someone like Bill Gates for instance would have made a significantly better president. Not that this is a particular hard task.

Except that Americans have little respect for literary genius (they prefer easily-read trash) this would be a nice time for a Vaclav Havel.

I know how I would act on certain matters. I recognize the validity of legal precedent and diplomatic protocol. I would quickly recognize the limits of my knowledge and even of practical  solutions, and know when to defer to the experts.  North Korea? I would be taking every possible trip to China, South Korea, and Japan. As one who respects law and order I would do everything possible to bust foreign figures of organized crime. I might be kissing up to Russia and Vladimir Putin on culture while having any gangster alien deported -- including Russian gangsters.

As significantly, the good-to-great Presidents have either been attorneys or senior military officers. Heck, Truman (the supposed exception) at least made the rank of colonel, and a smart kid like he would get unambiguous direction to go as far as he could in higher education...  I think he would have been a fine attorney. Attorneys are generalists capable of dealing with about everything but medicine, engineering, architecture, accounting, and art.

Trained attorneys are the bulk of American politicians above a certain level. There are other smart people, like accountants, physicians, dentists, engineers, and research scientists -- but most of those have no desire to enter politics. 
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed. But most politicians have made some shady compromises or have been involved in self-serving deeds or questionable loyalties (as soon as Donald Trump attacked Hillary Clinton for enabling her husband's sexual escapades he may have won despite bragging about grabbing women by the crotch, he may have destroyed her chances of winning the election). 

I see Trump's purported acumen as a businessman not so impressive as it seems to most Americans. He makes his money by exploiting a scarcity of housing in a high-income area. Outside of that he is not a successful businessman. So what causes anyone to think that he has the broad base of knowledge for dealing with military affairs, diplomacy, budgeting, or general legislation. Attorneys who enter politics to enhance their political careers often become politicians. Donald Trump is very much an Outsider.

Now suppose that I have a critical and delicate, high-risk operation awaiting me lest I die. Do I want a physician proudly in the mainstream of medicine, or do I want someone on the fringe?   

I rest my case.