Trump approval ratings thread 1.1

[pbrower2a]

It is hard to defend failure. Legislative failure, moral failure, and diplomatic failure already mark this administration. It is only a matter of time before the Obama bull market comes to an end; I doubt that with his inadequate preparation for the Presidency he will have a clue if the economy starts to go bad. His ideology would make things worse.

[pbrower2a]

The million dollar question is where has he lost that new permanent support? Is it among Whites with a college degree? Minorities? Whites without a college degree?

Last I recall, the Quinnipiac Poll showed that each time he suffered a drop, it usually hinged on working class whites showing more disapproval. His approval ratings among college educated whites has more or less remained in the 30s the entire time, although their has been a slight downward trend since inauguration. I posted a chart in some thread showing the trend, but I'm not sure which thread. It was weeks ago.

Edit: nvm, I found it in my posted pics folder:

Healthcare bill in the news -> Trump slump

Oh yes, that's true. When was the last time healthcare coverage was dominating this year?

Well-educated people are much less vulnerable to demagogic appeal than are ill-educated people so long as one makes appropriate adjustments for age, income, ethnicity, and religion. Well-educated people find it easier to detect liars and their intellectual spawn (that is lies). The effect of further revelations upon well-educated white Americans who already distrusted the President as a campaigner is to solidify existing opinions of him. So how can one make a differentiation in levels of disapproval other than "slight" and "strong"? Do we need "really-strong disapproval" or "really, really strong disapproval", let alone "I would be delighted if the President had a sudden, natural death" or  "I'd take my chances with a military coup"?  What do people have to do to convince President Trump that he is going too far in some direction -- emigrate?

It's the ill-educated people who thought that the vulgarian reached them as no recent politician has who can go from approval to disapproval. The more that such people find that he can do more harm than good, the more they will turn against him. So minorities by ethnicity and religion who have rejected him can only disapprove more than they recently did.

President Trump played up long-simmering resentments of successful people among the economic losers of white America. The economic losers didn't get as much out of K-12 education as others did. Those economic losers might have jobs that allow them to work as cashiers in convenience stores in which they witness successful people from the suburbs paying a couple hundred dollars filling up their motor homes or boats with motor fuels, buying sodas and beer at inflated prices, and picking up magazines priced out of the access to the cashier. These cashiers know that a school millage (school isn't going to do them any obvious good) will raise property taxes and the rent. More taxes that such people pay is food off the table.

As a candidate, Trump praised the "low-information voter" vulnerable to his demagogic appeal. What can he not do? Any obvious improvement to the lives of poor people working cr@ppy jobs for near-minimum wages. This may be coming clear to many who thought that he could make life better for them by needling people better off for them. Donald Trump is for the class war between the super-rich rentier and the middle class, and in this war the unskilled worker can only be cannon fodder.

[pbrower2a]

Here's the graphic:



Read it and weep. A hint: keep any Trump paraphernalia home should you visit another country.

[pbrower2a]

Vanderbilt-Tennessee:

52% Approve
42% Disapprove

Source

Weak, considering that Tennessee was President Trump's eighth-strongest state for getting votes. He got 60.72% of the vote there.  Maybe a d@mn-yankee plutocrat who has no cultural connection to the South, who can't communicate well in any American idiom (basically Ronald Reagan without the coherence), and who seems to hold that enriching people like he is the key to personal happiness for people who will still be broke and scared is the way to happiness for people still consigned to poverty and fear isn't such a strong appeal.  

Approval ratings nationwide seem to be gravitating to about 8% lower than his level of the vote in his 'best' states. For Governors and Senators, the usual fall-off from their winning vote totals is about 6%. Governing and legislating force pols to make choices that put some voters off. The last five Presidents to have not been Governors or Senators were Hoover, Eisenhower, Ford, the elder Bush, and now Trump. Three of the five were one-term Presidents. Eisenhower won twice in landslides (I have compared Obama to him as President for temperament and achievements, and someone who can chart the D-Day invasion could have surely had a good career in elective office had he gone that way. I also think that Barack Obama would have been a fine senior officer had he chosen a military life).

Trump is the fifth President in a century to not have been a Senator or Governor before becoming President. Hoover had at the least been a Cabinet secretary. Ford had as impressive a political career as possible without becoming a Governor or Senator before being nominated for VP -- and his campaign to be elected in 1976 showed why someone who has never won a statewide office in a statewide campaign has a hard time winning an election  against someone who has been a Governor or Senator. The elder Bush had nothing to offer but to maintain the Reagan legacy, which was good for only one election.

Add six to the approval rating of an elected Governor or Senator and you get an idea of what share of the popular vote he would get in the next election. For a President one might look at state-by-state approval ratings. I have enough of them now to suggest that President Trump would have a difficult time winning any state that he didn't get at least 54% of the vote in in 2016.  The only possible exceptions to that blanket statement are Utah (third-party nominee in 2016); I simply have no data for either Georgia or Ohio yet.

A right-wing Republican getting only 43% approval in Texas is in deep trouble. He will need an economic or diplomatic miracle, a massive change in American political culture, or large-scale electoral fraud to win in 2020. The third is much more likely with Trump as President.            

[pbrower2a]

Marquette-WI:

41% Approve
51% Disapprove (+4 since March)

Republicans: 85/8
Democrats: 3/95
Independents: 36/52

Approve firing Comey: 39/49
Trump cooperating or interfering with Russian investigation: 37/53

Health care reform: 6% favor keeping current law, 54% say keep & improve; 27% repeal & replace; 7% repeal & don’t replace.

Withdrawing from Paris: 34/54

57% say US should use military force to defend NATO allies if conflict with Russia occurs. 60% of Republicans, 54% of Democrats, 58% of independents say US should defend NATO allies.

This poll suggests about a 53-47 win for a Democratic nominee for President in Wisconsin in 2020.

Tennessee -- see above.

Texas:
Trump approval: 43-51 (-8)

https://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/set/donald-trump-approval-june-2017

Another corroboration -- Texans seem to prefer droppings from a bovine creature to bullsh**t from a d@mnyankee poseur.  No category change, but Texas has 36 electoral votes that no Democratic nominee has won in just over forty years.

The letter F shall signify a favorability poll, as the only polls that I have for Arizona,  Massachusetts and Oklahoma  

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  

[pbrower2a]

No mystery here.

[pbrower2a]

This does not change my map. A state that Donald Trump barely lost in 2016, a state that is ordinarily understood as a swing state, seems to be rejecting the President about as decisively as Oklahoma typically rejects the usual Democrat.

Prepare yourselves, Republicans, for a defeat analogous to those of Hoover in 1932 or Carter in 1980 for your President in 2020.

Trump 2020: Making America Grasp for Alternatives!

[pbrower2a]

Gallup (July 2nd)

Approve 39% (+2)
Disapprove 56% (-1)

Consistent with President Trump doing  much less well in 2020 than in 2016.

PPP for Save My Care (D):

Colorado: 40/56 (-16)
North Carolina: 46/50 (-4)
Iowa: 46/49 (-3)

PPP for a liberal advocacy group. Iowa reverts to swing-state status., and Colorado is out of reach for him. 

The letter F shall signify a favorability poll, as the only polls that I have for Arizona,  Massachusetts and Oklahoma  

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  

[pbrower2a]

More telling may be disapproval ratings. Some of these are favorability ratings, which will get an asterisk.

Disapproval ratings:

CO 56
NM  50
IA  49
NH 60
TN 42
WI 51
TX 51
VA 57
NY 56 (excellent-good-fair-poor... I will take an earlier poll with a purer approval/disapproval divide)
Alaska 48
NV 50
WV 36
NJ 66
CA 57
MI 61 (negative job rating)
NY 67
UT 55
OK 36 (favorability)
PA 62
MN 51
WA 56
AR 39
MT 42
FL  51`
SC 47
MD 64
AZ 49 (favorability)
MA (over 60 based upon a composite)

Map for this theme:

navy under 40
blue 40-43
light blue 44-47
white 48 or 49
pink 50-54
red 55-59
maroon 60 or higher

* favorability

[pbrower2a]

If Trump's current disapproval ratings in each of the states listed are any indication of his 2020 performance, he'll be absolutely destroyed in the Northeast. The West isn't looking too good for him either. I'm curious how he'll perform in Utah; no doubt he'll win it, but by how much? And the fact that Alaska, Arizona, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin have an effectively equal disapproval of Trump is very interesting.

The disapproval numbers alone show that President Trump is not doing what Presidents do to get re-elected.  A successful President in getting re-election typically picks off some states to compensate for his losses... 

But of the president's barest losses (CO, ME, MN, NV, NH, and VA) he shows no signs of gaining ground.  The Minnesota poll is really old, taken while the President still had approvals in the mid-to-high 40s -- and I would expect a new poll of Minnesota to look even worse for the President.  Look at Colorado, New Hampshire, and Virginia: they seem to be solidifying -- for a Democrat in 2020. Does anyone want to bet big money that Trump wins Maine in 2020?

He is faring badly -- really badly -- in Michigan and Pennsylvania, two states infamous as industrial wrecks. Donald Trump promised to 'Make America Great Again' -- which the marginal voters may have interpreted as 'restore the prowess and importance of manufacturing in American economics'. I question whether any policies can recreate that sort of America; Donald Trump is irresponsible for making such a suggestion. Politicians who make promises that they do nothing to deliver (and aren't simply stopped by political reality) lose the component to whom they made such promises. 

If that isn't bad enough, three other states that he barely won (Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Florida) are well underwater. Because he will lose Michigan and Pennsylvania and has no real chances for gains elsewhere, he stands to lose even more. I don't know whether he could really lose Texas, but his polling there is awful -- and it is corroborated in two polls. Sure, it's Texas, and Texas is the difference between about 400 and 435 electoral votes. But I have no idea of what is going on in Ohio, and the poll of Arizona is really old. 

He needs (or Pence will need) miracles with which to get re-elected. No economic miracle is at hand.   

[pbrower2a]

Who would have ever thought that Utah would have a high disapproval rating of a Republican president than Nevada.

Donald Trump certainly does not have Mormon family values.

[pbrower2a]

Gallup (July 3rd)

Approve 37% (-2)
Disapprove 57% (+1)

I wonder if he could go down under 35%.

He could, but will take something drastic. Maybe a North Korean missile striking Okinawa? A 2000-point fall in the Dow-Jones average?  Bad news that he can't claim is fake?

Approval of the President has typically been close to the partisan divide since the effect of 9/11 faded -- in good times.  So it has been with Dubya and with Obama. For approval to go below about 45%, something bad has to happen.

There's not much 'squishy' support. Once one gets below 45% approval, one is starting to lose the support of strong partisans. Non-achievement can take one to 40% and incompetence perhaps to 33%. To go below 33% one needs an economic meltdown, a sex scandal, a diplomatic disaster, mishandling of a natural disaster, or a military catastrophe.

Economic meltdown? That would more likely be choices in the Fed. The Federal Reserve is unlikely to start a depression just to defeat a President. A Greek-style economic problem, as when the IMF dictates that America must devalue its currency, raise taxes, cut the money supply,  cut wages, and cut federal spending?  We're nowhere near that. 

Hurricane season is on the way, but most of the States with vulnerability to a hurricane voted Republican in 2016. The "Big One" in California or an eruption of Mount Rainier in Washington? God help us! Obama may have made sure to give quick and generous aid to very conservative communities in the wake of tornadoes irrespective of the way those communities voted. I wouldn't trust President Trump to give any aid to liberal communities that underwent some natural disaster unless on unacceptable terms.

President Trump has gotten away with much so far. So how does he do it?  He has leaned a trick of extremists and tyrants -- violate the sensibilities of opponents and then fault the opponents for expressing their denials, distress, or disgust. At the extreme think of the propaganda of (eventually convicted Nazi war criminal) Julius Streicher against the Jews. He blamed the Jews for practically anything bad even if there was no logical connection, or accused them of horrible deeds contrary to their character. When they complained, he blamed their 'evil' for opposing the falsehoods that Streicher offered as truth.

Many people fall for this. American politicians have typically avoided playing to this, but Donald Trump is a gross abnormality in American political history. He does not play by the rules that such disparate Presidents as Reagan and Obama would.

[pbrower2a]

If Trump's current disapproval ratings in each of the states listed are any indication of his 2020 performance, he'll be absolutely destroyed in the Northeast. The West isn't looking too good for him either. I'm curious how he'll perform in Utah; no doubt he'll win it, but by how much? And the fact that Alaska, Arizona, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin have an effectively equal disapproval of Trump is very interesting.

He'll win UT by double digits, probably by more than 20 points. Democrats have de facto no chance to carry the state. 30% is the absolute ceiling. UT may not be safe Trump, but it's still safe not D.

You suggested a qualification. I can easily imagine Utah (and especially the powerful Church of Latter-Day Saints (a/k/a LDS or Mormons)  going for someone like Ross Perot as a clean-government Christian conservative in a 40-35-25 split (the Democrat getting 25% of the vote). Mormons take their religious beliefs seriously. That is still non-D. But remember: an  unpopular President is vulnerable to independent and third-party challenges from the same side of the political spectrum of the incumbent. Donald Trump offends so many Mormon values that he is vulnerable to any opponent who gets the tacit blessing of the LDS Church.

If I were in the LDS  hierarchy I would want to send a message to any Presidential nominee -- offend Mormon values and lose Utah. But even if the Republican nominee does not offend Mormon values... even Mormons will reject a Republican nominee who can be cast as a proponent of reckless adventurism (it did go for LBJ in 1964). 

[pbrower2a]

so he's -20 in approval, how would this translate if the election were held today? how many of the disapproving would vote for him?

It depends on the Democratic nominee.

If the nominee has terrible favorablities like Hillary did, then Trump would have a good chance of winning. But if the nominee's personal favorablities are in good shape, then Trump is extremely vulnerable.

-20 in approval gives about a 60-40. split The average electoral winner has proved that he could win the office, and of course that he is an adequate campaigner. He did win!

But incumbents can lose. Against the average challenger President Trump would probably win about 54-46 in 2020 assuming that President Trump does nothing on net to make things better or worse. 

He is already a failed President, and he will not have time to make things better. He has been in campaign mode; he has no legislative achievements, and the one that he proposes would make things worse for multitudes.

So he starts about 60-40 and maybe gains about 3% just for being the incumbent. He would have powerful, well-heeled interests behind him. He would certainly get plenty of contributions to his campaign.

I think he would lose about 54-46 in the popular vote.  That's not as bad as Carter or Hoover, but it is worse than Ford. The elder Bush? That Bush did not have anywhere near the negatives.

A 53-47 split of the popular vote in a highly-polarized country gives about the result of Obama 2008 for the Democratic nominee.  Less polarized, things go like Bush in 1988 or even FDR in 1944. The Democrat wins anywhere from about 375 electoral votes to 435 electoral votes.

Things really go bad for Trump -- about a 60-40 split -- if the Democrats  have someone as effective a campaigner as FDR, Ronald Reagan, or Barack Obama. That's about the level of the 1932 or 1980 elections.

[pbrower2a]

so he's -20 in approval, how would this translate if the election were held today? how many of the disapproving would vote for him?

Here's how I think a Democratic loser  does by losing 60-40 in the popular vote in 2020. I'm showing only the wins:

124 electoral votes, as these are the states and districts that go 60% or more for the Democrat in a good year. The Democrat is winning most of these just barely, but there are few that he is losing just barely -- maybe Illinois. New Jersey and Connecticut are going about 52-47 for Trump in such a case.  He's losing such states as Minnesota, New Mexico, Virginia, and Washington by about ten points and such states as Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin by low double-digits. He's losing a bunch of states by 70-30 margins.  This is only for symmetry. 

The only reason that the Democrat doesn't end up with 50 or so electoral votes is that California (55) and New York (29) are a lock for a Democrat practically guaranteed the 84 electoral votes of  two of the largest states in electoral votes. Except for Maryland and Massachusetts (22 altogether)  the Democrat picks up no other states with more than  four electoral votes. 

Now let's try a 60-40 loss for Trump. Showing only his wins in deep blue,

That's 51 electoral votes, signaling a disaster by Trump. Utah has voted for a third-Party conservative alternative that hierarchy of the Church of Latter-Day Saints (LDS, a/k/a Mormons) has endorsed, with Utah Democrats voting in line with most Mormons.

If you are wondering about some states, the Trump campaign is in a real mess even in the High Plains. Mississippi? The white vote is still for Trump, but only about 75-25. The black vote decides Mississippi. Louisiana? Louisiana recently elected a Democratic Governor, so it can conceivably vote for a Democratic President. The difference between Mississippi and Alabama is that Mississippi has more blacks.  NE-03 is one of the most conservative districts in America, and it goes R.

I need not show the rest; in a 60-40 split of the popular vote, assume that the Democrat wins most states that Obama won by 8% or more in 2008 offer only slight gains over that, that the Democrat gets modest gains over Obama 2008 where he won or lost by less than 5%, and larger gains in the states that Obama lost by 8% or more.

At a 57-43 split of the popular vote, Trump wins the High Plains except Texas and NE-02. Added Trump wins in this scenario are in medium blue.

   

[pbrower2a]

I guess these things happen when The Media supports everything you do.

The Media doesn't like Trump. Most members of the media are Democrats.

Yes, billionaires who are owners or majority shareholders in media companies are notoriously liberal Democrats.

If the media reports on a team that hasn't scored a run all year as having a lousy offense, do they have a bias against the local team or are they just reporting a disaster in the making? Now apply that to the presidency and get it through your skull that he is a walking dumpster fire on every conceivable level. He is indefensible. For anyone with common sense of a toad that is. Join the club of those who surpass that level.

Your whining about the media is pathetic, tired, and baseless. Grow up.

And that's directed it pretty much a third of the Forum, not just Hopper.

Badger, The only area that Trump has done good in thus far in his Presidency is in the foreign policy arena. He has failed everywhere else in terms of policy. Still I think the media is really biased against him. I did not vote for him just so you know. I'm just calling it as I see it.

On a major-league baseball team going 35-51 at this point, the team gives unconditional releases to an outfielder with a .226 batting average with five home runs and a starting pitcher with a 4-9 record and a 6.10 ERA. (Both statistics are far below average) so that they can give chances to some hot-shot minor league players who may seem a bit unpolished but can do much better. So the two players cast off blame the local sportswriters for not advocating keeping them because they used to be sort-of-OK.

President Trump exploited the lust of journalists for something new and exciting in American politics and now he disappoints the same journalists with erratic behavior and with under-achievement. Maybe the media have some fault for the rise of Donald Trump because he was good for news copy -- but now something else matters.

But we are stuck with someone objectively awful.

[pbrower2a]

I have been polled, so expect a poll from Michigan this week. 

[pbrower2a]

I have been polled, so expect a poll from Michigan this week. 

Just presidential approval, or did you get anything for Senate or Gov?

Both -- and Trump's effort to undo Obamacare.

[pbrower2a]

Trump's blowing it like Obama in getting a full agenda through.  Trump and Obama might end up in the same position where they hardly get through their campaign promises before the rival party takes control of one house or both houses of Congress and then the next 2-6 are a big screaming match.

Except --

1. The Obama administration was scandal-free.
2. President Trump at this stage gets far-worse polling results than did Obama.
3. Trump's opposition is more sophisticated in messaging.
4. Obama won both the Electoral College in a near-landslide and a majority of the vote.He could lose more support and still win in 2016. A shift of 1% from R to D in the popular vote wins the Presidency for a Democrat.  
5. Trump has consistently vilified those who voted against him, which is not a way of gaining support.
6. Obama did have some early legislative successes.

I doubt that Democrats can win the Senate in 2018 barring an unlikely redo of 2016 elections. There are just too few suitable targets for Democrats and too many obvious targets of Democrats. Considering that nobody can assure us that there will be no foreign hacking of results, I could expect Democratic losses in the Senate.

2016 was not a 'free and fair election'. Honest elections generally do not follow tainted elections; the winners of tainted elections know that those elections are tainted and have cause to cheat in the next one. Considering that the GOP in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin likes the 2016 result  and wants to 'keep up the good work' of transforming America into a [pure plutocracy, we cannot expect integrity in the 2018 election. Or for that matter 2020. The rules have changed, all to the benefit of people who believe that no human suffering is ever in excess so long as it gets a bigger profit and indulges the collectors of such profit to indulge themselves more fully.

The money is behind president Trump, and in view of 2016 we must assume that what the money wants is what will win until we see otherwise.

[pbrower2a]

Iowa -- Selzer, Des Moines Register:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2017/07/17/iowa-poll-independents-sour-trump-disapproval-rating-tops-50-percent/480236001/

Selzer is one of the best pollsters in the business. It's one state and one electorally-small, but the 'gain' in disapproval for the President suggests that Iowa could be out of reach for the president in 2020.  Other Republicans do fine, so the problem is Donald Trump.

This poll suggests that the President has not pulled the Midwest permanently into the clutches of the Republican Party. Iowa and Wisconsin usually vote in tandem.

Don't be surprised if I modify this polling map to add other statewide polls.  

Come on, Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, and Ohio!

The letter F shall signify a favorability poll, as the only polls that I have for Arizona,  Massachusetts and Oklahoma  

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.

More telling may be disapproval ratings. Some of these are favorability ratings, which will get an asterisk.

Disapproval ratings:

Map for this theme:

navy under 40
blue 40-43
light blue 44-47
white 48 or 49
pink 50-54
red 55-59
maroon 60 or higher

* favorability

Colors chosen for partisan affiliation  

[pbrower2a]

Look, I know it's hard for incumbents to actually lose reelection but is Trump really more than likely to do so seeing he has a 55% disapproval in a state like Utah?

Just to nitpick - Trump is uniquely unsuited for a state like Utah, and even with such a poor image among Mormons, he still did quite well. However, if by October 2020 he had the same approval ratings he does now and was up against a challenger that was about as popular as the average challenger would be, then he most likely would lose, and probably not by a hair either. In an election where his opponent wasn't almost as hated as he was, his "win" most likely would have been a loss with a margin in between Romney and McCain.

If he were to have today's job approval rating on Election Day 2020, then yes, he'd presumably lose.  But I don't think the historical record shows that there's any correlation between job approval rating in a president's first year and his job approval rating three years later.

We have no precedent in the last century of a President starting out so unpopular so quickly. Even with Herbert Hoover the Stock Market Crash of September 1929 had to show itself as something more than a temporary panic at roughly the same stage as Trump is in. Hoover was thought of quite well by then. The early ratings for this President are execrable without precedent.

For a President starting his term barely winning election we have Kennedy in 1960. Carter in 1976, and Dubya in 2000. Kennedy may be the best President we have ever had who won election to his first term so barely. But much unlike Trump, Kennedy

(1) did not repudiate his predecessor
(2) made genuine (and somewhat successful) efforts to win over people who did not vote for him in 1960
(3) handled the Cuban Missile Crisis as well as was possible
(4) cultivated warm relations with the news media
(5) did not offend America's allies
(6) did not promote deals for his profit as a good way to warm up to him.

I cannot say without doubt that he was headed to a landslide re-election when he was assassinated... but most people thought that he would be.

Carter? Carter was a weak campaigner, and might have lost to anyone other than Gerald Ford. He posed as a reformer, but his effort to bring his competent style of leadership from Atlanta to Washington DC proved a failure. He was willing to let people vote for him thinking that he would be a conservative Southern agrarian, but he tried to be something else He had to recreate a winning coalition of the sort that Bill Clinton would win with, but he lacked the time. He could not undo the stagflation that had begun earlier without alienating the working class with measures to cut back living standards to defeat inflation (Reagan had no such qualms), and the Iranian hostage situation did his Presidency in.

Except that Carter is a more decent and magnanimous person, I see Trump fitting the Carter pattern except that he will be hated.

Dubya won the Presidency despite ending up second in the popular vote, which could be relevant to Trump. This President almost needs an incident analogous to 9-11 to play off. So Dubya went by the book and made decisions that would not bite back until he was re-elected.  In theory President Trump could exploit a calamity for his political salvation.       

[pbrower2a]

President Trump has done nothing to stimulate the economy. His economic plan is mostly to enrich the super-rich while cutting their taxes, which can mean only greater hardships for the vast majority of Americans. He might promote an asset bubble, but that bubble will be cannibalization of assets.

It's still the Obama Fed -- and the Obama boom. 

[pbrower2a]

So far, Democrats have yet to coalesce behind anyone. But that will likely be easy in 2020.

....here's some data about Trump voters:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most are in a bubble, and those are the ones who would go down with him. They would believe a contemporary Dolchstosslegende involving their President.  But there was apparently some squishy support for President Trump at the time of the election, and that squishy support is likely gone.

I see a President likely to go down about like Hoover in 1932 or Carter in 1980, at least in the popular vote.  Remember: most conservatives are patriots.   

[pbrower2a]

As usual, the first decision that a demagogue must make is to decide which part of his coalition he must first betray. That is always the working class. Yes, all politicians promise more than they (or their fellow politicians) can deliver because of the realities of the political process. But when the promises are the incompatible parts of a logical contradiction? Such is never a fault of the Legislature for a national leader. Such is the fault of the cynical mind of an amoral leader.

Donald Trump is not the first filthy-rich person to win high public office in America and he won't be the last. But all classes have their virtuous people, and the competent can get rich with enterprise and wise investments -- and keep a soul intact. Like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. You can count on Barack Obama getting rich by accident on his writings alone.

[pbrower2a]

Faux News poll:



They conveniently leave out their June poll where he had a 44/50 split in this graphic.

Approvals on:

The economy: 45/46
Immigration: 42/53
North Korea: 41/45
Syria: 40/45
Iran: 37/44
Russia: 33/56
Health care: 32/59

First time he's been in the negatives on the economy.

I bet they spun it to sound favorably to him somehow.

Approvals are up since May!

It is shocking that the approvals for North Korea are as high as they ar. The country that America is most likely to go to war with and has one of the three worst political orders in the world should have a near-zero approval rating. Iran hasn't done anything to the USA in recent years. w