Trump approval ratings thread 1.2

[pbrower2a]

Well, aren’t most people likely to trust someone who seems to agree with them? Probably, but people differ enormously in gullibility. (People showing few right-wing authoritarian tendencies) are downright suspicious of someone who agrees with them when they can see ulterior motives might be at work. They pay attention to the circumstances in which the other fellow is operating. But (people with strong tendencies toward authoritarianism) do not, when they like the message.

So suppose you are a completely unethical, dishonest, power-hungry, dirt-bag, scum-bucket politician who will say whatever he has to say to get elected. ... Whom are you going to try to lead, people with strong tendencies toward authoritarianism or people who have few authoritarian tendencies? Isn’t it obvious? The (gullible right-wing authoritarians) will open up their arms and wallets to you if you just sing their song, however poor your credibility. Those crabby non-authoritarian types, on the other hand, will eye you warily when your credibility is suspect because you sing their song?

So the scum-bucket politicians will usually head for the right-wing authoritarians, because the (right-wing authoritarians) hunger for social endorsement of their beliefs so much they’re apt to trust anyone who tells them they’re right. Heck, Adolf Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany running on a law-and-order platform just a few years after he tried to overthrow the government through an armed insurrection.

You sometimes hear that paranoia runs at a gallop in “right-wingers”. But maybe you can see how that’s an oversimplification. Authoritarian followers are highly suspicious of their many out-groups; but they are credulous to the point of self-delusion when it comes to their in-groups. So (in another experiment the author ran) subjects were told a Christian Crusade was coming to town led by a TV evangelist. The evangelist (the subjects were further told), knowing that people would give more money at the end of the evening if he gave them the kind of service they liked, asked around to see what that might be.

Finding out that folks in your city liked a “personal testimonial” crusade, he gave them one featuring his own emotional testimonial to Jesus’ saving grace. How sincere do you think he was? Most subjects had their doubts, given the circumstances. But (right-wing authoritarians) almost always trusted him.

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer...oritarians.pdf

(Regrettably the link is now dead).

[pbrower2a]

Alabama-Fox News:
Source

Registered voters
17. Do you approve or disapprove of the job Donald
Trump is doing as president?

NET: APPROVE 53%
NET: DISAPPROVE 45%

(Among likely voters, it's 52-47)

I'm going with likely voters.

FoX News uses objective polling. This Roy Moore debacle could be hurting the President in Alabama. Not that it is likely to hurt President Trump in 2020, it certainly isn't helping him now.


This approval map shows  electoral votes to the states on the approval map.

Trump approval, net positive

55% or higher
50-54%
44-49%

Ties are in white.

Trump approval, net negative

44-49%
40-45%
39% or lower

But raw disapproval numbers appear instead  of electoral votes here:

Disapproval (net negative for Trump) :

55% or higher
50-54%
44-49%

Ties are in white.

(net positive for Trump)
46-49%  
41-45%
40% or lower

[pbrower2a]

More on one of Trump's strongest states, and one of Obama's weakest (Alabama):

A new Fox News poll shows former President Barack Obama is more popular in Alabama than Donald Trump.

The poll, conducted from Monday to Wednesday and released Thursday, shows Obama with a 52 percent favorability rating in the state, compared to Trump’s 49 percent.

Trump won Alabama by 28 points in the 2016 presidential election, while Obama lost the state by about 22 points in 2008 and 2012.

Obama had a 45 percent unfavorable rating in the poll, while Trump had a 48 percent unfavorable rating.

Trump’s job approval rating in the poll was listed at 52 percent, while 47 percent disapprove of his job performance.

The same poll showed Democrat Doug Jones leading Republican Roy Moore by 8 points in the Alabama Senate race in the wake of sexual misconduct allegations against Moore.

The poll showed 50 percent of likely voters support Jones, while 42 percent support Moore.

The last Fox News poll on the race, conducted in mid-October, showed Jones and Moore were tied. Another recent poll from the Senate’s GOP campaign arm showed Moore trailing by double digits.

Moore has repeatedly denied allegations that he engaged in sexual misconduct with teenage girls when he was in his 30s. Numerous Republican lawmakers have called on Moore to drop out of the race, but he has vowed to finish the campaign.

The poll included a sample of 823 registered voters, with 649 identified as likely voters. The poll has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign-polls/360807-fox-news-poll-obama-has-higher-favorability-in-alabama-than-trump

[pbrower2a]

For a president not experiencing a bad international scene (like the Iranian hostage Crisis) or an economic meltdown, 35% disapproval is a reasonable floor.

[pbrower2a]

Well, aren’t most people likely to trust someone who seems to agree with them? Probably, but people differ enormously in gullibility. (People showing few right-wing authoritarian tendencies) are downright suspicious of someone who agrees with them when they can see ulterior motives might be at work. They pay attention to the circumstances in which the other fellow is operating. But (people with strong tendencies toward authoritarianism) do not, when they like the message.

So suppose you are a completely unethical, dishonest, power-hungry, dirt-bag, scum-bucket politician who will say whatever he has to say to get elected. ... Whom are you going to try to lead, people with strong tendencies toward authoritarianism or people who have few authoritarian tendencies? Isn’t it obvious? The (gullible right-wing authoritarians) will open up their arms and wallets to you if you just sing their song, however poor your credibility. Those crabby non-authoritarian types, on the other hand, will eye you warily when your credibility is suspect because you sing their song?

So the scum-bucket politicians will usually head for the right-wing authoritarians, because the (right-wing authoritarians) hunger for social endorsement of their beliefs so much they’re apt to trust anyone who tells them they’re right. Heck, Adolf Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany running on a law-and-order platform just a few years after he tried to overthrow the government through an armed insurrection.

You sometimes hear that paranoia runs at a gallop in “right-wingers”. But maybe you can see how that’s an oversimplification. Authoritarian followers are highly suspicious of their many out-groups; but they are credulous to the point of self-delusion when it comes to their in-groups. So (in another experiment the author ran) subjects were told a Christian Crusade was coming to town led by a TV evangelist. The evangelist (the subjects were further told), knowing that people would give more money at the end of the evening if he gave them the kind of service they liked, asked around to see what that might be.

Finding out that folks in your city liked a “personal testimonial” crusade, he gave them one featuring his own emotional testimonial to Jesus’ saving grace. How sincere do you think he was? Most subjects had their doubts, given the circumstances. But (right-wing authoritarians) almost always trusted him.

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer...oritarians.pdf

(Regrettably the link is now dead).

But here is a live link:

http://www.electricpolitics.com/media/docs/authoritarians.pdf

[pbrower2a]

At this point, approval and favorability can't be far off from each other.

Colorado, Keating Research. 35-64 favorable.unfavorable.  The unfavorable figure was 55% in March.

Others: Senators Bennett (D) 57%, Gardner (R)
44% favorability.

California, Public Policy Institute
Nov 10-19 (Last poll Sept. 27)

All adults
Trump approval: 28% (+1)
Trump disapproval: 68% (-1)
Undecided: 5% (+1)

Likely voters
Trump approval: 34% (+3)
Trump disapproval: 63% (-3)
Undecided: 3%

P.S. -- I have been polled in Michigan. It is a favorability poll, but it is hard to distinguish the meaning between favorability and approval at this point.

Using "likely voters" for California,  


This approval map shows  electoral votes to the states on the approval map.

Trump approval, net positive

55% or higher
50-54%
44-49%

Ties are in white.

Trump approval, net negative

44-49%
40-45%
39% or lower

But raw disapproval numbers appear instead  of electoral votes here:

Disapproval (net negative for Trump) :

55% or higher
50-54%
44-49%

Ties are in white.

(net positive for Trump)
46-49%  
41-45%
40% or lower

[pbrower2a]

Wait till we see how the tax giveaway bill goes, and whether people take the Flynn plea seriously.

[pbrower2a]

Gallup, 11/30

Approve 34 (-2)
Disapprove 60 (+3)

Big movement over the last 2 days, and the worst Trump's been in Gallup for a while.  Need a few more days to see if it's a real trend or just typical daily tracker fluctuation.

Which is weird because Republicans has been improving across the board by about 2 or 3 points in my polls according to RCP but they are borderline fake news.
I think all the nazi stuff, the ICBM stuff, and now Mueller letting Flynn get away with treason with a slap on the wrist to spill the beans will take it's toll. Unless either people don't care anymore about anything, they distracted by the diddling, or that the tax bill is all the sudden "Wow! Free money!"

The 'free money' is for elites only.

I can imagine welfare being replaced with debt bondage. The people who really rule America are cruel, ruthless, amoral people with no moral compass, and they intend to reward themselves and their progeny for their vices forever.

I have English, Irish, French, Swiss, German, Belgian, Dutch, Danish, and Norwegian ancestors among non-aristocratic lines. I would rather be any one of the above nationalities than an American today.  

[pbrower2a]

Welcome to Italy in the mid-1920s. Mussolini slowly squeezed democracy, and didn't stick the knife into Italy until the assassination of Mateotti, a Socialist deputy who accused Mussolini of vote fraud.

All that it will take is for the Republicans to regulate the Democratic Party into impotence.

Make America Great Again -- if you loved the 1920s you will love Trump's America.

[pbrower2a]

I can imagine welfare being replaced with debt bondage. The people who really rule America are cruel, ruthless, amoral people with no moral compass, and they intend to reward themselves and their progeny for their vices forever.

dude you just described me!

I want to become a "vulture capitalist" because it's a good way to make money and I hate everyone else. If I get what I want, I don't care about anyone else getting their needs. The common man can die in poverty and rot in hell for the way they treated me when I was young.

Madame Guillotine or her equivalent could put an end to that state of affairs.

[pbrower2a]

Confessing that one has "lust in my heart" is far preferable to bragging that one grabs women by their (crotches). Donald Trump is about as vile a man as Jimmy Carter was decent.

[pbrower2a]

Carter 28% (June 1979)
GHW Bush 29% (July 1992)

Trump is going to be a one term president. I don't care what happened in 2016.

I still don't get why people act like 2016 proved approval numbers don't matter. All it proved was that if you take one unpopular candidate and pit them against another unpopular candidate, one will win, and not necessarily the one that is only slightly less unpopular.

As far as I am concerned, if Trump is as unpopular as he is now (or even slightly less so), he's not going to win reelection. If he faces off against someone who is fairly popular and clean, ethics-wise, most people who strongly disapprove of him will not vote for him again and those who only somewhat disapprove will probably defect in smaller but not insignificant numbers as well.

That's a fairly big if though. Popular and competent presidential candidates don't grow on trees and the Democratic Party is rather divided at the moment.

The only question is whether we will have free and competitive elections. This is no longer November 2016. If there is no free election, then American democracy is dead because the Reactionary Party will be able to establish itself as the Leading Force of American politics and amend the Constitution that makes America a paradise for plutocrats and a Hell for the helots.

Donald Trump is uniting people well enough that Democrats are concerned about two things:

(1) showing their contempt for this President, and
(2) winning.

That's what one gets with a President as offensive as Trump and a Congress beholden to people who have bought a bare majority of its members. This is the most corrupt and cruel government in the First World.

Undoing the damage that Donald Trump has done will likely take more than eight years.  Donald Trump and the GOP have promised undereducated white people improved lives -- those lives will surely get worse as wages plummet and taxes rise, all so that a few plutocrats can be transformed into a permanent aristocracy. Such has never been popular even in the South.

The only job growth that I can predict will be in domestic servants.

[pbrower2a]

Yeah, he isn't winning a second term with those numbers. I am starting to believe the theory that Trump won't even run in 2020.

Remember, he thought about running in 2012, but decided not too because he knew he would lose badly.

Dude... Trump's gonna be in prison by 2020

No, more likely a mental ward.

[pbrower2a]

Gallup, 12/1

Approve 33 (-1)
Disapprove 62 (+2)

This equals Trump's worst-ever numbers in Gallup on both ends. 

After being mostly stable for a few weeks, movement over the last few days has been very bad for Trump:

11/28: 38/55 (-17)
11/29: 36/57 (-21)
11/30: 34/60 (-26)
12/1: 33/62 (-29)

It's still a little too early to say whether this is a real trend.  Gallup uses a 3-day rolling average, so one or two very good or bad samples can have effects that last a few days.  If it still looks like this next week, then I'd be willing to call it a trend.

Throughout November, the President's approval ratings have typically been in the high 30s and disapproval in the middle 50s. The change is outside the margin of error. It could be an outlier or it could represent a transitory event.

This said, the guilty plea by Michael Flynn will not go away. The tax bill that the President wants as does America's new aristocratic elite but the rest of America despises will not go away. I saw a really-bad favorability poll for the President in Colorado last week: 64% unfavorability. Colorado may be drifting D about as rapidly as West Virginia drifted R in the early part of this century, but hardly any state swings that fast. Disapproval for the President in California is at 68%, as if the difference between  Clinton getting 61% of the vote in California and Trump being rejected by 68% of voters has any legal effect. It's still 55 electoral votes whether a Democrat gets a tiny plurality or 70% of the vote.

If these horrid approval ratings stick, I think I have an explanation.

If there are any statewide polls this weekend, then such might corroborate the tracking poll.     

[pbrower2a]

It is very worrying if only a handful of states are responsible for most of the movement. Not only does that mean that Trump is more popular with the middle, it also means that some of these other states might start to see themselves as not really part of what is going on. That would probably take decades for it to become an issue if ever... or not.

Colorado is probably still close to the middle. In 2016 it was competitive in the Presidential election.

We so far have a paucity of state polling. Most of what I have on my polling map is composites from national polling; thus an entity like Gallup releases the results of several polls from different times that were not originally separated by state but are  combined at some point.  Gallup in any poll (and I speak of Gallup because Gallup is more clear in its expression of its polling) gets a national poll based upon a national sampling that typically has too few respondents in any one state to give an accurate poll of that state. But get enough such data from the same state from polls at different times, and one gets enough data to give a picture of what a single poll would show.

The Gallup tracking poll that just appeared indicates a Presidency intensely unpopular in America. It cannot say whether the unpopularity arises from policies or from assessments of a personality. Most likely, both personality and policies  both interact.  

We need more statewide polling to establish whether the trend is confined to a few states reliably D over several elections or states rapidly lurching D (Colorado and Virginia?) I notice that a recent poll of Alabama suggested that although support for President Trump is stronger than opposition, the net support for the President is far lower than is the norm for previous Republican Presidents (Reagan and both Bushes, and anything before that is practically ancient history). I do not predict any statewide polling.  Trump would be OK in a re-election bid if his best 'losing' state (he will lose Michigan in 2020) would give him 32% of the vote and his worst 'winning' state is Pennsylvania, which lets him squeak by with 20 popular votes but is the difference between 252 electoral votes for him and 272 electoral votes. But that is a probabilistic freak, something indicating that someone rigged the election.

At this point I predict that the best projection of the 2020 vote is that the President gets 100% less the disapproval rating in a binary election. Thus if the disapproval rating for Trump is 57% in Michigan, then the most that Trump can get in Michigan is 43%. Could he win with 43% of the vote? Only if his opposition is split, as between conventional Democrats and a new and powerful Socialist or even Communist party.  But such does not yet loom.

At this point I must treat any immediate response to an outrageous deed or unpopular policy  of the President or a polarizing and unpopular piece of legislation as a temporary and reversible event. My main map is cautious and slow to respond, reflecting the paucity of polls so far. I expect that to change in about a month as Senate races and control of the House of Representatives will become more frequent as is the norm in all midterm elections. I do not make inferences of 'likely polling' from extrapolations of national tracking unless I so indicate.

OK. It is a reasonable assumption that the Democrats are not going to cut into the white vote for Republicans enough to put states in the Deep or Mountain South in play for any potential Presidential nominee in 2020, and that there is going to be no sudden lurch toward the 50-50 split in states that Republicans just do not win except in landslides like 1980. 1984, and 1988. I think that we can agree that  at this point nobody needs concern himself with any state that Trump won or lost by 10% or more or in which he got  less than 45.5% of the vote (you will see what state that means.

States that I deem potentially in play at this stage based upon 2016 results are in colors other than gray. Here we go:

Utah 2016, Trump getting much less than a majority of the vote (45.05%)
Trump won by 8.0 to 9.99%
Trump won by 4.0 to 7.99%
Trump won by 1.0 to 3.99%
(white) Trump won by less than 1%
Clinton won by less than 4%
Clinton won by 4.0 to 7.99%
Clinton won by 8.0 to 9.99%

I have Florida in a really pale shade of blue because Trump won the state by 1.22% and New Hampshire in a really-pale shade of pink because Clinton won it by less than 1%.

I don't have a split of Maine by popular vote in the two Congressional districts, but I would guess that ME-01 is very solidly Democratic, and that ME-02 went to Trump in the same range as did Georgia. That's conservative on my part. But with that I get to add NE-02 for political symmetry, and I am guessing that Trump won it by slightly less than 10% and that Clinton won ME-01 by a similar margin.

Why do I show Utah? All that it would take for Trump to lose Utah would be for a Third Party or independent candidate  to get Democrats to decide to not waste their vote on the Democratic nominee for President and vote instead for some conservative who better fits LDS  (Mormon) values  than does Donald Trump.

4% is the usual margin of error. In that range anyone who makes any prediction of absolute certainty is a fool and the only definitive result is the election itself. This is with the dynamics of 2016 which I must consider relevant.  But this is assuming that results of 2016 have relevance in 2020. In the last three presidential elections involving an incumbent President, the statewide maps of the election changed little from the election that put the incumbent in and the one in which the incumbent sought re-election. That in mind, electoral history of the states is relevant.

Going back to 1992, as there are seven Presidential elections bearing some possible relevance to this one (and anything before that is either the GOP landslides of 1980, 1984, and 1988 which will not be approached and elections from 1976 or earlier when the Democratic party was stronger in the Middle and Deep South and the Democrats usually lost states outside the South except for a few scattered from Minnesota to Massachusetts)

Democratic seven times
Democratic six times
Democratic five times
Democratic four times (white)
Democratic three times
Democratic once
Republican seven times

No state has voted for the Democratic nominee in exactly two elections on this map.

I know, of course, that this history is relatively crude. It will be relevant, demographics notwithstanding, that the Democrats have a very weak  position for winning any statewide election in Arizona or Georgia (one-time Bill Clinton wins, and close to somewhat close in 2016), let alone Texas. Utah is obviously a pipe dream for any Democrat or independent under all but the most extreme circumstances. Trump getting so close in Minnesota is itself a shocker, but I see plenty of ways for Minnesota to be a very bad state for Trump in 2020 and copious evidence in polling data that he will fare badly there. That Democrats usually win Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin indicates that Donald Trump must achieve his promises without offending too many sensibilities to win those states. Likewise, that Bill Clinton lost Colorado and Florida once in the 1990s may not be particularly relevant. In view of the 2016 election it is absurd that Colorado and Ohio should be in the same category, but they are on this map of electoral history. The same applies to Florida and Virginia.






  

    

[pbrower2a]

(continued)

So how can I combine relevant  issues such as the way the state voted in 2016 (which must matter greatly in an objective projection of the 2020 election) and the last seven elections?

Assign one point for the number of times in which a Democratic nominee won the state and one point for belonging in a category most unfavorable to Trump  (7 for Hillary Clinton winning by 8% or more, 6 for her winning by 4% to 7.9%, 5 for her winning by less than 4%, 4 for a loss by her under 1%,  5 for a loss between 1% and 1.99%, 6 for a loss of 2 to 5.99%, and 7 for a loss of 6% or more.  I am arbitrarily assigning a value of '4' to Utah because Trump got a smaller share of the total vote in Utah than he got in Michigan.

This is a probabilistic construction based upon the direction and margin of the vote in 2016 and the electoral history of the states beginning in 1992:

0 points [/color] (Texas)
2 to 4
5 to 7
8
9 to 11
12 or 13 (Maine, New Mexico, ME-01)

Before someone says that Iowa is lost to the Democrats, one must remember why the state voted in five of the last seven Presidential elections for a Democratic nominee. With Ohio, one must ask why the Democrats won four of the last seven such contests. On the other side, one must ask anyone who thinks that either Arizona, Georgia, or North Carolina will go for just about any Democrat due to demographics or some other state trend why those states voted in six of the last seven times for Republican nominees for President.  One can of course distinguish Florida and Virginia... and Colorado and Ohio.  

Circumstances and candidates will matter.

I am not filling in the other states because I have no reason to believe that they would vote differently from how they voted in 2016, barring a landslide win by either side.

[pbrower2a]

Among Millennials

Approve: 19%
Disapprove: 74%
DK/NA: 7%

Wow! For Republicans this is almost as bad as a 'minority' vote. If it is well motivated to vote it is going to bring about Democratic wins in places in which such wins look unlikely. 

The GOP is finished

Conference committee announces excise tax on avocado toast

Wow! For Republicans this is almost as bad as a 'minority' vote. If it is well motivated to vote it is going to bring about Democratic wins in places in which such wins look unlikely. 

[pbrower2a]

Extreme outlier.

[pbrower2a]

...and 2022. Any US Senators elected with known aid of Russian aid in the 2016 election will be up for re-election then. Reasonable expectations in 2016 were that Democrats would cut into the Republican wave of 2010 in the Senate.

[pbrower2a]

At this point, approval and favorability can't be far off from each other.

Colorado, Keating Research. 35-64 favorable.unfavorable.  The unfavorable figure was 55% in March.

Others: Senators Bennett (D) 57%, Gardner (R)
44% favorability.

California, Public Policy Institute
Nov 10-19 (Last poll Sept. 27)

All adults
Trump approval: 28% (+1)
Trump disapproval: 68% (-1)
Undecided: 5% (+1)

Likely voters
Trump approval: 34% (+3)
Trump disapproval: 63% (-3)
Undecided: 3%

P.S. -- I have been polled in Michigan. It is a favorability poll, but it is hard to distinguish the meaning between favorability and approval at this point.

Using "likely voters" for California...  

An update on Colorado. I would rather would rather see an approval poll for some other state, but here I have an approval poll of Colorado that supplants a favorability poll.  PPP, which does a great quantity of statewide  polling and of a wider variety of states than anyone else, has the President's approval at 36% and disapproval at 56%. I prefer approval or some other measure of achievement as opposed to liking and disliking.  The difference between apples and oranges, that is between unfavorability by one pollster and disapproval by another is huge, and the 64% unfavorable rating of the older poll could have been an exaggeration. Between favorability and approval the difference is really slight.

55% disapproval is utterly awful in what has usually been understood as a swing state since the 1990s. Maybe Colorado isn't a swing state anymore. Or is it? This isn't far from some national tracking polls. Colorado may not be the problem for Donald Trump.     

Colorado, PPP: approval 36%, disapproval 56%

 
https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/ColoradoPoll121117.pdf

This approval map shows  electoral votes to the states on the approval map.

Trump approval, net positive

55% or higher
50-54%
44-49%

Ties are in white.

Trump approval, net negative

44-49%
40-45%
39% or lower

But raw disapproval numbers appear instead  of electoral votes here:

Disapproval (net negative for Trump) :

55% or higher
50-54%
44-49%

Ties are in white.

(net positive for Trump)
46-49%  
41-45%
40% or lower

[pbrower2a]

Trump's approval rating at an all time low in RCP (37.3 percent average)

Trump and the GOP are done!

Barring electoral fraud on a scale or manner characteristic of most of eastern Europe between 1945 and 1989, Donald Trump cannot get re-elected. Gerrymandering of House seats gives Republicans an edge that would help them in a near-even election, but could hurt them badly in a wave election.

About a day from now (12/12/2017, approaching midnight) we could have one of the strongest possible indicators of a wave against the GOP (Doug Jones winning a Senate seat in Alabama?)  We could also have nothing at all.  

But let's not forget: the GOP is consummately ruthless and unprincipled.  

...If you are thinking that the current situation could lead to the electoral demise of the GOP, then wait at least twelve years unless the Party folds or splinters. Republicans took an electoral beating every electoral year from 1930 to 1944, only to win a House majority in 1948 and the Presidency in 1952. I might want to show how similar the electoral maps of 1928 and 1952 (or 1956) were.    

[pbrower2a]

...If you are thinking that the current situation could lead to the electoral demise of the GOP, then wait at least twelve years unless the Party folds or splinters. Republicans took an electoral beating every electoral year from 1930 to 1944, only to win a House majority in 1948 and the Presidency in 1952. I might want to show how similar the electoral maps of 1928 and 1952 (or 1956) were.    

Eisenhower wasn't totally off his rocker though. Parties die when they get too extreme. Who wants to associate themselves with today's GOP? This creates sort of a death spiral for the party.

The Parties have so changed in their orientations since the 1950s that by 2012, Obama did not win a single state that Eisenhower lost. Hawaii and DC did not vote in the Presidential elections of 1952 or 1956. Three states that Ike won both years (Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island) have since been difficult states for Republicans to win. Minnesota was the worst state (and only loss) for Reagan in 1984; Massachusetts was Reagan's second-worst state that year. The opposite was true in 1972, when Nixon lost Massachusetts  but won even his second-weakest state (Minnesota). Not since 1924 had any Republican won all three states and not since 1956 has any Republican won all three states together in any Presidential election.

Eisenhower and Obama must have had similarities of behavior and temperament that fit the Northeast and the Far West very well. I might retrieve the map, but I am about to start on another project.

[pbrower2a]

Marist (December 4th - December 7th, 2017)


National Registered Voters
Approve: 39%
Disapprove: 55%
Unsure: 6%

Region
Northeast: 28% 64% 8%
Midwest: 42% 48% 10%
South: 45% 49% 7%
West: 29% 67% 4%

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/usapolls/us171204_KoC/Marist%20Poll%20National%20Nature%20of%20the%20Sample%20and%20Tables_December%202017.pdf#page=3

Guessing what the regions are:

[pbrower2a]

Monmouth, Dec 10-12, 806 adults (change from Sept)

Approve 32 (-8)
Disapprove 56 (+7)

Record (by far) low approval and high disapproval for this poll.

Generic Congressional ballot: 51 D, 36 R

Good lord.

Everyone thought Mondale was joking when he's saying "GOP is finished!"...

Note that when one sees a difference of this scale we recognize a trend different from statistical noise.

[pbrower2a]

Trump refuses to believe his low poll numbers:



2018 is gonna be so good

The only opinion Trump really cares about is his own, therefore he has 100% approval.

What could be more definitive than an exit poll? To not be in deep political trouble, a Republican President needs to have an approval rating near 60% in this, a state that has been "Safe R" since 2000.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2017/12/14/iowa-poll-60-percent-iowans-disapprove-donald-trumps-job-performance/945229001/

Iowa

Approval: 35
Disapproval: 60

B-but I was told Iowa is now as red as Vermont in the 1930s???

Disapproval of the President has typically been in the low 50s, which has not been good for the President. Republicans can be glad that neither of their Senators is up for re-election in the toxic environment of 2018. Iowa has gone for the Democratic nominee for President in five of the last seven Presidential elections, and this suggests that Iowa is almost as hostile to Trump as California or Massachusetts. Iowa is usually a swing state; it was the tipping point state in the near-landslide of Obama in 2008.

Don't complain about the pollster; it's Selzer for the Des Moines Register. Selzer is one of the best-recognized pollsters in America.

Two states that could hardly be more different in their politics  suggest a collapse for Trump support. 

This approval map shows  electoral votes to the states on the approval map.

Trump approval, net positive

55% or higher
50-54%
44-49%

Ties are in white.

Trump approval, net negative

44-49%
40-45%
39% or lower

But raw disapproval numbers appear instead  of electoral votes here:

Disapproval (net negative for Trump) :

55% or higher
50-54%
44-49%

Ties are in white.

(net positive for Trump)
46-49%  
41-45%
40% or lower