Trump approval ratings thread 1.3

[pbrower2a]

Democracy Corps (D), June 1-5, 1400 RV with a subsample of 518 in 12 "battleground states": AZ, CO, FL, GA, MI, MN, NV, NM, OH, PA, TN, WI

National:

Approve 45 (strongly 21)
Disapprove 55 (strongly 42)

Battleground states:

Approve 46 (strongly 20)
Disapprove 54 (strongly 40)

Generic Congressional ballot: National D 51, R 42 (D+9), Battleground states D 49, R 43 (D+6)

Iowa and Texas could be considered 'battleground states. But so are Maine and New Hampshire.

...Still, this is all very bad news for Republicans. This group is fairly close to the national average, but if anything a bit more R than the US as a whole. The strong disapproval to strong approval ratio is 2 to 1, which means that any Republican will need to distance himself from Donald Trump to get elected or re-elected in most places.

Pack-and-sack protects majority election of a minority party through gerrymandering until the party with the advantage fails. We already see signs of failure.   

[pbrower2a]

So I figured I'd take a stab at guessing what Trump's approval was in each of those battleground states in the poll and then see what all the states combined would average by weighting them along their share of the 2016 electorate. Without revising anything after projecting each state, my combined "gut number" came out right on (46% approval in the battlegrounds). Mainly just for fun, but maybe it can at least give us some parameters. "TMP" is the Trump approval figure:

Code:

ST	16VOTE	PCTVOTE	TMP
AZ	2.6m		5.7%	50	2.85
CO	2.8m		6.1%	44	2.68
FL	9.5m		20.7%	46	9.52
GA	4.1m		9.0%	48	4.32
MI	4.8m		10.5%	43	4.51
MN	2.9m		6.3%	42	2.65
NV	1.1m		2.4%	44	1.06
NM	0.8m		1.7%	42	0.71
OH	5.5m		12.0%	50	6
PA	6.2m		13.5%	42	5.67
TN	2.5m		5.5%	56	3.08
WI	3.0m		6.6%	43	2.84

T 	45.8m	100%	45.9

In larger print:

Code:

ST   16VOTE   PCTVOTE   TMP
AZ   2.6m      5.7%   50   2.85
CO   2.8m      6.1%   44   2.68
FL   9.5m      20.7%   46   9.52
GA   4.1m      9.0%   48   4.32
MI   4.8m      10.5%   43   4.51
MN   2.9m      6.3%   42   2.65
NV   1.1m      2.4%   44   1.06
NM   0.8m      1.7%   42   0.71
OH   5.5m      12.0%   50   6
PA   6.2m      13.5%   42   5.67
TN   2.5m      5.5%   56   3.08
WI   3.0m      6.6%   43   2.84

T    45.8m   100%   45.9

Good statistical work as a result even if the style is unorthodox.  As a predictor of the Trump vote I would still go with 100-DIS as a ceiling, a conservative estimation of the maximum for voting against Donald Trump either for supporting the Democratic nominee or (for those unwilling to go so far as to vote for a Democratic nominee) voting, most likely, for a conservative Third Party or independent candidate. I can think of only one state in which a third-party alternative could end up in first place -- Utah. Such might require Utah Democrats to avoid wasting their vote for a Democratic nominee and vote for a non-Trump conservative.

I would expect Trump approval to be a bit lower, based on existing polls, in Arizona and Ohio.  This said, should either state decide the election, then President Trump is defeated anyway.   

[pbrower2a]

Maybe you guys need to step back a bit and realize

a) the economy plays a large role in the approval/disapproval of the president. The economy has been performing well lately, and Americans (who early on in trump's term were still giving credit to Obama) are increasingly giving him the credit now. He now has a tax law he can brag about, whether or not it is true.

b) Americans saying the nation is moving in right direction is at highest % since 2005, according to gallup.

c) The north korea summit was viewed as a success by even 49% of dems, according to monmouth, and 40% of dems according to Morning consult.

The country really isn't on fire at all when you step out of your bubble. Does trump deserve criticism for some/lots of stuff. Yes, he does.

But it is incredible to me that you guys expect his approvals to be in 20s or low 30s at this point.

You are at least partly correct. But the economy is still running on inertia from the solid policies of Obama, and that can end quickly. The tariffs will destabilize our economy.

Yes, most people want an agreement to remove the nukes and missiles from North Korea, but it is going to take more than a signature on a paper. Neville Chamberlain got that from Antichrist Hitler, and we know the subsequent events.  A good agreement will involve China and Russia as enforcers and the consent of South Korea -- perhaps Japan, too.

But note well that the President is corrupt and cruel, two characteristics that have never gone well with American voters.   

[pbrower2a]

I was polled in Michigan -- and it is approval and disapproval of the President, Senator Stabenow, and the Representative. Expect to see a poll. 

[pbrower2a]

On the North Korean summit --

Barack Obama would have struck a deal with China, which is in a far better position to enforce any deal on North Korean nukes.  The stated position of the People's Republic of China is that it wants a nuclear-free Korean peninsula. South Korea already prohibits the US from stationing nukes on South Korean territory. 

[pbrower2a]

West Virginia: Monmouth, June 14-19, 653 RV

Approve 66 (strongly 49)
Disapprove 30 (strongly 23)

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/MonmouthPoll_WV_062018/

 

No change in Wisconsin since March:

https://twitter.com/MULawPoll/status/1009494123835994112

55% or higher dark blue
50-54% medium blue
less than 50% but above disapproval pale blue
even white
46% to 50% but below disapproval pale red
42% to 45% medium red
under 42% deep red

States and districts hard to see:

CT 39
DC 17
DE 39
HI 33
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 45
NE-02 38
NE-03 55
NH 39
RI 30
VT 32

Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.

100-Disapproval

55% or higher dark blue
50% to 54% or higher but not tied medium blue
50% or higher but positive pale blue

ties white

45% or higher and negative pale red
40% to 44% medium red
under 40% deep red

States and districts hard to see:

CT 41
DC 20
DE 43
HI 36
NH 49
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 55
NE-02 46
NE-03 66
RI 30
VT 36


Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.


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

[pbrower2a]

I see we’ve hit yet another cycle of “Trump does retarded/evil thing X, therefore he’s finished.”

When will you guys learn that ~35-40% of the country couldn’t care less if he had these kids and chained by a dog collar to a rung inside a kennel. Some might start caring if the economy goes south, but even then, most would just blame Hillary or something

That 35-40% of the public is not enough to win an election. That is close to what Hoover got in 1932 as the people expected no end to the economic meltdown so long as he was bungling the economy. Carter fared worse in percentage of the vote because John Anderson got about 6% of the popular vote in 1980 (Reagan still got over 50% of the vote and won decisively).

To win a Presidential election one needs far more than the base.  In a few instances a third-party nominee like LaFollette in 1924, Wallace in 1968, Anderson in 1980, or Perot in 1992 and 1996 can cut into a Party's base... we shall see if that happens in 2020. Despite the large number of Democrats as prospects for winning the 2020 nomination there is so little difference in ideology between them that personality and campaign style will matter more in the general election than anything else. Democrats will be united against Trump, but Republicans might not be.

Liberals can assert themselves this time as proponents of family values, law and order, rule of law, clean government, a cautious foreign policy, respect for legal precedent, and a preference for governments with democratic principles over dictatorial regimes. The Democrats would be best to have the nominee most similar to Obama in competence, integrity, and ability to communicate -- basically a liberal version of Ronald Reagan.

At this point I cannot see Trump doing worse than Hoover in 1932 or Carter in 1980. That is the floor that I see for any incumbent -- about 55 electoral votes, and that requires Trump to lose Texas (which I see possible).

But this is not the thread for predicting the results of the 2020 Presidential election. I look at the horrible disapproval numbers for Donald Trump in contrast to those of Barack Obama eight years ago, Dubya sixteen years ago, and Clinton twenty-four years ago -- Trump is far worse. True, none of them had stellar approval rates -- but they did not have such horrid rates of disapproval. It is possible to bring the undecided to one's side. Those who disapprove have given up, and winning them back takes a masterful politician who would have never gotten into that situation to begin with.

So let me tell you about canvassing, a way in which non-politician activists get out the vote for an incumbent. I did so for Obama, and it works like this.

I meet someone who strongly approves. The conversation becomes, "Yes, I am going to vote for him. Do you really think that he can lose? OK, maybe I will make some phone calls from the local campaign headquarters".

Slightly approves: "Well, he's OK. I think I will vote for him".

Undecided: I bring up his achievements and show the weaknesses of the opponent.

Slightly disapprove. This is where I beg and plead, and it usually does not work.

Strongly disapprove. I hear something like "How could you possibly vote for that Communist Muslim supporter of Black Power?"

Canvassing works, and it may explain why incumbents (not only the President) can win with approval in the high 40s. But it can work only when disapproval is still under 50%.  Of course it is still only June 2018, and we have yet to see how the midterms go. I cannot say definitively that President Trump will not change his ways if he finds his Party clobbered in the 2018 midterm election as did Bill Clinton. This man will sacrifice what few principles he has just so that he can see himself as a winner.

This said, much damage has been done to his reputation.  

 

[pbrower2a]

Sounds like a temporary immigration slump to me. Should turn into a bump after Trump's cave settles in.

Temporary? Not at that outrage! The whole sordid mess shows that the President is a horrible person. Caving by ceasing to do what one can't get away with is not an acquiescence to moral values. The damage has been done, and anyone who suggests otherwise is a fool. President Trump can't divest himself of the contempt that this horror has done.

Now there are accusations that some of the child detainees have been drugged without their consent or that of their parents while under the custody of government contractors. By the way -- those children should also have access to such religious life as their parents deem fit, which in most cases will be the Roman Catholic Church.

We are just lucky that we have a heritage of responsible government described as liberalism. We will need to restore it to the extent possible in November.

[pbrower2a]

Minnesota, PPP:

43-52 approval
re-elect Donald Trump 41, vote for Democrat 51, not sure 8

June 15-16.

https://www.scribd.com/document/382108093/Minnesota-PPP-Trump-Poll

In this case, 100-DIS looks like a good proxy for 'voting against' President Trump.

Gonzalez Research/Baltimore Sun: Trump approval is only 37%. Disapproval not shown, but it has to be high.
 

55% or higher dark blue
50-54% medium blue
less than 50% but above disapproval pale blue
even white
46% to 50% but below disapproval pale red
42% to 45% medium red
under 42% deep red

States and districts hard to see:

CT 39
DC 17
DE 39
HI 33
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 45
NE-02 38
NE-03 55
NH 39
RI 30
VT 32

Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.

100-Disapproval

55% or higher dark blue
50% to 54% or higher but not tied medium blue
50% or higher but positive pale blue

ties white

45% or higher and negative pale red
40% to 44% medium red
under 40% deep red

States and districts hard to see:

CT 41
DC 20
DE 43
HI 36
NH 49
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 55
NE-02 46
NE-03 66
RI 30
VT 36


Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.


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



[/quote]

[pbrower2a]

43% is about where pretty much every modern President besides the Bushes have been at this point. Not really indicative of anything.

I agree, but there are many posters on here who believe it somehow portends a Dem landslide in 2020. Obama’s numbers in the summer of 2010 were basically exactly where Trump’s are now, but that’s an ignored fact around here.

Lmao you're really trying to shove in our faces the fact that a first-term president has only increased his favorability 2.6 pts in a year and a half. His job approval has been in the dumps since he began his presidency and the averages continually show him down.

You lost the election.

Many people who voted for Donald Trump are disgruntled with him. Fewer who voted against him regret voting for Hillary Clinton.

One election does not define the result of the next one.

[pbrower2a]

Approval is not the deciding factor unless it is near or above 50%, in which case all that matters is that one get out the vote An incumbent with 50% or higher approval will be nearly impossible to beat. (That is if you do not have binary matchups available. Thus "Trump 51 - Klobuchar 47" suggests that Trump wins in the relevant state, and if there is plenty of time, Klobuchar will say that there is plenty of time to turn things around).

100-DIS is my predictor of the Trump ceiling. Any Democratic nominee who can get above that will win.   "DIS" means disapproval -- but disapproval can also mean disappointment or disgust. Disapproval of any incumbent politician basically means giving up on that politician. If you are canvassing for Trump and you meet someone who says "No way am I voting for that fascist pig", then you leave. Maybe the dismissal is a bit more polite, but all in all one says that one cannot vote for him, there is no issue that you can bring up that will change things.

With someone undecided you can usually bring up something positive. "He's giving us a job-creating tax cut" or "he's putting an end to growth-stopping regulations" might work. On the other side, if you are canvassing for Klobuchar you might call to attention that he has been doing great harm to the environment that you so cherish while a kayak is in sight. You can;t simply say to someone who supports Trump, "Don't bother to vote".

By the late summer of 2020 Democrats will have nominees, and approval-disapproval numbers will be less important than match-ups, if anything shadowing the binary matchups.

Sure, you say -- but we have seen elections in which the winner gets 47% of the vote -- in three-way elections. If the third-party nominee is on the Right, then he probably cuts into the Trump vote and turns a 47 into a 41 or so. If the third-Party nominee is on the Left, then that cuts the floor for Klobuchar from perhaps 42 to 46, and Trump just might win that state with 53% disapproval. The model that I use for a Third-Party or independent nominee is John Anderson in 1980.

We are 29 and a half months from the 2020 Presidential election, but in the meantime much of the reputation of Donald Trump is being set in stone. Anything derogatory can be revived in time for the election. old, derogatory facts do not go away.

The only chances for a Trump victory are:

1. the liberal side of the spectrum be split with Third party or independent alternatives

2. his connection to derogatory news be repudiated

3. cultural change make him seem closer to the mainstream

4. the Democrats nominate someone with severe weaknesses, or

5. everything that everyone assumes about American elections proves wrong.

[pbrower2a]

Worth keeping in mind, in broad outline:

2012: Obama gets ~66 million votes to Romney's ~61 million votes. Obama carries every swing state except NC.
2016: Clinton gets ~66 million votes to Trump's ~63 million votes. Trump carries most of the swing states, some by whopping margins like Ohio, but most by 1-2 points. Only swing state he doesn't carry is NH, narrowly, by under half a %.

Trump's support is a castle of sand with numerous vulnerabilities, and even a minor Dem overperformance of Clinton would put him in serious trouble in any number of physical areas. He won Florida by 1.2%, for example, pretty much solely on the basis of a massive surge of turnout and swamping Romney's totals in GOP parts of the state even as Clinton overperformed Obama elsewhere. A relatively minor cut to the motivation of Trump's base in FL puts him under water there, and FL is huge and massively important.

I can think of only one constituency who will support him more in 2020 than in 2016: moneyed elites who distrusted his demagoguery. He has done well for them through tax cuts and relaxation of regulation. It's a small number of voters, but it has the great asset to any politician: huge amounts of cash that it can lavish on right-wing politicians of all kinds. Such people may be more important than their numbers would suggest -- unless the numbers have dollar signs attached. Money matters greatly in our political system, but it isn't everything.

Donald Trump never promised to ravage the environment -- and there are plenty of environment voters. A conservative politician can only go so far with them on making promises to create better opportunities so that they can afford more gear and the gas for getting to the recreational sites -- but take away or degrade those sites, and you lose 'conservation' voters. He did not promise deteriorating relations with just about every democratic society on Earth, but if you debase diplomatic relations with Germany and the UK for no obvious reason I have serious questions about you.

Farmers and ranchers are typically reliable, complacent Republican voters -- until you hit them in the pocketbook. If the trade wars go as some fear, it could be farmers and ranchers who get hurt worst. Although farmers and ranchers are not a majority in any state, they are enough to offset the relatively liberal vote in such places as Fargo, Bismarck, Sioux Falls, Omaha, and Lincoln. Add farmers to a liberal bloc in such states as Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin,  and things get scary for Republicans in those states. Farmers will need huge crop subsidies just to offset lower commodity prices and higher fuel price, and they won't get those fast enough to steam at Trump. (I'm calling this one now). 

Americans have shown that they hate any semblance of child abuse -- ever and to anyone. Heck, gays and lesbians got same-sex marriage in part because they excoriated sexual abuse of children. But you get the "orchestra without a conductor", and it isn't the Prague Chamber Orchestra that I would love to see in concert. Oh, the children are illegal aliens? Do you think that someone would get away with abuse of any kind of children who happen to be illegal aliens? If an illegal alien does that, thenuch is good for swift deportation after any prison term. Naturalized citizen? Denaturalization followed by swift deportation after any prison term. US citizen by birth? It's too bad that we can't deport those creeps.

Maybe illegal aliens must be deported, but children who happen to be illegal aliens have a right to not be abused. This looks so far like the one thing for which President Trump will be most remembered in 2020 -- the loudly-paternalistic leader neglectful about the consequences of his administrative policies upon helpless children.

 Whatever their political beliefs, Americans are for integrity in government, and the President has picked some doozies as Cabinet secretaries and other high officials. To be sure, just about every visionary seems at first to be a fanatic, but his choices seem to either be fanatics devoid of vision -- or out-and-out shysters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Democrats may make different mistakes in 2020, but they won't assume Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin safe until they are so locked up that Donald Trump's campaign can't make a big ad buy in those states. Likewise Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire,  or Virginia. As America de-industrializes, states like Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin become more rural and have agriculture as a bigger share of their economies. But I predict that Donald Trump's tariffs will hurt farmers in those states and cause many to vote Democratic for the first times in their lives. (By 2020 one would have to be 77 to have voted for LBJ over Barry Goldwater).

So don't neglect farm-and-ranch issues, Democrats. The most progressive time for America in economics happened after this change in American political life:


this (Hoover 58.22%, 444 electoral votes, Smith 40.79%, 87 electoral votes)




to this (FDR 57.41%, 472 electoral votes, Hoover 39.75%, 59 electoral votes)



this (Hoover 58.22%, 444 electoral votes, Smith 40/79%, 87 electoral votes)

 

[pbrower2a]

I seem to remember Bill Clinton getting 370 EV's out of 43% of the NPV. Say what you want, but winning a presidential election despite 57% of voters voting against you was a raw miscarriage of democracy...much more so than 2000 or 2016. I'll be creating a thread on this soon.

Hey, if you're proposing a national top-two style runoff Presidential election like France does, I'm all for that and think it's the most reasonable way of doing a Presidential election. But Constitutional Amendments are hard.

I'm just saying...people talk about 2000 and 2016 as if they were colossal disgraces to democracy, yet Bill Clinton underperformed Wendell freakin' Wilkie in the NPV but you never hear a word about it. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

Have you forgotten that there was a Presidential candidate by the name of Ross Perot who got nearly 19% of the popular vote that year? Subtract the Perot vote, and 43% of 81% is 53% of the rest, which is close to what Obama got in 2008, and Obama won 365 electoral votes in 2008, which is hard to distinguish from 370 -- and with a very different electoral map.

Oh, did anyone notice that Donald Trump won only a half-percent more in the share of the popular vote in 2016 than did Mike Dukakis in 1988? Dukakis ended up with only 111 electoral votes that year. Just saying...

[pbrower2a]

The reason third party candidates did so well in 2016 was due to both Hillary and Trumps massive unpopularity. If Democrats nominate someone with decent favorables, that wont happen again, at least not to such an extent.

Like I said above, easier said than done. It’s been 42 years since a Democrat not named Obama won a majority at the presidential level. Democrats are not going to have an easy path to 270 if Trump is getting 47-48% in the NPV.

The Presidency is decided in the Electoral College, and getting the right votes matters more than getting a plurality of the vote. When the spread in the vote between the top two candidates, getting the 'right' votes instead of winning the plurality is practically impossible.

The 2016 Presidential election was a freak, and many Americans are stuck with a President that they despise for moral reasons other than positions on issues. (This allows differences on such polarizing issues as abortion, 'gun rights', homosexuality, school prayer, and the teaching of evolution -- or on economic priorities as shown in labor law or the budgetary process).

So if Dubya was certifiably an awful President who got away early with bad policies early that imploded late in his Presidency, those of Donald Trump are proving harmful early. If you think Barack Obama was polarizing for what he is, Donald Trump is polarizing for what he does.

In any event, many are looking at the current Presidency and assessing whether we think he can and will be re-elected -- or how he can be re-elected. That we have had three consecutive two-term Presidents says something about the likelihood of Donald Trump being re-elected; if he is at least mediocre or is lucky enough that his bad policies don't blow up on us before November 2020, then he wins re-election. That we have not had a President die in office in nearly 55 years  does not mean that we will not have one who becomes as unfit to serve as Ronald Reagan was toward the end of his term. (Donald Trump is that old). That we have not had a President resign in disgrace since 1974 does not mean that he is exempt.

On the other hand, one looks at the Gallup approval polls for Presidents beginning with Truman and going through Trump so far, and we see that at similar stages of their Presidencies, Donald Trump is behind them all. But Reagan was not so far ahead, and got re-elected in a landslide? OK, so Reagan and Trump are both similar in age and are both Republicans. But -- Reagan got the nickname "the Great Communicator", and except for Obama, no subsequent President even comes close to Reagan as such. Reagan could calm public opinion, and could back off a trial balloon when the trial balloon failed. Reagan followed a troubled Presidency* which had failed to solve stagflation and had the bad luck of misjudging a situation in Iran -- and Reagan solved the problem. Trump follows a better-than-average President and has made a mess of what was already there. Donald Trump is not another Ronald Reagan. Obama is a better analogue for Reagan despite obvious dissimilarities, following an even more-failed Presidency.

OK, so only 44 people have been President (Cleveland was President in non-consecutive terms), and what applies to nineteenth-century Presidents  does not generally apply today. If you wonder why I project him to do badly in a bid for re-election even if his approval ratings are in the range (at times as high as 45%) it is something unique to American Presidents: pervasive scandals and a selection of polarizing figures (a euphemism for 'fanatics') that will solidify opposition to him. American voters do not take well to scandals involving abuse of power or outright corruption.

It is possible for an incumbent politician to lose a re-election bid during a wave year favoring his Party (think of Governor Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania in 2014), even in a state (Governor Sean Parnell in Alaska in 2014) or district (Rep. William "Cold Cash" Jefferson, LA-02, but the district is mostly New Orleans, in 2008) if one has scandals of corruption or other abuse of power. Americans understand the concepts of 'corruption' and 'abuse of power' about as well as they understand pain in the pocketbook. Americans can vote for politicians who pander to the most rapacious plutocrats (just look at the current Congress) so long as those promise that such will bring unprecedented prosperity and continue to vote for them when the prosperity goes exclusively to those plutocrats so long as we don't get a severe economic downturn.

We tolerate much in the name of prosperity, but we do not tolerate politicians covering up for sexual abuse of minors involving people connected to a once-highly-regarded head coach of a state college football team, and we don't tolerate bribery or self-dealing. I doubt that President Trump is callow enough to have a freezer stuffed with cash from kickbacks, but it is probably wise to show a receipt from a Trump hotel before doing business with his administration. There have been some sleazy dealings in this Administration, and the "orchestra without a conductor" will surely dog this Administration.

Donald Trump won by appealing to the worst in human nature among nearly half of American voters, and those vices will remain. But most vices end up hurting those who fall for them. It might not be enough for a Democrat to appeal to the best in human nature against an incumbent President who acquiesces in the vices of most Americans. Just think of how well Walter Mondale did against Ronald Reagan. But Donald Trump is not Ronald Reagan.

President Trump can be defeated two ways: by the Democrat winning a decisive majority without simply running up the vote percentages in California, Illinois, Maryland, and New York, or by facing a challenge from someone from the conservative side of the political spectrum -- someone who is closer to the values of George Will of Steve Schmidt, neither of whom has any respect for this President.

It is hard to measure the effects of corruption against  bad economic conditions under Hoover or the combination of stagflation and an embassy takeover in Tehran under Carter. We have yet to fully assess the effects of the President's muddled tariffs (stagflation?) upon economic activity.

*Ronald Reagan defeated stagflation by successful reducing the expectations of most Americans.

[pbrower2a]

Arizona: Emerson, June 21-22, 650 registered voters

Approve 43
Disapprove 49

Texas, Texas Tribune: 47-44

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/25/ted-cruz-beto-orourke-poll-5-points-texas-senate-race-uttt/
 

55% or higher dark blue
50-54% medium blue
less than 50% but above disapproval pale blue
even white
46% to 50% but below disapproval pale red
42% to 45% medium red
under 42% deep red

States and districts hard to see:

CT 39
DC 17
DE 39
HI 33
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 45
NE-02 38
NE-03 55
NH 39
RI 30
VT 32

Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.

100-Disapproval

55% or higher dark blue
50% to 54% or higher but not tied medium blue
50% or higher but positive pale blue

ties white

45% or higher and negative pale red
40% to 44% medium red
under 40% deep red

States and districts hard to see:

CT 41
DC 20
DE 43
HI 36
NH 49
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 55
NE-02 46
NE-03 66
RI 30
VT 36


Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.


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

[pbrower2a]

I wonder how much of the drop is just Gallup reverting back from an outlier.

The week it got a bump was because of the Summit, the hit is likely because of the border crisis.

Sure, but extreme movement is unusual for Gallup.

Extreme movements with Gallup usually indicate an event improving or degrading the President's approval and disapproval numbers. An event like the 'concert performance' of the "orchestra without a conductor" is an unusual event for any Presidency.

I'm tempted to say that this is a big event in establishing public attitudes toward the President, but even the underworld-style hit on Osama bin Laden had only a short-term effect on approval polls for Barack Obama. But that was a positive, which may work differently.

[pbrower2a]

That's why extrapolation of trends is one of the most reckless of statistical risks possible. Follow the trend of securities prices in 1927, 1928, and up to the start of September 1929, and you can obviously see that America was on the brink of a new and unprecedented era of prosperity based upon the wealth of speculators. We all know what happened.

Approval ratings have their ups and down, and reversion to the mean is the most likely trend to persist. But the mean for President Trump has typically been near forty, and not in the mid-forties. An event like the nuke deal (shaky and empty as it was) with North Korea creates a 'bump'. The scandal involving separation of illegal-aliens and their children is a  bad result. Will it long reflect the image that many Americans have of him, someone ready to sacrifice human decencies to force political change of his choosing?

It is to early for me to predict the trend. I will not try. I shall see what happens.

If President Trump is successful with this cruelty, and he is one of those 'tough on crime', let alone 'tough on the poor', types (so long as the crackdown lets his corrupt activities go unchecked)  attitude is almost pure deterrence. Imagine how it goes with welfare -- collect or try to collect welfare, and you lose your children. (Collecting welfare is of course not a crime, but instead something that we should encourage people in economic distress to do before doing something more drastic, like crime).

I do not predict trends. That is extrapolation. I generally assume inertia.  Using the (American) football game as an analogy (politics is a 'game' in the sense that American football game -- it is costly to produce, draws much attention, and above all is timed, with 'elections' as the definitive end of the game as is running out the clock)... if we use the football score as an analogy, Donald Trump is down something like 30-14 with about six minutes left in the second half. Teams have come back from that sort of deficit early, but if you are behind that much at that stage of the game against the Dallas Cowboys of the Tom Landry era, you are already seeing the nickel defense that slows the game down to a game of running with the ball or making short (and largely ineffective) passes. Sure, if you play the game Landry allows you, you might end up looking good losing and end up losing 36-27... but that is still losing. Now what happens if you face the nickel defense (five defensive backs in the backfield, which effectively stops the long forward pass), and insist on making long forward passes? You end up with interceptions, and Landry's team either makes a quick score to make the deficit bigger, or his offensive team grinds down the clock with running plays. Landry isn't so intent on running up the score as he is in using the clock as his 'twelfth man'. But if an interception should lead to a quick score, that makes his team all the more effective. Landry played the inertia game against a team on which his team got an early, big lead.

So far as I can tell, Donald Trump has no desire to 'look good losing'.  One page of the calendar, about the equivalent of 72 seconds of an hour-long Presidency to a minute of an American football game, turns every month.

     

[pbrower2a]

Virginia (Quinnipiac):

38% Approve
56% Disapprove

Source

Another atrocious poll for the President in Virginia (one of the two states in which I expect people to be most savvy about politics -- the other is Maryland). Forgetting the last poll I mapped for Virginia, I was tempted to think that this is another outlier -- but it is actually a slight (if insignificant) improvement for the President.

It is hard to imagine any two states bordering each other going in such opposite directions and so severely as Virginia and West Virginia. How times change!

I am going to be cautious and say that the long-term trend in Virginia in partisan affiliation says more about Virginia than about America as a whole.  

Marist/NBC, Arizona, Florida, and Ohio:


Trump approval  in Arizona 41-47;  52% of  Arizona state voters will vote for Democrats to check Donald Trump. Should be re-elected -- 35%; should not 57%.

Trump approval in Florida 45-46. 49% want more Democrats in Congress to check the President, and only 40% want more Republicans to aid him in advancing his legislation.  Should he be re-elected? 37% for, 54% against.

Trump approval in Ohio: 42-49. 35-51 split on whether they want more Democrats in Congress to check President Trump or Republicans to aid in passing his agenda. Re-elect him?  Only 34% agree, and 58% disagree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/battleground-state-polls-find-more-voters-prefer-congress-check-trump-n886776?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_np

My model of 100-DIS may be too lenient for this President. My model errs on the side of caution. It has been my proxy for the basic question of whether Donald Trump will or will not be re-elected. The question in this Marist poll asks this question explicitly and supersedes ny proxy of 100-DIS where available. At this point the only questions of whether President Trump will be re-elected will be:

1. whether estimates for Arizona, Florida, and Ohio are accurate
2. whether answers to the question "re-elect/elect someone else" stick (changes in attitudes toward this President, as shown in polling)
3. whether the Democrats avoid nominating someone unsuited to the Presidency (let us say a Democrat with much the same sordid personal life and business connections as Donald Trump) or Vice-President (think of Sarah Palin)
4. whether President Trump chooses to run for President or can run
5. whether we have free and competitive elections or get a rigged election

Yes, "Generic Democrat" and "Generic Republican" go into hibernation about as winter starts loosening its icy grip in Iowa and New Hampshire in the year of a Presidential election.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, it's hard to imagine Americans becoming more sympathetic to the harsh separation of parents and children in the deportation issue. People who believe that children and parents alike should be deported if they came here illegally can strongly disapprove of separating parents and children, let alone using the children as tools of blackmailing people seeking entry into the US to abandon their rights to contest the legal process of deportation. I see forced separation of parents and children as a potential means of compromising the rights of citizens in criminal cases (as in, plead guilty to a felony charge or you will lose your children permanently). Children should not be bargaining chips in the legal process unless the process involves the possibility of abuse or neglect.

Illegal aliens have the right to due process of law, and if they don't, then such is at risk for us all.

 
Approval of the President:

55% or higher dark blue
50-54% medium blue
less than 50% but above disapproval pale blue
even white
46% to 50% but below disapproval pale red
42% to 45% medium red
under 42% deep red

States and districts hard to see:

CT 39
DC 17
DE 39
HI 33
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 45
NE-02 38
NE-03 55
NH 39
RI 30
VT 32

Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.

100-Disapproval

55% or higher dark blue
50% to 54% or higher but not tied medium blue
50% or higher but positive pale blue

ties white

45% or higher and negative pale red
40% to 44% medium red
under 40% deep red

States and districts hard to see:

CT 41
DC 20
DE 43
HI 36
NH 49
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 55
NE-02 46
NE-03 66
RI 30
VT 36


Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.

*With the explicit question of whether the President should or should not be re-elected, or 100-DIS if such is all that is available:


Re-elect/do not re-elect if known; 100-DIS otherwise

100-DIS

55% or higher dark blue
50% to 54% or higher but not tied medium blue
50% or higher but positive pale blue

ties white

45% or higher and negative pale red (or 55% do-not-reelect or higher)
40% to 44% medium red (or 50 to 54% do-not-reelect or higher)
under 40% deep red (or 50% or less do-not-reelect if do-not re-elect if do-not-reelect is higher than reelect)
Ties for elect and re-elect are also in white.

States and districts hard to see:

CT 41
DC 20
DE 43
FL 37-54
HI 36
NH 49
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 55
NE-02 46
NE-03 66
RI 30
VT 36


Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.


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

[pbrower2a]

Interesting on the approval map, Georgia is Trump's worst state in the south, worse even than Florida.

Even Virginia?

Despite such Confederate heroes as Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, the status of Virginia as a Southern state is much in question. Virginia may be more liberal than Pennsylvania now.

North Carolina is now the real border state between the North and the South.

[pbrower2a]

Colorado, PPP:

 44-52

Yes, I thought that 35-63 was an exaggeration.

https://www.coloradodems.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ColoradoResults062918.pdf  

 
Approval of the President:

55% or higher dark blue
50-54% medium blue
less than 50% but above disapproval pale blue
even white
46% to 50% but below disapproval pale red
42% to 45% medium red
under 42% deep red

States and districts hard to see:

CT 39
DC 17
DE 39
HI 33
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 45
NE-02 38
NE-03 55
NH 39
RI 30
VT 32

Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.

100-Disapproval

55% or higher dark blue
50% to 54% or higher but not tied medium blue
50% or higher but positive pale blue

ties white

45% or higher and negative pale red
40% to 44% medium red
under 40% deep red

States and districts hard to see:

CT 41
DC 20
DE 43
HI 36
NH 49
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 55
NE-02 46
NE-03 66
RI 30
VT 36


Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.

*With the explicit question of whether the President should or should not be re-elected, or 100-DIS if such is all that is available:


Re-elect/do not re-elect if known; 100-DIS otherwise

100-DIS

55% or higher dark blue
50% to 54% or higher but not tied medium blue
50% or higher but positive pale blue

ties white

45% or higher and negative pale red (or 55% do-not-reelect or higher)
40% to 44% medium red (or 50 to 54% do-not-reelect or higher)
under 40% deep red (or 50% or less do-not-reelect if do-not re-elect if do-not-reelect is higher than reelect)
Ties for elect and re-elect are also in white.

States and districts hard to see:

CT 41
DC 20
DE 43
FL 37-54
HI 36
NH 49
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 55
NE-02 46
NE-03 66
RI 30
VT 36


Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.


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

[pbrower2a]

On the map above, I'm not sure if I missed something somewhere, but what do the double numbers in FL, OH, and AZ mean?

Re-elect Trump versus vote for someone else. "Someone else" could be the Democrat and could be a conservative Third Party or independent alternative to Donald Trump.

President Trump cannot win while getting 34% of the vote in Ohio, 35% of the vote in Arizona, or 37% of the vote in Florida. The Democrat will get decidedly over 40% of the vote in each of those states.

I have only three such states in which the overt question "should the President be re-elected or should he not be re-elected". Those three states are likely to be slightly more Republican in voting than America as a whole.

The alternative that I have is 100-DIS, suggesting simply that people who disapprove of the President will not vote for him while he has a spirited campaign to win the Undecided voters to his side. So far the undecided voters are largely to the right of center, so those would almost certainly go more heavily toward Trump than to any Democrat.

Is this question perfect? Hardly. The definitive question involves matchups between the Democratic nominee (wait almost two full years before that is established) against Trump. Contrast the situation in 2012 when one after another Republican  (Christie, Santorum, Huckabee, Palin, Walker, Gingrich, and finally Romney) appeared in matchups against Obama. I cannot distinguish between the many possible Democratic nominees yet.

So let us fast forward to September 2020. Let us suppose that the Democrats have ended up with Senator Amy Klobuchar and you see these polls of Florida:

1. Do you approve or disapprove of Donald Trump as President?

Approve 43%
Disapprove 53%
Do not know/no response 4%

2. Do you believe that Donald Trump should be re-elected or should not be re-elected?

Re-elect 40%
Do not re-elect 56%
Do not know/no response 4%


3. In the Presidential election in November, do you expect to vote for Amy Klobuchar, the Democrat; Donald Trump, the Republican; someone else, or are you not voting? (Rotate)

Klobuchar 42%
Trump 44%
Someone else 8%
Do not know/no response/not voting 4%

.....

It is the last one that will matter most, and Klobuchar seems likely to lose Florida. 100-DIS is so far my default model until something better arises.

 

[pbrower2a]

My preference from lowest to highest;

least: approval. Unless over 50%, it means little.

second-least:  100-DIS. It's a contrived model that doesn't answer the question directly. It's simply the best that I have for now, and simple to develop, explain, and use. The one behind can in theory pick up the undecided votes, especially if those are on his side of the political spectrum.

second-best: elect vs. don't re-elect. Maybe it is the time, but its answer says something more specific than offering a ceiling for an incumbent in trouble (as I see Donald Trump).

best: actual match-ups, as they give names. It is your taste on whether you prefer "adults", "registered voters", or "likely voters".

In the last one I showed Trump meeting his ceiling with an opponent falling short due to people intending to vote largely for someone else.

[pbrower2a]

My preference from lowest to highest;

least: approval. Unless over 50%, it means little.

second-least:  100-DIS. It's a contrived model that doesn't answer the question directly. It's simply the best that I have for now, and simple to develop, explain, and use. The one behind can in theory pick up the undecided votes, especially if those are on his side of the political spectrum.

second-best: elect vs. don't re-elect. Maybe it is the time, but its answer says something more specific than offering a ceiling for an incumbent in trouble (as I see Donald Trump).

best: actual match-ups, as they give names. It is your taste on whether you prefer "adults", "registered voters", or "likely voters".

In the last one I showed Trump meeting his ceiling with an opponent falling short due to people intending to vote largely for someone else.

I disagree. I think his approval rating is his rock solid minimum in the NPV, and that he has a very good chance of outperforming it by 2-4 points if not more. If his approval is at 43-44%, I think he lands in the 45-48% range in the NPV. 45% may very well not be enough to win the EC, but I think 48% gives him a good shot barring an extremely partisan election or a massive shift in coalitions.

I would concur if the approval ratings were above 50%. At the beginning of the campaign season, an incumbent with an approval rating of as low as 44% has a reasonably-good chance of getting re-elected -- so long as his disapproval  rating is under 50%. An incumbent can run a spirited and well-structured campaign to get re-elected if his disapproval is under 50% by winning over the undecided, especially if  the undecided are on his side of the political spectrum. (Of course if the undecided are on the other side of the political spectrum, then he is winning anyway).

45% in the national popular vote? That is just short of what he got in 2016, which was close to losing (but he is effectively our dictator now, so all the would-have-been and should-have-been talk is as irrelevant as talking about how the loser of the last World Series could have won). Dukakis got about 45% of the popular vote in 1988, and lost badly. Trump did little better than McCain in 2008 (who lost in a near-landslide) and worst than Romney and Kerry. At this point he will need left-side alternatives cutting into the Democratic nominee's vote to win in 2020... I would not bet on that.

The Democrat will have to win somewhat more than a plurality if much of that plurality comes from running up the popular vote in California, New York, Maryland, and Massachusetts while letting Trump get a bare plurality in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.


As I see it, this President has offended the free-trade interests in the Republican Party and Republicans who really do care about the environment, and want a free-market economy instead of crony capitalism. A Third Party or independent challenge is more likely to hurt President Trump this time. Democrats are not going to let the Perfect be the enemy of the Good and the unintended ally of the Horrible.

In any event, it is the approval numbers in the mid-40s that are the outliers, as after he made an alleged deal with the dictator of North Korea -- who is not a favorite of liberals, by the way.  Don't ask me to predict a weekly change in an opinion poll.  Most polls have shown approval around 40% nationwide, which really is horrible.

100-DIS is the best that I have with the data that I have... and I see disapproval -- especially 'strong disapproval' difficult to cut into. Of course an economy improving from awful to sort-of-OK can cut into disapproval, but this President did not inherit a recession. But unless it is good and improved economic news the most likely way to get disapproval pared is gone.

Look at it this way -- if the incumbent must campaign to get re-elected, he will need people to canvass for him. That is effective -- if people are amenable. If people are undecided they might listen to the argument of a canvasser. Otherwise canvassing is ineffective -- and perhaps discouraging. If one hears "How could you possibly vote for that idiot/creep/crook/fool?" enough times one might give up.

100-DIS establishes how many supporters one can expect if everything goes right. That is approval and undecided. Anything else requires major change in the political reality -- something that rarely happens.       

[pbrower2a]

RCP is my source of truth when it comes to polling, love it or hate it. Their 2016 electoral map was the closest to the actual result...I believe they predicted a 272-266 Clinton win (Actual map - PA - MI - WI + NV). FiveThirtyEight has no more credibility in my eyes...in addition to predicting a 322-216 Clinton win, they've also recently contradicted themselves. They admitted in an article a couple months ago that most polls are biased toward Democrats, yet they give Democrats extra points in almost every poll that is conducted. I have no idea what their chain of logic is here, but I take anything they say with huge chunks of salt.

Anyway, Trump's RCP average is 43.5% at the moment, and it has been holding pretty steady in that neighborhood since the beginning of May. But let me ask you this...could a case be made that anybody who got elected in 2016 would inevitably face low approvals in their coming administration? The election was clearly marked by a zeitgeist of anti-establishmentism and a desire to purge the current political system, so is it within the realm of possibility that such an angsty political atmosphere may have created a lasting cynicism toward whoever may be in the oval office?

In other words, how much of Trump's unpopularity can be attributed to the unpopularity of the office itself?

Sometimes a suspect character will pick a horse race right -- and in contrast to someone well groomed and speaking excellent English while showing that he can talk intelligently about things other than horse races. (Then again, if you know a lot about horse races and aren't in the business, you are probably a low life, anyway).  I would of course expect approvals of Donald Trump to start low -- but if someone else with a moral compass and more political acumen -- let us say Mitt Romney -- had started with an election despite getting less than a plurality, he would have started by trying to gain support from those who had voted against him. At that, Donald Trump has been singularly incompetent.  

Instead Donald Trump faults people for not accepting his world view, basically telling people that because they lost the election they can change their cultural and political views to accommodate his. No -- there has always been another election, always a test to determine whether voting for that incumbent was a mistake. He calls anyone who criticizes him, whether an opposition politician, a journalist, am academic, or a foreign leader a 'loser'.

One is not a loser for cheering on a losing sports team or being involved in caring for someone doomed to a degenerative disease. One is not a loser for standing up for old principles against some Wave of the Future.

In a close election, winning and losing often looks like a random event -- just like (to someone who does not follow them) horse races. Someone was going to pick the 2016 election right, even if the winner is a complete disaster for American politics.

Bad things like auto accidents with injuries are also random events.  Our political system has been enduring a compound fracture since January 20, 2017. That happens when a drunk driver has your number on his bumper. Donald trump has none of the characteristics that make an effective President unless he is to get away with using despotic or dictatorial powers.

Just say no to America's Rafael Leonidas Trujillo.

[pbrower2a]

Twenty42 - I think there may be some validity to your theory, though I’d dispute/debate the size of such an effect. I’ve long felt that 2016 was a poisoned chalice and whoever won it would be a one-term POTUS.

I must admit...there were a couple fleeting moments where I considered voting for Hillary in 2016 in hopes of a Republican landslide in 2020. I came home in the end, of course.

Everything is an exercise in conjecture two years before the election, but I don't see Trump getting defeated in 2020 if the economy is good and we are at peace on the world stage. There is no reason to fire an incumbent when the two qualifications of a successful presidency are being fulfilled.

If I had known about Donald Trump otherwise being the Republican nominee in 2016, I would have voted for Romney in 2012.  We rarely think that far ahead, do we? Eight years of Mitt Romney is far better than the two decades (or so it now seems) of sociopathic leadership  that thinks a bare majority a pretext for turning America into a dictatorship.

The biggest qualification of a leader in any activity except a crime syndicate is to act with integrity, a commodity about as commonplace in this President as is as Element 119. You may not realize how dangerous this President is -- but aside from gangsters, the only analogues are tyrants.

This President undermines everything that our Founding Fathers stood for. God help us should we need a new bunch.