Trump approval ratings thread 1.3

[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.

I have come to kind of resent the Founding Fathers. In a way, they created this mess by creating the unsustainable system we have today that has only gotten worse. Democracy is often considered the "least worst" political system but we have the absolute worst of that least worst system. I know that creating a democracy from scratch is a near-impossible task, but ours is truly a monster of its own creation.

It was totally sustainable... in 1789. The issue is that the system isn’t designed to handle parties mapped cleanly on regional, ideological and cultural lines all at once.

It was revolutionary in its novelty in the eighteenth century. The success of the system depends upon a populace that depends a moral compass from elected leaders even at the expense of not getting their way. It al;so depends upon a government that does not have well-entrenched clients who have a stake in government spending.

The Founding Fathers could not establish a system without seams. For years, people who knew of the seams in the system chose not to exploit them because such would entice others to do much the same once they got in power. 

[pbrower2a]

https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/1014119502588579840

Fourth of July bump? That doesn't last.

[pbrower2a]

So we're heading back towards double digits negative net approval.

Actually we have almost always be there. Pro-Republican trash pollster named Rassmussen shouldn't count. At least not for real.

I never pay attention to that Rasmussen trash. Do you believe those morons actually predicted Hillary would win the NPV by 2 points in 2016? They should be tarred and feathered.

Yes, lets argue about the same exact thing we argued about last week. Fantastic.

When you continue to chant fallacious rhetoric, you leave the door open for the trier of fact to quash it. And if I remember correctly, that “argument” ended with people basically saying that they don’t like Ras because they are to the right of most other pollsters. You really couldn’t dispute that they, along with Marist, were among the most accurate of 2016 polls.

The ironic thing about all of this is that leftist polls like Quinnipiac and YouGov were the ones that broke your heart in 2016, yet here you are again clinging to them like a baby with a pacifier simply because they confirm your bias.

The most that any of us does is to establish means of predicting the results of elections yet to come. Many dissent with my 100-DIS tool at this stage. Of course it is not perfect; there will be more reliable methods as time passes and other means appear (such as one-on-one matchups).

Nobody has any idea of who will be the Democratic nominee for President in 2020.  So we really can't use matchups.

All that 100-DIS predicts is how well Trump will do in getting votes. .  It cannot predict how Trump will do against a weak opponent (let us say a retread)  as opposed to a strong one (a liberal version of Ronald Reagan) .    He will have relative strengths and weaknesses.  getting votes and not getting votes against certain potential nominees based upon emphasis of the campaigns.

I assume that people will not vote for incumbent politicians of any kind that they find inadequate as shown in disapproval. Disapproval suggests that people will vote for someone else. In 2020 A 55% disapproval in a state means that 55% will vote for someone else.Undecided? It does not matter in my model; until I see otherwise I assume that the undecided on the side of the political spectrum of the incumbent will vote for hin -- until I see a better predictor. 55% disapproval? 45% of the people might vote for Trump, but that is it. The rest? My model does not predict how people no voting for Trump will vote. The vote could conceivably be split 43% for the Democrat, 12% for third-Party or independent nominees, and 45% for Trump. In such a case, Trump wins. If he wins enough of the electoral votes (270 or more) he gets re-elected.

I have yet to know who the Democratic nominee will be and how competent that person will be as a campaigner. I cannot predict whether there will be a significant Third party or independent nominee who takes votes away from Trump or the Democrat. Above all my model does not predict events.

I may be excessively rigid in saying that "disapprove" means '"give up on Trump". But what other interpretation do I have?  

[pbrower2a]

The most that any of us does is to establish means of predicting the results of elections yet to come. Many dissent with my 100-DIS tool at this stage. Of course it is not perfect; there will be more reliable methods as time passes and other means appear (such as one-on-one matchups).

Nobody has any idea of who will be the Democratic nominee for President in 2020.  So we really can't use matchups.

All that 100-DIS predicts is how well Trump will do in getting votes. .  It cannot predict how Trump will do against a weak opponent (let us say a retread)  as opposed to a strong one (a liberal version of Ronald Reagan) .    He will have relative strengths and weaknesses.  getting votes and not getting votes against certain potential nominees based upon emphasis of the campaigns.

I assume that people will not vote for incumbent politicians of any kind that they find inadequate as shown in disapproval. Disapproval suggests that people will vote for someone else. In 2020 A 55% disapproval in a state means that 55% will vote for someone else.Undecided? It does not matter in my model; until I see otherwise I assume that the undecided on the side of the political spectrum of the incumbent will vote for hin -- until I see a better predictor. 55% disapproval? 45% of the people might vote for Trump, but that is it. The rest? My model does not predict how people no voting for Trump will vote. The vote could conceivably be split 43% for the Democrat, 12% for third-Party or independent nominees, and 45% for Trump. In such a case, Trump wins. If he wins enough of the electoral votes (270 or more) he gets re-elected.

I have yet to know who the Democratic nominee will be and how competent that person will be as a campaigner. I cannot predict whether there will be a significant Third party or independent nominee who takes votes away from Trump or the Democrat. Above all my model does not predict events.

I may be excessively rigid in saying that "disapprove" means '"give up on Trump". But what other interpretation do I have?  

The disapproval metric is Schroedinger’s Cat at this point. It will only become meaningful when compared to his eventual opponent’s disapproval/unfavorability numbers. If his opponent is similarly unfavorable, it will have little effect on the results of the election.

What I do know is that we are living in a period of unprecedented polarization and hyper-partisanship, and I feel it’s unlikely that any presidential candidate in this day and age won’t have disapprovals much lower than 50%. Yes, Obama 2008 was an exception. But it’s also worth noting that McCain still got 46% of the NPV despite a terrible economy and two unpopular wars.

Standing in a voting booth is a whole different ballgame than talking on the phone on a Sunday morning.

You’re not wrong, but pbrower’s metric is internally consistent and until we have actual elections there’s no real way to disprove it

Thank you. Until we have more telling data, my model is the best that I can think of for objectivity, availability of data, logical coherence, simplicity, and above all else, capacity for change should polling data change. If I start seeing Trump polling data improve, then this model will show that improvement. It does not depend upon someone deciding "Trump is wonderful" or "Trump is horrible".  Sure, it has its limitations, but if someone has something better using available data, I would like to see it -- and I might even prefer it. Match-up data will be definitive for the moment -- but that probably will not be available until the Democratic field narrows greatly.

Marist polled three states (Arizona, Florida, and Ohio), in all of which the pollster asked the overt question "Should we re-elect Donald Trump or should we not?" Those are three critical states, three swing states that could decide the Presidential election. The question and its answer look even more relevant than "approve/disapprove" because it is a question of how one would vote now. I am showing that data too in the context of 100-DIS. So why am I not using that data to make nationwide predictions? That's only three states, and I cannot calibrate the results against anything based on three states.  

If someone wants to believe that President Trump will pull through this because he is taking hits to his popularity for which he will get good results by 2020 -- that's qualitative. I prefer quantitative measurement even when I prepare an elaborate dinner.

I do not accept the argument commonly uttered by politicians doomed to losing that the only poll that matters is the result of the election.

[pbrower2a]

... (A)n aggregate disapproval of around 52% isn't earth-shattering in today's political climate. It seems to suggest a country that is right down the middle, give or take a couple points. I agree with you that nothing can be disproven at this point, but in the same vein nothing can be proven either.

Trump is running against everybody's imaginary candidate at this point, and this gives independents and swing voters a lot more leeway in their thoughts and preferences. But eventually he will be running against a real person who has flaws and skeletons. If 2020 becomes a choice between the lesser of two evils and one of them is an incumbent president with a good economy, that 52% disapproval will lose a lot of its significance.

The political culture of America changes over time. We have had three consecutive Presidents who got re-elected, all three of which wished to change America more than it wanted to change, and still got re-elected. Clinton was mediocre, all in all; Dubya was awful; Obama was very good.  We now have Trump, who is an elderly neophyte in politics -- and this shows.

American politics splits neatly about 47-6-47 between the Left, the middle, and the Right.  Clinton and Obama never disappointed any significant part of the Left (unless one means the few Marxists in our midst), and Dubya did not disappoint the Right (except fascist pigs who burn crosses or admire Hitler) until the economy imploded.  With Trump, that split remains... but I already see some conservative dissent with Trump. The free-market purists reject his crony capitalism and his demagoguery, neither of which is part of the conservative tradition.  If some polls consistently indicate that the President has combined approval around 40% with the economy at least sort-of-OK, then the President has problems. I don't see the economy improving, and the Trump idea is to get people to pay far more for what they now have -- like driving on toll-free highways that allow people to make money in an urban cesspool such as Detroit or St. Louis and live in a posh suburb -- or if one is poor, getting to commute the other direction, living in urban cesspool such as Detroit or St. Louis to a job that pays a poverty income in such an activity as retailing in one of the posh suburbs.

Of course I see no end to the 47-6-47 split. Obama got just under 53% of the popular vote  and McCain got just under 46% of the popular vote  in 2008 despite the economy in apparent free-fall, which is about as high a percentage of the popular vote as anyone has gotten since Reagan in 1984. (The elder Bush got just over 53% of the popular vote against Dukakis in an electoral landslide in 1988, thank you). Trump actually fell short of getting 47% of the popular vote in 2016, but got the 'right votes' and won, so he is actually at the low end in winning popular votes.

Democrats have yet to show that they can avoid showing that they can lose the Electoral College by running up huge totals of the popular vote in  California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York while getting mediocre-to-poor results in other electorally-large states. Donald Trump has not won over any part of the liberal vote, but he has demonstrated that it is possible to win a 47-6-47 split of the vote by getting bare wins in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. No President engenders so much contempt as he does -- but it is from people who rarely vote for Republican nominees, anyway.

But at this we are talking about something a cause assumed to be doomed to a loss because it has yet to have a chance to compete. This is like saying that someone challenging for a title is a loser until he actually wins. Democrats and Republicans both see the Democratic Party and its core constituents losing because they are getting nothing from the political system except extreme dissatisfaction. Let's put that in economic terms -- if you hate your low-paying job and the management that you endure, you will probably not see yourself as a 'winner'. Donald Trump is not squeamish about offending liberal sensibilities; his core supporters love to hear liberals wail about how nasty American life is getting. He is a cruel man, but there is much political sadism against political pariahs under many systems.

My system does not say that if disapproval for the President is around 60% that the opposing nominee will get 60% of the vote. In view of the political polarization of America, the best that a liberal opponent to Trump can do in the popular vote is about what Obama did in 2008 (about 53%), which is in fact better than Reagan did in 1980. Guessing that disapproval for Jimmy Carter was around 60% on Election Day in 1980, the electorate went

Reagan 50.75%
Anderson 6.61%
Carter 41.01%

Much of what would usually go to a liberal nominee went to Anderson, as did a big chunk of the middle of the spectrum. Reagan did get more than the typical Right. (OK, America was less polarized in its politics in 1980; there were conservative Democrats, and there were liberal Republicans then).

People can disapprove of the President and still vote for him -- but not many people will do that. There could easily be some conservative dissident who chips away at the usual conservative vote by offering a more orthodox agenda of conservative ideals and proposals. Under no circumstances do I see any liberal Democrat winning more than about 53% of the popular vote.

So what do I see in Trump? You know my bias: I think he is awful. His communications are abrasive and offensive, showing a lack of empathy for a huge chunk of the electorate. He has made poor choices in staff, surrounding himself with fanatics and self-serving hucksters (if not with fanatical, self-serving hucksters).  His diplomacy is all about personal connections and business-like deals. His idea of tariffs to stimulate the economy is unwise and almost certainly disruptive to the finely-tuned world economy. This man loves military shtick yet does not understand military life. He is more likely to bungle a disaster than to find an innovative and effective solution.


I cannot yet predict any Democratic nominee for President getting more than about 53% of the popular vote. But a really-bad performance by Donald Trump

 is possible, and I can imagine a 53-40-7 split of the vote with the Democrat getting 53, Trump getting 40, and third-Party conservatives winning 7. 

[pbrower2a]

We can agree to disagree here, but I’m not yet seeing any signs or harbingers of this mass Republican secession you seem to be predicting. I’d imagine that in order for 7% of Republicans to actually defect to a third party on Election Day, Trump’s approval among Republicans would have to be in the 70% range. I’m sorry, but until I see the numbers trend that way, I’m not buying it. Trump’s average approval rating among Republicans has remained in the 85-90% range for the duration of his presidency. You combine that with the nose holders, and the mathematical path to 7% for this third party conservative is nonexistent.

Donald Trump barely got elected -- even if he acts as if  those who voted against him do not matter. It wouldn't take much of a secession of Republican voters to cause him to lose. He is not gaining new supporters. He will need a low turnout by Democrats to win re-election, and betting on turnout is a poor bet when one has done much to offend the Other Side.

So if he loses 5% of the Republican vote in 2020, his percentage of the popular vote goes down by about 1.5%.  That will be enough to flip the states nearest the tipping point -- Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Florida. More critical will be those independent voters who voted for him in 2016.

Donald Trump has inflicted much pain on those who voted against him -- not so much to strengthen the economy or better face an international enemy -- but instead for the sake of punishing his opposition. Of course it is possible to demand sacrifices of living standards, personal indulgence, and government services if such creates a stronger economy that works for all -- or at least, as in the case of Ronald Reagan -- brings an end to stagflation that nobody liked. Carter was unwilling to tell people to take pay cuts, support tax cuts that would put more capital in the hands of potential investors, and expect to get stuck in dead-end jobs just to end stagflation. Reagan, not being a Democrat with connections to Big Labor, could do so. Reagan succeeded.  (So your job in the mall doesn't meet your needs, Mr. College Graduate? Just take another job to make some more money! The problem with being overworked and underpaid is that you aren't overworked and underpaid enough!) Trump is not one of those Reagan, let alone Churchill, types who can tell people that hardship serves from noble purpose. With Trump, such is deserved punishment for some political offense.

Those who disliked Trump in 2016 still do. He does not have much margin of error -- and he has shown himself consummately reckless. That may doom him. Contrast Obama, whose approval and disapproval levels nationwide were typically in the mid-forties. Obama was cautious, but he remained an adept campaigner -- enough to turn approval in the middle-to-high forties into 51% of the popular vote.

President Trump will need miracles or electoral fraud to get re-elected.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Usually! There is rarely a 'normal' election. Do you want an extreme? The mean win for a Presidential nominee involves about 330 electoral votes. Obama did roughly that in 2012. He is the only President within 20 electoral votes of the mean margin of victory since at least 1900.

Donald Trump is not a 'normal' President. His experience includes no elective office, no Cabinet post, and no senior military service. He has no legal training. His experience is entirely in business. That is not to say that someone could not use business acumen as a model for governing and be successful. Many people thought that Ross Perot could be, and I am not going to argue against them.  His business experience is either involvement in the low-brow activity of reality television or in real estate. His success in real estate depends upon being able to get maximal profit from a scarcity of housing in a high-income area. Such takes little nimbleness of mind. Give me the portfolio of Trump real estate and I would do at least as well.

If you want models of effective Presidencies, then look at those of Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. They all shot quickly through the political system. FDR, by far the best President since Lincoln, shot through a little more slowly, achieving the Presidency when the partisan balance started to work in his favor. Trump has never been Vice-President, a US Senator, a Governor, a mayor, a city councilman, a Cabinet official, a senior military officer, or even a state legislator. He knew as much about politics than he knows about medicine or auto repair.

He has opened an opportunity for any smooth-talking entrepreneur who thinks that he can do better than he to initiate a self-funded, Perot-style campaign. Such a figure might win some liberal votes -- but he will get more pro-business votes. Integrity and flexibility are necessary for many sorts of business success.

This is more likely than a miracle that saves the Trump Presidency.The most likely result will be that the Democrat ends up ahead in enough of the right states. But I see that likely even without a third-party nominee.

We are accustomed to re-electing Presidents; we have re-elected four of the last five. That does not mean that Trump is a shoo-in for re-election, or even close.      

[pbrower2a]

https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1014914140962422784

Honestly the unemployment rate is all that’s keeping him out of the low 30s IMO

Agreed. If a recession hits he's toast.

Reagan and Obama solved economic problems.  Trump has solved nothing.

[pbrower2a]

How high would President Obama's approvals be if he had the unemployment rate this low?  55, maybe 60%?  

Probably -- but unemployment is a lagging indicator. Businesses are more likely to speed up production lines or compel people to work more hours of overtime before hiring new workers or return people from lay-offs.

[pbrower2a]

It really is amazing how stable Trump’s polling is

It was so for Obama with his approval ratings too, of course at a higher level because his Administration was never a travesty. I figure that people who dislike the President for one thing dislike him for others , and that people who thought he was the best thing to ever happen to American politics in 2016 have not changed their minds.  

[pbrower2a]

Several polls from Survey Monkey/Axios over about a month. None will supplant more recent polling.

 
Approval of the President:

FL 48-50 (not using due to a more recent poll)
IN 50-48
MI 46-53
MO 51-48
MT 51-48
ND 55-43
OH 53-45 (not using due to a later poll)
PA 44-56
WI 44-55
WV 59-40
AZ 47-52 (not using due to a later poll)
NV 45-54
TN 60-39

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bwnfno7ZxLYIQ_B_Iyu08VXDdBJsGQlR/view

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]

NC CD-09 only: SurveyUSA for the Civitas Institute (conservative NC nonprofit), July 5-8, 543 likely voters.  This is an R+7 district.

Approve 43
Disapprove 49

Men: 47/46
Women: 40/52

The same poll has the Democratic candidate for this open House seat ahead by 7.

This happens under one of three circumstances:

1. a district changes, as after a change of its boundaries. That hasn't happened here.

2. the candidate behind is compromised, as with a scandal or with one of the candidates getting foot-in-the-mouth disease.

3. a political wave is forming.

[pbrower2a]

Fox News

Approve - 46%(+1)
Disapprove - 51%(=)

Generic Ballot at D+8.

Fox has been incredibly stable since January, much like the aggregates.

https://www.scribd.com/document/383743616/Fox-July-2018-National-Topline-July-12-Release#download&from_embed

Edit: Also doesn't mean much but lowest party i.d gap in awhile.

Because of gerrymandering, Democrats need at least a +8 advantage in the raw vote for Congress to avoid being in the majority.

[pbrower2a]

Fox News

Approve - 46%(+1)
Disapprove - 51%(=)

Generic Ballot at D+8.

Fox has been incredibly stable since January, much like the aggregates.

https://www.scribd.com/document/383743616/Fox-July-2018-National-Topline-July-12-Release#download&from_embed

Edit: Also doesn't mean much but lowest party i.d gap in awhile.

Because of gerrymandering, Democrats need at least a +8 advantage in the raw vote for Congress to avoid being in the majority.

I dont think it's that high. I'd wager Democrats need to be at +6.

If Trump and the GOP lose the farm-and-ranch constituency to any marked extent, then that alone will make the gerrymandering irrelevant. America would be ready for a 2020-equivalent of a New Deal coalition.

[pbrower2a]

Fox News

Approve - 46%(+1)
Disapprove - 51%(=)

Generic Ballot at D+8.

Fox has been incredibly stable since January, much like the aggregates.

https://www.scribd.com/document/383743616/Fox-July-2018-National-Topline-July-12-Release#download&from_embed

Edit: Also doesn't mean much but lowest party i.d gap in awhile.

Because of gerrymandering, Democrats need at least a +8 advantage in the raw vote for Congress to avoid being in the majority.

I dont think it's that high. I'd wager Democrats need to be at +6.

If Trump and the GOP lose the farm-and-ranch constituency to any marked extent, then that alone will make the gerrymandering irrelevant. America would be ready for a 2020-equivalent of a New Deal coalition.

Can you explain your thinking here?

Sure. Let's start with a non-gerrymander situation. Because South Dakota is a one-district state, it can't be gerrymandered. South Dakota went 62-27-6 (the "6" is for Johnson) for President Trump and 72-27 for Senator Thune. Figure that Rapid City and Sioux Falls are about 50-50 in a good year for Democrats in South Dakota (like 2008 in relative terms -- 2016 was a disaster for them in South Dakota, but that is about like the difference between going bankrupt with $50K in debt and $1k in assets and going $5 million in debt with $10K in assets). The farm and ranch vote typically goes about 70-30 R in really good years for Republicans, but about 50-50 in really-bad years for Republicans. But in really bad years for Republicans, Democrats might take Sioux Falls and Rapid City 55-45, which is enough with an evenly-divided farm-and-ranch vote to make the state go D.

Farmers and ranchers are rather primitive in their voting; they vote their pocketbooks. When commodity prices are good and such production costs are low, they vote largely on taxes because politicians find farmers and ranchers cash cows for taxes -- local, state, and federal. But when their income plummets, taxes are the least of their concerns.

So if you are asking how Democrats could pick up the at-large House seat, an open Senate seat, or the state's three electoral votes  from South Dakota -- there it is. You can't gerrymander South Dakota at the federal level.  

Gerrymandering since 2010 has largely been pack-and-sack. In a state as politically polarized as Michigan,some areas (Greater Detroit, Ann Arbor, Flint, and Saginaw) will never vote Republican unless the Democratic nominee does something so blatant as taking a bribe. So the Republican state legislature concedes some of those areas as ultra-safe Democratic districts. They are about D+4 or D+5 (possible swing -- Flint and a bunch of rural area, and northern suburbs of Detroit), D+14 (out of contention in most races -- Ann Arbor and some impoverished suburbs on the southwest side of Detroit),   and either D+30 or D+33 (hyper-partisan districts including big chunks of Detroit itself.  

So how does the Republican Party get nine of fourteen Congressional seats in Michigan, a state close to 50-50 in partisan affiliation? Simple. It dilutes the votes of people in such liberal havens as Lansing, Kalamazoo, Jackson, and Battle Creek in huge swaths of rural areas that largely depend upon farm income or lumbering. (Grand Rapids is probably slightly more liberal than 50-50, but Kent County has conservative suburbs). Thus Republicans sit in districts ranging from R+4 (possible swing -- some well-off suburban areas of Detroit and a bunch of rural area, the heavily- industrial but poor district in the southwestern corner of the state, and a district that splinters greater Lansing but combines its part of greater Lansing with much rural area to R+13 (Michigan's highly-agrarian "Thumb".

As it now, Michigan's congressional delegation consists of Democrats from D+4,  D+5, D+14, D+30, and D+33 districts -- and Republicans from three R+4, an R+6, and R+7, two R+9, an R+10, and an R+13 district. That is how a state that easily elects two Democratic Senators can have a 9R-5D split in its Congressional delegation.

It's safe to say that ALEC coached the Republican majority in the state legislature well. It did something really dirty in Ohio, putting two Democratic representatives in one district.

Barring a reapportionment of Congressional seats under fair conditions (which would require a ruling of the Trump Supreme Court, which would probably advocate for even purer gerrymandering) that probably cannot happen until it has an effect on the 2022 elections, those districts are likely to remain as such in fairly-good times for Republicans. But what if the Republicans start to have trouble?

Michigan agriculture is either forestry or farming -- not ranching -- and dairying. Dairying is basically industrialized farming once one gets the cows to the milking areas in what are basically factories. Dairy workers are proletarians right out of the Marxist stereotype, and they don't see the dairy owners as their buddies.  This said, heavy tariffs by other countries upon Michigan crops, milk products, wood, and wine (Michigan has a surprisingly-strong wine industry, and I suggest that people try some Michigan wine and compare it to others -- it will be very cheap for its quality if it is subjected to high tariffs overseas) will hurt the normally-solid Republican cote of agricultural interests. So in something like District 6 (a hard-pressed industrial area with even more of a rural population) could go 60-40 against Trump in Kalamazoo County and 47-52 in the more rural areas like Berrien and St. Joseph Counties. In such a scenario, Republicans get wiped out.

Blame Trump and his inane trade war if that happens.    

[pbrower2a]

I wonder why Trump's approval ratings in Wisconsin are lower than in NJ, CT, DE, PA, MI, ME, NH, VA, NM, CO, and NV? According to Morning Consult.

Makes no sense at all. Dems are at a nadir in Wisconsin due to their optics and policies, and DJT is uniquely best fit for the Badger State. Hack poll.

Lmao. The "best fit," shut up while you're ahead.

Ignore anything hofoid says, especially if it's about Wisconsin. He knows nothing about WI politics.

2016 (and Walker's amazing survival of his recall) taught you guys nothing? With RTW being passed and Walker's popularity rebounding in the polls, unions are permanently crippled in Wisconsin, which makes it safer for the GOP than ever. Expect the trifecta to continue to 2020, where Ron Kind will be gerrymandered out of his seat and the Dems will sow having ruthlessly spit on the non-Milwaukee parts of the state. I could see a GOP supermajority in the Wisconsin Assembly & Senate by 2023. It's unrealistic for Morning Consult to say Wisconsin had a left turn.

Democrats are learning lessons from 2016. Play 'beat the cheat' strategies because one can expect Republicans to cheat.

Donald Trump is the worst President in American history -- and if you think that is because I contrast him to Barack Obama who is clearly one of the better Presidents ever, I contrast him to Nixon (who without his absurd power-plays involving dirty tricks would be a great President) and Reagan. Nixon and Reagan won 49 states in their re-election bids, which suggests that they did some things right. With the inane and destructive trade war that hurts a core constituency of the Republican Party, I can now see Donald Trump winning nine states in a re-election bid.

The Trump Presidency put Republicans at risk of losing the House of Representatives even before he proposed his tariffs... and that could make such a sure thing. Difficult as it would have been for Democrats to win back the Senate (the 2018 election is still  an echo of the 2006 wave), Trump has put some Republican Senators who should otherwise be safe at risk of being defeated.

Just look at the polling for the President. Close to half of Americans strongly disapprove of him, and a majority altogether disapproves of him. The best hope that the Donald Trump has of getting re-elected, aside from a rigged election, is that Democrats nominate someone with a big gaping scandal that discredits him.

Democrats need another Obama -- or their own equivalent of Ronald Reagan, as if there is that much difference.         

[pbrower2a]

Gallup weekly:

Approve 43 (+2)
Disapprove 52 (-4)

Cave/Russia nonsense/Theresa May bump. I can see this lasting.

May I ask you why you even imagine Trump benefitting from some sort of a “cave-bump” even though he had absolutely nothing to do with the operation, nor did he even try to take credit for it?

He's just making things up. I really don't think he has any of idea what he is talking about (seriously). He brutally exaggerates the meaningfulness of an endless variety of events, usually to bolster his narrative of Trump/Republican's standing both now and for the midterm elections. Just not entirely sure if this is all trolling or if he is really this bad at the whole politics thing. I'd like to think it's a mix of both, especially since he has latched onto the Trump "bump" thing that became a meme around here, thanks to LL.

Trump’s aggregates have been pretty stable since the middle of April (42-44% range), despite at least 3-4 events that Atlas posters predicted would plunge him into the 20s.

Trump has been extremely successful at loading political offense upon the same people until perhaps the trade war. We have yet to see effects of such in polling. Just wait. Arizona has a surprisingly large agricultural sector, but that may say little because that supplies food mostly for the US market.

Watch Iowa, much of whose agriculture goes as exports.
 

[pbrower2a]

Tennessee: Emerson, July 11-14, 657 registered voters


Approve 52
Disapprove 39

This poll also has Bredesen (D) leading the Senate race 43-37.

Newer poll than the one I had on Tennessee. Rather weak support for a President who won the state nearly 61-35 in 2016.

Arizona: Politico/AARP, June 29-July 9, 1641 registered voters

Approve 44 (strongly 22)
Disapprove 54 (strongly 41)

Generic House ballot: D+4
Senate race: D+7
Governor race: D+7

Since 1948, Arizona has gone only once for a Democratic nominee in a Presidential election. 2020 looks like the second such time. Virginia was like that in 2008, except that 2008 was twelve years closer to 1948.

Wisconsin, Marquette University Law School

Some Wisconsin breakdowns:

Gender:

Male 54-42
Female 32-60

Age:

18-29 38-56
30-44 38-54
45-59 47-45
60+ 41-55  

Education:

No HS 36-60
HS 45-46
Some Coll 49-47
AA 47-48
BA+ 35-60

Income:

Under $40k 36-59
$40k to $74k 42-52
$75k up 48-48

Marital Status:

Married 46-48
Widow/Div/Sep 38-56
Never Married 33-60

Race/Ethnicity:

White 43-51
Black 11-87
Hispanic 39-50
Other 49-46
DK/NA/ Ref 31-50

Religion:

Protestant 48-44
Catholic 47-49
Jewish 32-68
Other 47-47
None 26-69

Region

Milwaukee City 22-65
Rest of Milwaukee Metro 51-44
Madison Metro 31-65
Green Bay/Appleton 39-55
Rest of State 49-44

Source

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]

Winning the West has polled 500 likely voters each recently in AZ, CO, MT, NM and NV and generic congressional ballot results for each state are buried in the releases + several other important issues such as Trump approval and how things are moving in the right/wrong direction in each state and the US:

Generic congressional ballot

You must be logged in to read this quote.

AZ: D+1
CO: D+12
MT: R+1
NM: D+21
NV: D+5

Trump approval:

AZ: 43-52 (... Trump+2 sample, "how did you vote in 2016")
CO: 34-60 (Hillary+12 sample)
MT: 45-46 (Trump+11 sample)
NM: 34-61 (Hillary+15 sample)
NV: 42-53 (Hillary+3 sample)

Are things moving in the right/wrong direction in [state] and [the US]:

AZ: 41-49, 42-55
CO: 46-43, 32-63
MT: 46-38, 38-54
NM: 23-65, 30-66
NV: 46-42, 42-55

State topline results

Overall presentation

Issues heavily mentioned involve land use, conservation, and energy safety. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is unpopular even in Montana. Extreme positions are unwelcome, and solar power is popular.

Montana is in play? Wow!

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]

CBS News poll: Only a third of Americans (and 68% of Republicans) approve of the way Trump handled the Helsinki summit.

Overall: 32/55

D: 8/83
R: 68/21
I: 29/53

That 68 is relatively low for republicans, right?

Reagan-style Republicans, who still insist upon unqualified patriotism from elected officials, are still around.

It is amazing. I am very much a liberal and a partisan Democrat, but I would have never expected to be to the Right of a Republican President, supposedly a conservative, on foreign policy and issues of defense.   

[pbrower2a]

Winning the West has polled 500 likely voters each recently in AZ, CO, MT, NM and NV and generic congressional ballot results for each state are buried in the releases + several other important issues such as Trump approval and how things are moving in the right/wrong direction in each state and the US:

Generic congressional ballot

You must be logged in to read this quote.

AZ: D+1
CO: D+12
MT: R+1
NM: D+21
NV: D+5

Trump approval:

AZ: 43-52 (... Trump+2 sample, "how did you vote in 2016")
CO: 34-60 (Hillary+12 sample)
MT: 45-46 (Trump+11 sample)
NM: 34-61 (Hillary+15 sample)
NV: 42-53 (Hillary+3 sample)

Are things moving in the right/wrong direction in [state] and [the US]:

AZ: 41-49, 42-55
CO: 46-43, 32-63
MT: 46-38, 38-54
NM: 23-65, 30-66
NV: 46-42, 42-55

State topline results

Overall presentation

Issues heavily mentioned involve land use, conservation, and energy safety. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is unpopular even in Montana. Extreme positions are unwelcome, and solar power is popular.

Montana is in play? Wow!

Definitely not in the West, and ho-hum. New York state, Quinnipiac.

36-57 approve/disapprove.

https://poll.qu.edu/new-york-state/release-detail?ReleaseID=2556

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]

Hmm, is this a possible reaction to Putin meetup? If so, there's no reason this wouldn't dissipate in a few weeks. The American Public has the attention of a goldfish when it comes to Russia.

Offense (corruption, abuse of power, and treasonable deeds are the most offensive) and hurt (as from economic disaster) are difficult, if not impossible, to forget.

[pbrower2a]

Two and a half years before the inauguration of the President elected in November 2020 I can make a projection of the election  

Strong Democratic
Weak  Democratic
Barely Democratic
Possible 3rd Party
Toss-up (white)
Barely Republican
Weak Republican
Strong Republican

Of course this can change. The Democratic nominee is the recessive quality in deciding on this scheme. "Strong" is 10% or more; "Weak" is between 5% and 10%; "Barely" is between 1% to 4%; tossup is exactly what you think it means.  

[pbrower2a]

Polling from Arizona has been copious -- and consistent. If I see lots of polls in a state that has typically voted R, trended D against the incumbent, and shows demographics unfriendly to the President, I see the equivalent of Virginia in 2008.

[pbrower2a]

The colors in the legend are reversed.
[/quote]

Correction made.

[pbrower2a]

Is twenty42's argument really that America's better off now than it was in the middle of the biggest economic meltdown since 1929, a time when people legitimately thought that the entire global economy would collapse and we'd end up living Mad Max, and which actually resulted in an economic downturn so severe we're only now recovering from it a decade later...and that being better off than that is the bar for success?

No. I'm saying that I'm pretty sure most people on this forum are old enough to remember GWB's second term, and therefore recall what truly BAD times are like. I've literally seen posters claim that Trump's administration has been the worst times of American history, and that is simply not true. You cannot discount peace and prosperity because you don't like things Trump says.

A lot of Americans are better off now than they were two years ago. This annoys the left because they want Trump's administration to be an unmitigated disaster, but it is what it is. The leftists who today say that the president deserves no credit for a good economy had no problem blaming Bush for a bad one, as the 2006 and 2008 election results clearly show. I have no doubt that Dems would be planning HRC's carving on Mt. Rushmore if her administration was experiencing the same peace and prosperity as DJT's is now.

This is like giving a prayer of thanks to God that someone not you got the cancer/heart attack/ head-on collision with a drunk driver.

Many of us believe that the President's choices will have dreadful consequences. This is not pure theory; we have seen it before. Donald Trump is making the same mistakes that many political figures, not all of them Americans, have made as leaders. Maybe he gets away with them; maybe he doesn't. But if he doesn't, then he can get us all into deep trouble. We don't know when he will back off from a failed policy -- which makes it all scarier.