Trump approval ratings thread 1.3

[pbrower2a]

PA Poll: http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/pennsylvania/capitol-ideas/mc-nws-morning-call-muhlenberg-pennsylvania-poll-governor-senate-20180411-story.html




Trump Approval:
Approve - 39
Disapprove - 55

Trump won PA 48-47 in 2016

Also, approval of Tax Bill:
Approve - 39
Disapprove - 46

Interpreting this poll at its most charitable for President Trump (that the Trump vote will be 100-disapproval, figuring that he would pick up all undecided voters) suggests that President Trump will lose Pennsylvania 55-45. Republican nominees have won without  Pennsylvania, but the last time that they lost Pennsylvania so badly was 2008. We all know how that went.

Note that approval of the tax bill (a very right-wing agenda, and something generally not currently  in the public eye) is about as popular as the President himself.



Approval:

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 36
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 negative 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 39
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, New Jersey, and Virginia are exit polls from 2017 elections.  

[pbrower2a]

The attack on Syria will hurt him even more. People are sick of years and years of endless wars.

He may get a short-lived bump as Americans rally behind the President whenever there is some international crisis. But let it start going bad (body bags in a murky situation) or have at best superficial effect, then the bump will fade.

As with other deeds of this terribly-flawed President I expect bad results even in diplomacy. I expect Vladimir Putin to call him on the carpet for this and that he will  whine like a puppy who just got a spanking for defecating on the kitchen floor.

[pbrower2a]

There will be no bump. Trump is at his ceiling, and the majority of Americans probably opposed these stupid strikes.

Wait...so do you approve of Assad gassing his own people? I'm confused.

At this point, about all that I would approve about Bashir Assad is a well-tied rope and a seven-foot drop.

[pbrower2a]

No obvious or lasting bump from the strike on Syria.

[pbrower2a]

Jackson (?) Clarion-Ledger, a Gannett newspaper. Mississippi, and related to the special election involving the vacancy being left by Senator Thad Cochran.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Huge number of undecided on Trump approval, and this poll is disputed.

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/17/chris-mcdaniel-yall-politics-fake-poll/524307002/

Approval:

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 36
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 negative 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 39
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]

Trump Indiana approval: 47%-48%


Source

Republicans have never won the Presidency in more than a century when winning Indiana by less than a 10% margin. Using 100-DIS as a ceiling for President Trump in Indiana, I can see him winning the state 52-48, which means that he will lose Ohio by a clear margin and Michigan by a large margin.

The change in category from treading water to underwater is within the margin of error, so I wouldn't make much of it. But if Indiana is close in 2020 we have a landslide.

TEXAS

from Quinnipiac, which has never polled Texas before.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://poll.qu.edu/texas/release-detail?ReleaseID=2536

Ted Cruz is barely ahead of O'Rourke. Texas could reflect change in political culture unique to Texas, but (1) Trump support in Texas has been consistently shaky so far, and (2) see also Arizona, Florida, and Georgia, all of which have some similarities. Texas contains the 400th electoral vote for a Democrat, which is not a partisan statement.

Sure, Texas is a tricky state to poll -- but Trump can;t be that far underwater in the Lone Star State in a poll without being underwater.

https://wkussrc.blogspot.com/2018/04/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html

Trump: 45/45 in Kentucky

Approval:

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 36
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 negative 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 39
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]

These maps revive the topic of whether President trump is doing better or worse than is necessary for winning a 50-50 split of the popular vote. To refresh on the guidelines for deciding what is a 50-50 vote nationwide based upon the recent voting in the various states and DC:  


Cook PVI ratings:

Color and intensity will indicate the variance from a tie (ties will be in white) with  in a 50-50 election with blue for an R lean and red for a D lean. Numbers will be shown except in individual districts

int      var
2        1-4%
3        5-8%
5        9-12%
7        13-19%
9        20% or more

Cook PVI assumes a 50-50 Presidential election, reasonable since 2000 because except for the 2008 Presidential election all such exception, those five all were basically even for almost the entire electoral season. One can use polling to predict whether the next Presidential election will be a 50-50 proposition, and if not, how far the likely reality diverges from that assumption.

Based on 2012 and 2016 Cook PVI shows that the average Republican nominee will carry Alabama 59-41 and Florida 52-48; that the nominees will tie in New Hampshire and Pennsylvania; and that the Democratic nominee will win Michigan by 51-49 and New York 62-38. Of course, even in a 50-50 election, cultural affinities and the emphases will matter greatly. So could demographic trends. We will talk about that for Arizona and Texas.  

For DC (not measured) and Congressional districts that vote independently of states, I have common sense for Dee Cee and the congressional votes for those districts.

DC -- way out of reach for any Republican.

After seeing Trump behind 47-48 in Indiana and 43- 52 in Texas, and at a 45-45 tie in Kentucky, states that Republicans have usually won easily since 2000, I get  to assess states as 100-disapproval as a ceiling for a Trump vote in 2020. Those two states have 57 electoral votes between them that the Republican nominee dare not lose. That is two more than California.  



100-Disapproval

55% or higher dark blue
50% to 54% or higher but not tied medium blue
50% or higher but negative 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 39
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.  


Now, for the variance between  100-DIS from recent polling and Cook PVI.  

Variation from PVI (polls from October 2017 and later):

Orange implies that President Trump projects to do better than Cook PVI based on 100-DIS. So the President is doing 2% better in California in accordance with 100-DIS than Cook PVI suggests. President Trump projects to do 1% better than the typical Republican nominee in Vermont.

That's the end of the good news for his prospects of re-election, and that good news isn't very relevant. This projection suggests that overall the President will NOT approach 50% of the vote in 2020.

[pbrower2a]

This projection suggests that overall the President will NOT approach 50% of the vote in 2020.

He didn't approach it 2016 either.

True. Trump did about as well in the percentage of the popular vote in 2016 as Dukakis in 1988 and McCain in 2008... and this projection shows him faring badly enough to lose all states that he won by 10% or less -- Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Iowa. He also loses ME-02 and NE-02. That is a shift of 169 electoral votes.

[pbrower2a]

Two of the states closest to going for Trump in 2016. New Hampshire apparently back to where it usually is (close); Nevada looks as if it will go back to 2008.

Trump 39/56 in Nevada https://mobile.twitter.com/meganmesserly/status/988966489599361024

Wow!

UNH New Hampshire Poll (last poll was in February 2018): https://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/research_publications/gsp2018_spring_presapp42318.pdf

Approve - 41 (+6)
Disapprove - 52 (-7)

His highest approval in this poll since May 2017.

Approval:

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 36
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 negative 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 48
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]

Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

Just got recent Poll - much higher than President O at same time....Well, much more has been accomplished!

lmao

I can't for the life of me understand how he is rationalizing that in his head. It only makes sense if he thinks tax reform was so big and so meaningful that it trumps everything Obama did, which in his first 2 years, was decently substantial. Obviously I wish it had been more, or at least different things, but it wasn't nothing. And Trump can't use Gorsuch as an excuse here either, because Obama had two justices of his own, and Gorsuch wouldn't have even been an option had his party decided that stealing scotus seats was maybe a step too far if they ever want to have reasonable relations with Congressional Democrats.

Meanwhile, with Republicans, literally all they've done is a scam tax bill that is leaving us deeper in debt and little else, rolling back some regulations, and passing budgets that their own party seems to hate. This is all on top of them essentially planning on doing nothing for most/all of 2018!

It's these kinds of little pointless and easily disproven lies that make me question why his supporters stand by him. He lies about everything, even the little things that do not matter.

In his delusional head, Trump has single-handedly prevented a major terrorist attack, put a massive stop to illegal immigration and deported more criminals than any prior president, ended ISIS as a threat forever, saved millions of lives by stopping Syrian chemical weapons in the tracks, saved a major NATO ally (Turkey), revitalized the entire US economy while paving the way to the future, saved more millions of American lives by single-handedly fixing a broken health care system, turned us back into a real superpower, and prevented otherwise inevitable nuclear wars with Russia and North Korea. And probably a hundred or a thousand more I didn't quote. The man is insane.

I am  surprised that he hasn't taken credit for beautiful sunsets.

[pbrower2a]

I'm gonna guess maybe around a 46% on RCP until early June when Mueller or Cohen drop a bomb shell.

you really are hoping a lot for something from Mueller

There has been much, so aside from any possible economic crimes (I am not saying that they have happened, or that they will be exposed), most possible shock and outrage has already happened.

Economic crime such as bribery, embezzlement, and extortion is the easiest crime for the layman to understand short of the obvious murder, rape, kidnapping, drug trafficking, and armed robbery. I do not know what Mueller has in reserve, but so far economic crimes have not come to the fore. Then there could be mail fraud or wire fraud which form a big chunk of federal convictions that lead to the federal penitentiary, and tax evasion or money laundering.

[pbrower2a]

In the Morning Consult Poll,

Gen Z

Approve: 19%
Disapprove: 75%

#ConservativeGenZ

A surprisingly huge gap between them and millennials, one that doesn't really exist between the Millennials and Gen X.

Though honestly it seems that these "Gen Z" people in the poll are mostly the youngest millennials.

You have to draw the line between generations somewhere and 1996/97 is generally accepted as the dividing line

So with these 14 year ‘generations’ we already have 7/8 year old post gen z’ers?

Yeah. 2009 seems like a good place to start the most recent generation, because there's an actual big shift in population patterns due to the baby bust that started with the recession. That's a pretty major shift that marks that cohort as different to the 2000s babies.

2005 is a good divide because such ensures that children with no memory of the Double-Zero decade at its worst will not be part of the Millennial generation. Child memories (kids born in 1924 know about the Great Stock Market Crash and behavior that led to it) are vivid; infants (born in the late 1920s at the time of the Market Crash) don't know about such. Howe and Strauss divide the GI and Silent generations between 1924 and 1925, to be sure, for another reason (that those born in 1924 could still make rank and have heroic roles of leadership in World War II, as did the elder Bush, but those born in 1925 were not fully adult when the war ended).  

Howe and Strauss give 24 years for yielding the GI Generation but only 19 for the Silent (Mondale and Biden as 'bookends'), and 18 (1943 to 1960) for Boomers. Obama shows some behavior clearly not Boom -- he is just simply too pragmatic, and he is not as self-righteous as Boom leaders.  Those may be positives, but Boomer leaders so far have not shown themselves easy-going even when such is appropriate. People can be self-righteous and evil, for which I am not naming any names.

[pbrower2a]

SurveyUSA: Trump is underwater in North Carolina; 50% disapprove, 43% approve, 7% undecided.

I find it hard to believe that Trump approval in North Carolina is under 40%.

NH-Suffolk LV

Approve - 39
Disapprove - 51


http://www.suffolk.edu/documents/SUPRC/5_2_2018_marginals.pdf

...but I can believe that Trump approval in New Hampshire is in the high 30s.

New York, Quinnipiac  31-66  (as if anyone would be surprised!)

So much for the 'bump' in the President's ratings just because some good news is coming out of Korea.

Approval:

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]

It seems Trump has finally broken out of the 40% +/- 3% range and may be heading for a new equilibrium at around 42% among all adults and around 44% with registered voters, I wonder what has changed in the last week or so to prompt this shift up, North Korea looks to be the most likely explanation, in any case, if Trump's approval ratings are at 45% or higher going into November, the GOP stands a good chance of retaining both chamber's of Congress. Such an outcome would likely cause a deep crisis within Democratic ranks and perhaps also the final collapse of the Never Trump brigade.

Indeed Trump approval over 45% nationwide indicates a high likelihood of him winning re-election.  That is roughly the norm for Obama after the 2010 election, and that is where Dubya was at the start of the 2004 electoral season.

Let us not forget what the GOP and corporate lobbyists want -- a permanent hold on power so that America can become much like fascist Italy in the 1930s -- a pure plutocracy in which labor unions are irrelevant, labor is cheap and subject to brutal discipline, dissidents are rendered irrelevant even if not murdered, militarization of all aspects of public and personal life (culture, commerce, education, religion, and even family life) runs wild, and above all else the Leader is treated much like a god.  

Donald Trump already has a personality cult. He ain't Lincoln, he ain't FDR, and he ain't Churchill. He's scared of becoming a 'weak' leader like Obama... and let us remember that government by lobbyist (which we have for all practical purposes) will long survive a second term of Donald Trump should the GOP succeed in entrenching power permanently.

This is not the GOP that your grandparents knew.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I definitely think unless the Democrats take back at least one house, it will at least be a somewhat substantial challenge finding a path forward for them.

Nearly as important will be Governor and state legislatures. Count on someone like Governor Scott Walker (Reactionary, Wisconsin) to 'deliver' Wisconsin's ten electoral votes to Donald Trump should he remain in office, but a defeated ex-Governor Walker having no ability to do such.

[pbrower2a]

I would say the GOP is still more the party of George W Bush than Trump (which is a good thing).

It's really too early to say one way or another. You can't honestly make that call before even the first midterm of the post-2016 era. As for what you said - it sounds about right. Trump has rolled over a lot, but in some ways it's hard to know exactly what he was ever serious about. He seemed in line with tax cuts, the devil was just in the details. Immigration seems like a bigger issue now due to him, even if he won't get his wall. Candidates are trying to replicate his success by acting like him in some places (Clinton this, culture wars that). As for Trump trying to neutralize the issue of social programs - again, he never even seemed serious about this. He knows it's not popular to talk about gutting social programs, so he lied about it but basically signaled that he would sign bills if they got to him after taking office. At the end of the day, nothing has changed here. Republicans are still against the safety net but too afraid to do anything about it. Any lasting legacy from Trump on this is that they may be more open to straight up lying about their position on it and then trying to sneak through changes later on.

Trump is leaving his mark on the party, but it's much too early to know what it looks like in the future.

Trump ran as a populist, something that Republicans have not been except in places with large fringe constituencies (ethnic and religious bigotry). But we need to remember that the economic elites behind the GOP are clearly for cheap, cowed labor that it can work to exhaustion.  Donald Trump has a slogan perfectly tuned to bringing back the Gilded Age on behalf of people whose greed and economic sadism constitute their soul. This elite wants the common man to endure the 60-hour workweeks and wants kids back in the factories and mines. They want to exempt themselves (after all, their power, profit, and indulgence are to them the sole objects of human existence, especially for the working poor) from taxes. They want enhanced technology solely to enhance their gain, which means selling off such infrastructure as highways to themselves to be transformed into monopolistic gouges. Guess who profits, and guess who gets the gouge!
 
It's hard for us to believe that there are people so reactionary even if technology renders such a reactionary agenda ludicrous. Of course if one has absolute power (the GOP has yet to establish itself as the 'Leading Force in American politics, but it is working on that) one can enforce the cruelest and most absurd of policies.

[pbrower2a]

I would say the GOP is still more the party of George W Bush than Trump (which is a good thing).

It's really too early to say one way or another. You can't honestly make that call before even the first midterm of the post-2016 era. As for what you said - it sounds about right. Trump has rolled over a lot, but in some ways it's hard to know exactly what he was ever serious about. He seemed in line with tax cuts, the devil was just in the details. Immigration seems like a bigger issue now due to him, even if he won't get his wall. Candidates are trying to replicate his success by acting like him in some places (Clinton this, culture wars that). As for Trump trying to neutralize the issue of social programs - again, he never even seemed serious about this. He knows it's not popular to talk about gutting social programs, so he lied about it but basically signaled that he would sign bills if they got to him after taking office. At the end of the day, nothing has changed here. Republicans are still against the safety net but too afraid to do anything about it. Any lasting legacy from Trump on this is that they may be more open to straight up lying about their position on it and then trying to sneak through changes later on.

Trump is leaving his mark on the party, but it's much too early to know what it looks like in the future.

Should Donald Trump prove the catastrophic failure as President that most liberals think he is, then his mark (actually, stain) upon the GOP will come off far faster than the reputation of the GOP for Trump.

Trump knows that talking about gutting social programs and ravaging the environment for quick bucks is unpopular, but maybe he can implement such and make such implementation stick. Maybe he dreams of a supermajority for corporatist Republicans that can amend the Constitution to have a Bill of Rights for wealth.

[pbrower2a]

I would say the GOP is still more the party of George W Bush than Trump (which is a good thing).

It's really too early to say one way or another. You can't honestly make that call before even the first midterm of the post-2016 era. As for what you said - it sounds about right. Trump has rolled over a lot, but in some ways it's hard to know exactly what he was ever serious about. He seemed in line with tax cuts, the devil was just in the details. Immigration seems like a bigger issue now due to him, even if he won't get his wall. Candidates are trying to replicate his success by acting like him in some places (Clinton this, culture wars that). As for Trump trying to neutralize the issue of social programs - again, he never even seemed serious about this. He knows it's not popular to talk about gutting social programs, so he lied about it but basically signaled that he would sign bills if they got to him after taking office. At the end of the day, nothing has changed here. Republicans are still against the safety net but too afraid to do anything about it. Any lasting legacy from Trump on this is that they may be more open to straight up lying about their position on it and then trying to sneak through changes later on.

Trump is leaving his mark on the party, but it's much too early to know what it looks like in the future.

Should Donald Trump prove the catastrophic failure as President that most liberals think he is, then his mark (actually, stain) upon the GOP will come off far faster than the reputation of the GOP for Trump.

Trump knows that talking about gutting social programs and ravaging the environment for quick bucks is unpopular, but maybe he can implement such and make such implementation stick. Maybe he dreams of a supermajority for corporatist Republicans that can amend the Constitution to have a Bill of Rights for wealth.

Or a constitution that enshrines an absolute right to property but nothing else.

Like... the right to not deal in unions and the right to get the aid of law enforcement to suppress strikes. The right to squelch criticism of corporate policy. The right to veto an employee's move to another company. The sorts of 'labor peace' that some fascist regimes offer.

[pbrower2a]

I wonder why he plummeted in Wyoming and North Dakota. Is it because of his drop I support amongst farmers?

I doubt it....barely anyone works in agriculture anymore

In reality, the con has worn off and his shtick is getting old...even among really GOP states

Sure, but in those states lots of people depend upon agriculture for their income -- sellers and lessors of equipment, fuel suppliers, vehicle repairers, bankers (farm loans), dealers in farm products -- and of course, in much farming such people as dairy workers... When farmers hurt due to low prices, so do they.

[pbrower2a]

States decided by 10% or less in 2016, including Utah (Trump got only 45% of the vote, and Clinton and third-party nominees added up to over 50%). Margin followed by approval. Probably the only states that can reasonably matter, so far.

IA    9.41 45-51
TX    8.98   51-45
OH   8.07 45-51
GA   5.10 49-46
NC   3.66 49-46
AZ   3.50 48-48
FL   1.19 48-48
WI   0.76 41-55
PA   0.72  45-51
MI   0.22 42-54
NH  0.37 43-55
MN   1.51 39-57
NV   2.42 45-51
ME  2.96 43-53
CO  4.91 40-56
VA   5.32 45-51
NM  8.21
UT 46-50

[pbrower2a]

FL-FAU

https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/national-govt--politics/fau-poll-scott-edging-nelson-senate-race-trump-approval/f1R3VtiD14RG4HwpjeQ5iI/

Approve - 43
Disapprove - 45

You must be logged in to read this quote.

12% undecided? I'm not using it when it is that close in a swing state -- with that many undecided. 

[pbrower2a]

You guys would rather bad things to happen to America if it meant his numbers would drop

I wouldn't.

I hope he succeeds at every turn.  I hope he'll be a good leader.

He hasn't been at all so far, but I've never stopped hoping for that since his election.

The people who most stand to be burned are the small-government types who want the free market to work its wonders and want America to operate on Christian moral principles. Donald Trump is not a conservative (he is a big-government right-winger, a crony capitalist who simply wants to gut the welfare state and sell off assets to profiteers), and he does not act upon Christian moral principles. He could easily be the best thing possible for liberals who can wait for the abject failure of the Trump Administration. That could be eight years. He is unwittingly setting up America for a liberal who acts as a mirror image of Ronald Reagan. Sure, right-wingers thwarted much of what Obama wanted starting in 2011,  But they will not be so welcome so quickly.

2016 was the right time for a moderate conservative, and we got a right-wing demagogue who quickly proved an extremist.

[pbrower2a]

Would it be ethical for a Italian to wish the Duce good luck on running Italy or a Spaniard wishing Franco well? Trump is a danger to American institutions like the Duce or Franco.

Trump is a Democratically elected president. Mussolini and Franco gained power through coups. Invalid comparison.

Rafael Trujillo and Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier were freely elected. 

It's hard to think of any tyrant who took credit for economic growth, even of his design, for which a less murderous figure could not have gotten more rapid economic growth.

[pbrower2a]

With the KOREA BOUNCE, it's increasingly looking like Trump got played and the summit won't happen. And considering that Trump has shown that no agreement with the U.S. while he's president is worth the paper it's printed on, such a summit would just be a huge waste of time for everyone involved:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/15/politics/north-korea-suspends-south-korea-talks-us-military-drills/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/politics/north-korea-john-bolton-libya-comments/index.html

It's all unfortunate. The Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of China agree on a nuclear-free Korean peninsula. Of course it is possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons, which is better than doing the wrong thing for attractive reasons.

In any event, the optimism that President Trump showed was unwise. This is very different from the situation in which Richard Nixon found a way to deal with Mainland China. Nixon wasn;t going to promise anything until he got his deal. Real diplomats as we had under Nixon are cautious.

[pbrower2a]

Hmm, poll after poll of catastrophic news for the Dems since the Korea bounce a few week back. Time to face reality.  This is '02 all over again. Even the PA specials were miserable at the lack of swing.

The catastrophic news for Americans, whatever their Party, is that the nuclear talks are off. Ex-Governors with solid approval or favorability ratings do well in Senate races, so at this point I see a result like that of 2006 as a possibility.

Democrats not winning the Senate might be worth divesting a capricious dictator of his Bad-Boy Toys... Trump handled this badly. I'm not going to make quantitative predictions on the polls, but 'back to normal (Trump approval at 42 or lower except with Rasmussen)' seems more likely than anything else. But that is still a guess.

[pbrower2a]

This is '02 all over again.

Guess what? It isn't.

Moderately good economy, popular incumbent with his base, foreign policy earthquakes (Korea), divided opposition with no clue how to primary correctly (Kara Eastman fans, I'm looking at you), and voilà. Muh Russia has run its course.  

Trump isn't popular are you high? Also how dare you compare North Korea to 9/11

He is with his base, and they are motivated in ways polls can’t even measure. Didn’t Nate Silver have Hillary at 99% to win? Didn’t they have to uncall states 2016 election night due to the surge of votes in the rural areas?

Also, if someone asked me 15 years ago if Korea would ever be in talks, I’d’ve told them it was up there with pigs taking flight. This is the Berlin Wall of our generation.

Heck, Goldwater and McGovern were strong -- even freakishly strong -- with their bases of support. But neither got much else because the Other Side could depict them as dangerous radicals. They lost badly. Fanatical support by any one person means at most one vote.

There was no 'uncalling' of states in 2016, at least on MSNBC. MSNBC was slow to call states that many Democrats expected to go easily to Hillary Clinton... and it called states late, whichever way they went.

It would be unfair to make comparisons between Trump and Carter because Carter is a good, decent, rational  person for which things just didn't go as expected and for which voters held him to account. Americans are extremely hostile to corruption when it involves Congress and Governors, so I expect much the same with this President. Add to this that we have no sign of loving despotic or dictatorial Presidents.

Corrupt, extreme, and despotic. If that isn't cause for losing, then what is?

Disapproval ratings for this President suggest that no matter how strongly his supporters adulate him, far more who have given up on him, and I do not those who disapprove of him to vote for him.