Biden approval ratings thread, 1.0

[pbrower2a]

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/

Rassy has Biden up 50/49% Approvals, mediocre Approvals for a 304 map not a 413 map, it's a 304 map

Rasmussen almost always has the least-flattering view of Democratic prospects. If Biden were to end up at a 55-45 split of the popular vote against him, then Rasmussen would probably have him defeated as badly as Mondale in 1984, which would roughly be Maryland and the District of Columbia. Polarized as the American electorate is, even a Carter-scale loss in the popular vote would still give him California, New York, Delaware, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island...maybe Washington State.

50-49 for an incumbent going into the electoral season means that with a spirited and competent campaign, the incumbent is going to get somewhere between 54% and 58% of the popular vote. That flips Florida and North Carolina at the least to Biden from Trump at the least and puts Texas, Ohio, and Iowa at risk for the Republican.

54% is slightly better for Biden than Obama in 2008, which is the lower limit for what anyone now calls a landslide. In 2024 that means that the networks have called a state that the Republican nominee absolutely cannot afford to lose before the polls close on the West Coast at 11 PM ET. Basically, Michigan or Pennsylvania are about even as the remaining votes are coming in from Greater Detroit, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh. Georgia is usually one of the most efficient states in counting its votes and went into a hiatus in counting votes from Greater Atlanta on Election Night, so that is the most likely state that the Republican absolutely, positively must win to have a chance... much like Ohio in 2008.

Remember -- the Incumbent President controls the agenda and that is usually enough to win. Donald Trump came close to winning re-election despite being the worst President in the memory of any living person. (Really he was... and the sooner that Republicans recognize that the sooner they will start winning again).

[pbrower2a]

Rassy daily tracking July 13th 49 Approve 49 Disapprove

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/prez_track_july13

Far cry from 60% we're in for a 304 map folks, same Approvals like he had during Elections

Rasmussen is always an outlier. Unless the vast majority of people that COVID-19 has killed are blacks and Hispanics, which nobody can know yet, Rasmussen is so far off everyone else (the word is "outlier") that it is one of the polls that you can usually cast off. On the other hand, if Rasmussen knows something that the rest of us don't know, then it could be surprisingly right -- as in 2020.   

[pbrower2a]

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2021/07/04/gov-abbott-rebounds-against-possible-challenger-matthew-mcconaughey-has-razor-thin-edge-over-actor/

Biden at 47/42 in TX per Dallas Morning News poll.

47-42 is not as good as 52-47... but President Biden will not need Texas in 2024.

Key:

30% red shade: Biden up 1-5%
40% red shade: Biden up 5-10%
50% red shade: Biden up 10-15%
60% red shade: Biden up 15-20%
70% red shade: Biden up 20-25%
80% red shade: Biden up 25-30%
90% red shade: Biden up 30%+

50% green shade: tie

30% blue shade: Biden down 1-5%
40% blue shade: Biden down 5-10%
50% blue shade: Biden down 10-15%
60% blue shade: Biden down 15-20%
70% blue shade: Biden down 20-25%
80% blue shade: Biden down 25-30%
90% blue shade: Biden down 30%+

Five months after inauguration, an incumbent whose approval numbers are where the voting results were is doing fine. Not everything succeeds. Typically the entertainment media lampoon high-profile incumbents. Well, the lampooning is still heavily the ex-President and some Republican pols. In need give no names.

Yeah this map doesn't happen with Biden Approvals now, honeymoon is over

I'm not always sure that I have the right metric.  It could be net approval versus electoral margin at this stage. That would give some eerie results: for example, if President Biden had approval at 57-40 in Connecticut and a net approval of 17 (let us say 57-40) then I would have Connecticut in negative territory, and if I had Alabama with 21% net disapproval in Alabama (which went 62-37) I would have Alabama in positive territory. There's no poll for either state, so both scenarios are hypothetical. 

Every Presidency is different. Personalities are different as is effectiveness of a President as a leader. There have been far fewer statewide approval polls at this stage than there were with Donald Trump. Approvals for President Biden have been about as sticky on the high side so rar as they were sticky on the low side for Trump. 

....................................

I may have had an unduly crude application of Nate Silver's Myth of 50% for the Presidency involving the Incumbent. I have typically assumed that running a Presidential campaign in a given state is much like running a Gubernatorial or Senatorial campaign for someone who has already won the office. With approval at 43.5% in a state an incumbent holding a Governorship or a Senate seat has a 50% chance of winning re-election if he runs the usual spirited and competent campaign for re-election. A notable exception is an appointed politician who has never proved the ability to win the state in such an election and who often shows such with an incompetent campaign. For that I had the example of Gerald Ford  campaign by an incumbent President for re-election. Gerald Ford had never won a statewide election of any kind, and it showed!

Of course, legislating and government are not as easy as they look. One often gets elected by people who hear and expect one thing and are either disappointed or pleasantly surprised (more the former). Campaign season requires one to put on a happy face and make plenty of appearances at local get-togethers... and while a Governor of Michigan or a US Senator from Michigan might appear at the "Jefferson County* 4-H Fair", the President can't.

The Presidential campaign must spread the resources of a President (as campaign appearances) thin, so here is how I would guess that a President seeking the electoral votes of a state would do if he has these sorts of approval numbers early in a campaign:

53% or higher -- winning in a landslide in that state
51-52% -- winning without really trying
47%-50% -- wins with slight effort
45-46% -- must do a huge amount of campaigning to win
43-44% -- loses unless he puts in an huge effort that all goes right
42% or lower -- forget it! He wins only if the opponent is an epic failure.   

*Michigan has some weird county names, and rather few of the obvious. There is no Michigan county named for any President other than Jackson or Van Buren; Clinton County, Michigan is definitely not named after President William Jefferson Clinton. Another odd one: there is a Churchill, County, Nevada, but it was not named after Sir Winston, as it was named four years before the great statesman was born.

[pbrower2a]

UNH has Biden approval/disapproval at 50/49. I'd include a link here but unfortunately I'm under 20 posts.

Nationally or in NH?  That's pretty close to the last Granite State poll I saw from UNH (51/47, IIRC).

It is statewide. In the last few years I have seen New Hampshire tantalize Republicans only to disappoint them in the relevant election. I'm not saying that that will definitively happen again.

Most significantly... newbies are highly unlikely to introduce manipulative polling. For now I take his (or her) word on this one. 

Key:

30% red shade: Biden up 1-5%
40% red shade: Biden up 5-10%
50% red shade: Biden up 10-15%
60% red shade: Biden up 15-20%
70% red shade: Biden up 20-25%
80% red shade: Biden up 25-30%
90% red shade: Biden up 30%+

50% green shade: tie

30% blue shade: Biden down 1-5%
40% blue shade: Biden down 5-10%
50% blue shade: Biden down 10-15%
60% blue shade: Biden down 15-20%
70% blue shade: Biden down 20-25%
80% blue shade: Biden down 25-30%
90% blue shade: Biden down 30%+

[pbrower2a]

For an incumbent Governor or Senator. approval typically drops off about 6% from the level of the vote in the election in roughly half a year. Almost all Presidents were either Senators or State governors.  To keep such from happening one must be either extremely good or extremely lucky. For a President this was just the same for Donald Trump as for Barack Obama. Governing and legislating are tricky propositions either way.

But campaigning is necessary for almost all incumbents seeking re-election. Putting on the happy face and recapitulating one's promises, appealing to supporters from the last time, and taking pot-shots at an opponent come naturally to most pols. That also describes Barack Obama and Donald Trump. Going into campaign mode is good for getting an electoral result about 6% higher than an approval rating in the winter before the election.

There has not been the severe drop-off from the electoral result from about 51% to 45% for President Biden... yet. Something could happens to bring that about, or even worse. We can all trust that America's most ruthless plutocrats have their dream agenda and would love to enforce it. They might yet et their way, but nobody can reasonably predict how that happens, let alone that it will.    

[pbrower2a]

Here's one possible explanation of how the polls could have been off from what they were in some of the potential swing states. Oddly, such states as Maine, Minnesota, and New Hampshire voted roughly as expected. The potential swing states with large minority populations) Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia were not potential swing states) voted largely as expected despite large minority populations.

It's COVID-19. This report doesn't so much explain the situation in November 2020 as it does for July 2021; the 2020 election is not its focus although that is my focus in this discussion. One can get a general idea. If blacks and non-Cuban Hispanics of voting age dropped out of voting in 2020 due to death from COVID-19 to a disproportionate extent, then potential swing states with large minority populations upon which Democrats depended for making the difference between a Biden win and a Trump win (Hispanics in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, and Texas; blacks in Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin) either tightened the statewide electoral races, swung the state to Trump (Florida and North Carolina), or made what might have been a very close (Texas) not so close.

Accusations of design for political advantage are premature. I am going to guess that the people dying from COVID-19 have become less disproportionately from minority populations because the people most likely to resist or refuse inoculation are now heavily white and on the reactionary side of the political spectrum.  Such may have effects upon subsequent midterm and Presidential elections, even as early as 2022, but this is not my current focus.     

   The Centers for Disease Control give us a partial report... because the story is not yet fully complete.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/VSRR015-508.pdf

Provisional Life Expectancy Estimates for 2020 Elizabeth Arias, Ph.D., Betzaida Tejada-Vera, M.S., Farida Ahmad, M.P.H., and Kenneth D. Kochanek, M.A. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention • National Center for Health Statistics • National Vital Statistics System NCHS reports can be downloaded from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/index.htm. Introduction The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) collects and disseminates the nation’s official vital statistics through the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS). NCHS uses provisional vital statistics data for conducting public health surveillance and final data for producing annual national natality and mortality statistics. NCHS publishes annual and decennial national life tables based on final vital statistics. To assess the effects on life expectancy of excess mortality observed during 2020, NCHS published provisional life expectancy estimates for the months January through June, 2020 in February 2021 (1). This report presents updated estimates of life expectancy based on provisional mortality data for the full year, January through December, 2020. Provisional data are early estimates based on death certificates received, processed, and coded, but not finalized, by NCHS. These estimates are considered provisional because death certificate information may later be revised, and additional death certificates may be received until approximately 6 months after the end of the year. This report presents life expectancy estimates calculated using abridged period life tables based on provisional death counts for 2020, by sex, for the total, Hispanic, non-Hispanic white, and non-Hispanic black populations. Estimates for the American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN), Asian, and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (NHOPI) populations were not produced due to the impact of race and ethnicity misclassification on death certificates for these populations on the precision of life expectancy estimates (2). There are two types of life tables: the cohort (or generation) and the period (or current) life table. The cohort life table presents the mortality experience of a particular birth cohort from the moment of birth through consecutive ages in successive calendar years. The period life table does not represent the mortality experience of an actual birth cohort but rather presents what would happen to a hypothetical cohort if it experienced throughout its entire life the mortality conditions of a particular period. Period life expectancy estimates based on final data for 2019 by sex, Hispanic origin, and race are also provided in this report for purposes of comparison (see Technical Notes and reference 3 for description of methodology). Unlike the previous estimates based on 6 months of data, this full-year report presents contributions of causes of death to the changes in life expectancy using a life table partitioning technique (see Technical Notes). Keywords: life expectancy • Hispanic origin • race • cause of death • National Vital Statistics System Data and Methods Provisional life expectancy estimates were calculated using abridged period life tables based on provisional death counts for 2020 from death records received and processed by NCHS as of May 13, 2021; provisional numbers of births for the same period based on birth records received and processed by NCHS as of April 7, 2021; and, July 1, 2020, monthly postcensal population estimates based on the 2010 decennial census. Provisional mortality rates are typically computed using death data after a 3-month lag following date of death, as completeness and timeliness of provisional death data can vary by many factors, including cause of death, month of the year, and age of the decedent (4,5). Mortality data used in this report include over 99% of the deaths that occurred in 2020, but certain jurisdictions and age groups may be underrepresented for later months (5). Deaths requiring investigation, including infant deaths, deaths from external injuries, and drug overdose deaths may be underestimated (6,7). See Technical Notes for more information about the calculation of the abridged period life tables, 2019 life expectancy estimates by race and Hispanic origin, and life table partitioning by cause of death. Results Life expectancy in the United States The Table summarizes life expectancy by age, Hispanic origin, race, and sex. Life expectancy at birth represents the average number of years a group of infants would live if they were to experience throughout life the agespecific death rates prevailing during a specified period. In 2020, life expectancy at birth for the total U.S. population


(Read the source material if you want to see something more legible and connect to links).

Some conclusions that I draw (again, read the source material, as it ill serves cutting and pasting):

1. It may surprise many of us that Hispanic populations have overtaken non-Hispanic whites, let alone blacks, in life expectancy. That may reflect culture. Hispanic culture seems much more optimistic and life-affirming than the non-Hispanic mainstream.

(snarky material redacted due to a lack of relevance to this discussion)

 So what causes the higher life expectancy among Hispanic-Americans despite being poorer as a whole? First, not smoking as much. The second-lowest state in the percentage of smokers is California, which has a surprisingly-large Mormon population (that is part of it; Utah is 51st among the States and the federal district in consumption of tobacco products, and California is a distant 50th), and Hispanics account for much of the low smoking rate in California. Not smoking offsets the effects of air pollution in infamously-smoggy L.A. Texas, which has some very poor populations as in states to its east from Oklahoma in the west to North Carolina and Georgia in the east, is below average in tobacco use and the states to its east are all above average. (Missouri, Kentucky, and West Virginia fit this pattern, too of poverty and heavy smoking). Texas Hispanics, largely Mexican-Americans, are really-light smokers. That explains much. Another factor is that Hispanics have more tightly-knit communities. One is not alone, which explains how Mexican-Americans were much less-likely than others to die during a heat wave in Chicago in 2015. Someone was looking out for elderly Hispanics to make sure that they had fans and could keep their windows open. Blacks and poor whites often got neglected... and died for that neglect.

2. The strengths of Hispanic communities depend upon them being close to each other. With COVID-19 that may have been too close in housing, let alone many workplaces (as in food-processing places in which many of them work) or in the hospitality business and retailing in which they see everyone, infected or not. COVID-19 ravaged Hispanics as it did not ravage non-Hispanic whites or even blacks. Non-Cuban Hispanics vote heavily Democratic irrespective of economic status, and if they endured a disproportionate number of deaths from COVID-19, then that made have made the 2020 vote closer in Arizona and Nevada than many of us expected.

3. Declines in life expectancy by ethnicity and gender were as follows:

Hispanic male -3.7
non-Hispanic black male -3.3
Non-Hispanic black female -2.4
Hispanic female -2.0
non-Hispanic white male -1.3
non-Hispanic white female -1.1    

Political consequences are possible and even likely. 

In a country so polarized in political orientation on ethnicity as is the USA, divergent rates in death rates among people of voting age among different groups could shape the election.  Trump came close to being re-elected, but if this is why he came close, this is more cause for shame than for praise for any cleverness. If there is any design, then such might be of interest at the Hague Tribunal for crimes against humanity.   

I'm not accusing anyone of political manipulation. COVID-19 certainly disenfranchised black and Hispanic voters discriminatorily, whether the effect was design or accident, by literally killing them. It also disenfranchised white voters, but not by the same extent by literally killing them. Practically all deaths from COVID-19 were of people of voting age.  Draw whatever conclusions you wish.

4. People may have been dying of COVID-19 instead of something else, like cancer, strokes, HIV, cirrhosis, diabetes, or dementia. For people in weakened conditions, COVID-19 might have been the official killer on a death certificate -- but COVID-19 dwarfs those causes combined.

5, The most obvious limitation on this study is time.  We do not know what effects will arise in the future, but they cannot be good. Maybe the distribution of vulnerable people will change from 2020 to 2021. COVID-19 survivors often endure complications that themselves shorten life. Compromised organs and brains will cause trouble for decades among relatively-young survivors. Diabetes is a multi-organ plight. If COVID-19 does not kill outright it can still shorten life. 

6. Since then the people most resistant to getting the safe and effective vaccinations against COVID-19 are people most fitting Donald Trump's beloved "low-information voters". These are now the people dying, and these are from here on the people who will have their lives shortened by complications. Oxygen starvation causes big problems down the line, whether from partial drowning, "huffing" (sniffing glue or other solvents for a "high", strokes, and heart attacks.

I understand (I no longer have cable TV) that FoX News has changed its tune about inoculation. Too little and too late, but if it takes the likes of Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity to get the point across to FoX devotees as someone like Rachel Maddow can't... well, so be it.

Being "low-information" on anything is not a good strategy for economic improvement or even survival.

COVID-19 may have helped Donald Trump come close to getting re-elected in 2020... but he still fell short. This may explain why the polls were so terribly inaccurate in most (if not all) potential swing states. COVID-19 may end up hurting the Republican Party more over time.  We will not see that until at least 2022, and it could devastate the GOP in 2024.     

[pbrower2a]

If I no like the results it’s trash.

CNN and Quinnipiac were off on generic ballot polling during midterms nearly as much as Ras, but in the other direction. They deserve derision and shame for this. They were awful from the beginning of Trump's administration - Quinnipiac had Trump's approval in the mid 30s in January 2017 when the next lowest was PPP in the mid 40s. As long as someone like creepy Harry Enten has a hand in the polling operation (even if he isn't running the firm conducting polling, he is CNN's de facto polling director) it destroys their credibility.

COVID-19 disproportionately killed off black and especially Latino voters before the Presidential election. This was not widely known -- of it were known. Pollsters of all kinds did not know this, and pollsters that were generally understood to be reliable before 2020 were off. Only this week did the Centers for Disease Control give data valid for early July 2021 relating reduced life expectancy, most of which was outright deaths. Note that the data is for July 2021, and not for early November 2020. The differential may have become less severe or may not.  The CDC data do not answer that question, but they certainly give hints. 

With such data in hand (and it will be in hand because fast-changing demographic data can make folly of predictions), pollsters will do a better job of predicting electoral results in  later years. I expect pollsters to know this by late 2022 as COVID-19 peters out after taking its course. (Yes, I expect COVID-19 to peter out because even right-wing pols don't want their potential voters to die off to the electoral detriment of those pols.  I cannot say that we have yet gone through the last wave of infections and deaths, but we will know the full demographic effect upon 2022 midterms in 2022.

"Likely voters" typically quit voting when they die, and most jurisdictions disqualify the votes of deceased voters. Such happened in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in which Democratic victories depend heavily upon minority turnout. Pollsters greatly overestimated the numbers of black and Hispanic voters. It is safe to assume that practically all deaths from COVID-19 by November 2020 were of people of voting age.

[pbrower2a]

https://twitter.com/RyanGirdusky/status/1420476812593876993
For a D+14 sample, those numbers ain't beautiful.

Why do white women with college degrees live him so much?

From my conservative POV:

College educated white women, particularly millennials and Gen Z ones, assimilate into more liberal cultures and are more susceptible to emotionally based propaganda (which helps liberals) such as BLM and socially liberal ideologies like the LGBT agenda.

In your POV what is the most effective way to counter this?

Use emotional propaganda from a conservative POV on issues like abortion- this obviously will not work on liberal suburban women, but it may work to motivate swing/conservative leaning suburbanites (who are probably older, and not millennials).

I don’t know if this is a brilliant answer.

It's a losing proposition because that constituency is dwindling every year.

[pbrower2a]

Which poll do you want to believe?

[pbrower2a]

D's as of today would win a 304 or 291 map with Biden Approvals at 50/45% exactly as they were in Election night 2020 51/46 with the Senate, the question is will Breyer retires next yr and will Ds get VR passed or will females get so mad at Rs to rise up and keep the D's in control of both Chambers due to Jan 6th insurrection

Fink, Ryan, Beasley and Gross are wave insurance in the Senate and females like Tim Ryan and would consider voting for him and Vance and Mandel are bad candidates, but Rs in Gov race is a slam dunk and OH split it's votes in 2018 Sen and Gov

We will see in 500 days, D's can win NC due to Coopers high Approvals

270 electoral votes means that one has been elected President (or Vice-President). Even 538 electoral votes does not give one dictatorial powers. Ronald Reagan, who won  525 electoral votes in 1984, had no more powers than did George W. Bush in 2000, who won 'only' 271 that year.

Only when we are about 300 days from the Presidential election do we get a good idea of whether the incumbent President will or will not be elected. That will be soon after New Year's Day -- before the Iowa caucuses. By then we will have a limited number of potential swing states that will winning and losing, if not the scale. One of those will be the tipping-point state of the forthcoming election. As late as January most of the polling will still be approval ratings for the incumbent President. By March we will see match-ups, but even then the match-ups will still be derivative of approval ratings.

In the electoral race that one absolutely must win, the average elected official facing the average challenger gains about 6.5% from early support to get the vote-share in a binary election. So let us suppose that the state in question is "Wisconsin" (as in 2020) and Joe Biden has an approval rating of 44% there as an average. In such an event he has a slightly-better-than-50% chance of winning his re-election bid.     If that average is about 43%, then he has less than a 50% chance of winning Wisconsin. The chance of winning drops off rapidly as the approval number goes away from 43.5% and the chance of losing falls off rapidly goes above 43.5%.

All politicians typically see themselves in need of campaigning if they want to be re-elected, and it is a habit that they cannot shuck off any more than a heroin addict can give up heroin easily. Governing and legislating are messy business in which the climate is often rancorous and people get pessimistic. Campaigning allows one to recapitulate one's achievements and suggest what one will do in a sequel. Most politicians show why they won the previous time. Of course, if things are going badly enough, no exuberant optimism can rescue a foundering situation.

That is basically Nate Silver's Myth of 538, only adapted for the Presidency. Silver applies his study to gubernatorial and senatorial campaigns, and not to the Presidency... but beginning in 1960, all but three Presidential nominees (Ford, the elder Bush, and Trump) had been elected as Governors or Senators. OK, the elder Bush had been elected Vice-President, so that chips away from one loss. 

Silver does not mention the quality of the opponent in that study; neither does he mention breaking scandals (usually the approval ratings are down -- way down -- before the scandal hits the news due to the unwillingness of journalists to laud politicians about to be exposed as crooks), or events. Here is what I see: an incumbent doing reasonably well, who is not being torn to pieces by an incessant stream of negative advertising from special-interest groups (that explains how Russ Feingold could lose to the awful Ron Johnson; Ron Johnson fully believes the plutocratic principle in which "he who owns the gold makes the rules", and that can make all the difference in the world in a campaign), usually gets re-elected. Choosing the wrong side of the controversy in one's state or a state in which one absolutely, positively must win, is one way to lose.

       

[pbrower2a]

COLORADO:

Strongly approve..... 33%
Somewhat approve......23
Somewhat disapprove.... 11
Strongly disapprove...28
VOL: (Don't know/Refused).. 4
APPROVE (NET).... 56%
DISAPPROVE (NET)..... 40

(favorable 56-41, which is about the same)

Donald Trump (favorable -unfavorable) 37-60
QAnon (favorable-unfavorable) 8-57

https://lede-admin.coloradosun.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2021/07/CO-Mountaineer-Q2-Survey-Topline-F06.24.21.pdf

NEW JERSEY:

Biden approval 56. disapproval 36

https://newjerseyglobe.com/governor/eagleton-poll-finds-murphy-favorability-job-approvals-at-a-solid-55/

Key:

30% red shade: Biden up 1-5%
40% red shade: Biden up 5-10%
50% red shade: Biden up 10-15%
60% red shade: Biden up 15-20%
70% red shade: Biden up 20-25%
80% red shade: Biden up 25-30%
90% red shade: Biden up 30%+

50% green shade: tie

30% blue shade: Biden down 1-5%
40% blue shade: Biden down 5-10%
50% blue shade: Biden down 10-15%
60% blue shade: Biden down 15-20%
70% blue shade: Biden down 20-25%
80% blue shade: Biden down 25-30%
90% blue shade: Biden down 30%+

[pbrower2a]

I was not sure that they had been posted.

[pbrower2a]

Investors 69-26 approval?

This is usually a very conservative group of people who reliably support Republican candidates and ideological conservatism. It's not a huge group, but it is a hugely-disproportionate source of campaign funds.

Many could be now seeing Donald Trump as the Frankenstein monster of American politics. He looked useful at one time for motivating people to disparage liberals...

[pbrower2a]

It doesn't change the map.

Unless DeSantis should be the R nominee, President Biden controls the agenda, Commie-baiting is much more effective by an incumbent like Trump than by a challenger. Many things can happen in Cuba, and the most likely ones (the current leader reforming Cuba into something innocuous or the Commie regime collapsing in revolution) will help Biden. Even Cuban-Americans who dream of having a share of their grandparents' fortune that came from lording it over other Cubans will find business dealings much more tempting.   

[pbrower2a]

Qpac has been one of his worst pollsters so far

Which is funny because they were very pro Biden samples in the general election polling season

They may have changed their model.

[pbrower2a]

Qpac has been one of his worst pollsters so far

Which is funny because they were very pro Biden samples in the general election polling season

They may have changed their model.

Of course they changed the models they won't go us state by state numbers at this time they just give us approvals they are holding of as long as they can do they won't he wrong

They won't poll OH, IA, NC Senate races, they polled AK and interesting that Gross is not on the ballot anymore Murkowski is easily winning

Or maybe they have yet to develop polls to fit the states.

Iowa was wild in polling. I saw polls in Iowa (by Marist, and not Quinnipiac), in  which Trump had disapproval numbers around 60% -- after he imposed large tariffs on Chinese imports. China took revenge by not buying agricultural exports from the USA, and you can see how that would tank approval ratings for Trump.

So how did Trump win Iowa? He apparently opened the spigots on farm subsidies, all but buying votes with the aid of the Treasury. Trump did incredibly well in farm areas. Figure that the parts of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin not losing population are the farm areas, and you can see one way in which Trump could get close nationally.

Or was it that minority electorates got hit hard by COVID-19?

Who knows?

      

[pbrower2a]

Georgia: PPP, August 4-5, 622 voters

Approve 46
Disapprove 48

In potential 2022 Senate matchups:

Warnock 48, Walker 46
Warnock 47, Loeffler 44
Warnock 46, Black 38

This does change the map, although 46% approval keeps Georgia within range for Biden in 2024. I will not be convinced that Georgia really is "Blue" until a Democrat wins the Governorship.

Still, Donald Trump is toxic in Georgia, and that shows:

Q2 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion
of Donald Trump?
Favorable 43%
Unfavorable 48%
Not sure 9%

The Senator that Rafael Warnock defeated is also quite unpopular:

Q4 Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion
of Kelly Loeffler?
Favorable 28%
Unfavorable 47%
Not sure 25%

Georgia is still more R than the USA as a whole.

Key:

30% red shade: Biden up 1-5%
40% red shade: Biden up 5-10%
50% red shade: Biden up 10-15%
60% red shade: Biden up 15-20%
70% red shade: Biden up 20-25%
80% red shade: Biden up 25-30%
90% red shade: Biden up 30%+

50% green shade: tie

30% blue shade: Biden down 1-5%
40% blue shade: Biden down 5-10%
50% blue shade: Biden down 10-15%
60% blue shade: Biden down 15-20%
70% blue shade: Biden down 20-25%
80% blue shade: Biden down 25-30%
90% blue shade: Biden down 30%+

[pbrower2a]

Biden is in a precarious spot b/c Republicans will be anti-Biden just for the sake of it, and he has to worry about his approval among Democrats b/c some will 'disapprove' just because he's not being liberal enough for their personal taste.

Independents are still curious. I don't get it. Trump always had better than expected numbers with Indies even when he was a disaster, so it's frustrating to see them not giving Biden that same benefit of the doubt.

I still maintain that pollsters are getting too conservative of a sample among Indies.

It's still way too early. Events can happen, and they can go either way.

[pbrower2a]

I've long said that pbower2A rosey maps may not pan out but just think if we got extended Unemployment benefits and another round of Stimulus only to people that need would do to his Approvals again, he would stay above 50 and not worry about the H, we're not asking but for 1 more that Yang endorsed already

He has NC strong D and FL and TX leading D and GA leading R, LOL D's might lose 5 seats each in FL and TX without VR

They gave rich people on retirement pension stimulus check, I had one of those in my building and he moved out to a lavish Apartment, that's why we don't have anymore money, because Biden thought by July once 70% got vaccinated Covid would be over, it's not, Biden goofed


TX Dems are gonna be arrested, sooner or later the TX Appeals Crt thru an injunction to US SCOTUS gonna make them go back to TX thru compelling because VR isn't gonna pass, Sinema on View said no to Filibuster reform

Have you noticed that Hunter Biden hasn't been seen since inauguration day, he is obviously staying low

The honeymoon is over. That President Biden has approvals near 50 in what is usually the stable zone for approvals still bodes well. Obviously we are not headed to anything approaching the 1964 victory for LBJ.

Governing or legislating is never as neat and clean as campaigning, which explains why the average incumbent Governor or Senator typically ends up with approvals close to 6%  below the electoral result... and because incumbents seeking re-election typically gain 6% from early support to the election.

President Biden has steered clear of any prosecutions of the offenders from January 6.

Shady relatives? Two of my cousins are certifiable sociopaths.     

[pbrower2a]

https://twitter.com/MULawPoll/status/1425507048243011584

First poll of Wisconsin from this source, according to my recollection,  since the 2020 election.

Key:

30% red shade: Biden up 1-5%
40% red shade: Biden up 5-10%
50% red shade: Biden up 10-15%
60% red shade: Biden up 15-20%
70% red shade: Biden up 20-25%
80% red shade: Biden up 25-30%
90% red shade: Biden up 30%+

50% green shade: tie

30% blue shade: Biden down 1-5%
40% blue shade: Biden down 5-10%
50% blue shade: Biden down 10-15%
60% blue shade: Biden down 15-20%
70% blue shade: Biden down 20-25%
80% blue shade: Biden down 25-30%
90% blue shade: Biden down 30%+

[pbrower2a]

Fox News Poll

53% approve
46% disapprove

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/high-concern-over-higher-prices

Who said that life is easy?



Fuel prices were depressed because people were using far less gasoline... working at home or having no place to go during some state lockdowns. That is over. Before I got the inoculation in February and March, I would have had to go to Iowa, Missouri, or Tennessee at the closest to where I was to do the sorts of things that COVID-19 made too dangerous for my taste. I have yet to travel to those states. Super-cheap gasoline with nowhere to go isn't very useful. 

Food prices were down because people were more likely to stay home and do their own cooking. The cheap stuff sold and the expensive stuff didn't. Some people cooked from scratch again (which is cheaper if one does not account for time).

Housing? If more people can work remotely, then people might find plenty of cheap and good housing in places like Ohio instead of having to pay Acela Corridor or California rents. Surprisingly, the level of distress seems less marked in housing even if that is the biggest cost for most Americans.    

[pbrower2a]

Gonna go officially negative within two weeks. Foreign policy was not a weak spot for biden, will be now.

Most people agree with the withdrawal even though it's going horribly.  Americans are too self absorbed to care about a foreign country imploding.

The deal was made in 2020 while Trump was President.

The Taliban has a reputation for brutality that rivals the Nazi SS. Afghan troops crumbled, in part because anyone who becomes their prison stands to be executed. The Taliban beat and castrated one former President of Afghanistan (order unclear) before stringing up his cadaver in Kabul. Sure, he was a Commie who probably deserved to be executed for his crimes as head of the KHAD (secret police of the pro-Soviet puppet state) and as a puppet President. That was good enough for Satan Hussein and some of his acolytes in Iraq -- no beating, and certainly no castration.

President Biden was stuck with the consequences of the Doha accord.    

[pbrower2a]

This is the first bad news to happen that happened entirely while Joe Biden has been President.   

[pbrower2a]

https://www.twitter.com/OneNationCon/status/1428421471211335683
Civitas overestimated Roy Cooper by 5 points in 2020, and also had Biden and Cheatin’ Cal narrowly winning my state.

Either way, if this poll is even remotely accurate this time, this isn’t golly news for Biden whatsoever.

The awkward end to American involvement in Afghanistan is causing President Biden's net approval to take some lumps.

Key:

30% red shade: Biden up 1-5%
40% red shade: Biden up 5-10%
50% red shade: Biden up 10-15%
60% red shade: Biden up 15-20%
70% red shade: Biden up 20-25%
80% red shade: Biden up 25-30%
90% red shade: Biden up 30%+

50% green shade: tie

30% blue shade: Biden down 1-5%
40% blue shade: Biden down 5-10%
50% blue shade: Biden down 10-15%
60% blue shade: Biden down 15-20%
70% blue shade: Biden down 20-25%
80% blue shade: Biden down 25-30%
90% blue shade: Biden down 30%+

[pbrower2a]

Biden is now at the doorstep of underwater approvals over at RCP. And at 538 he is nearing the same.

Biden is a failed president.

Trump literally got to a -20 approval rating multiple times of his presidency and he nearly won another term. So....

Which proves that polls are dem-leaning, Biden is already underwater, only now is it showing thus far. Even then, it's underestimating the disapproval.

I once saw an approval rating for Donald Trump in Iowa after the Chinese took revenge upon rural America for tariffs against Chinese manufactures and saw 60% disapproval, and something similar in Ohio. That suggested to me that Donald Trump was a failed President.

He opened the spigot for crop subsidies and won over rural America in 2020.

Voters can forget the hasty departure from Afghanistan. It might become more troublesome for Republicans; after all, Donald Trump negotiated the deal.

The memory of COVID-19 won't go away.