Trump approval ratings thread 1.2

[Gass3268]

Latest Rasmussen Survey:
Approval: 43%
Disapproval: 56%

Removing the editorial.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Latest Rasmussen Survey:
Approval: 43%
Disapproval: 56%

Removing the editorial.

Thank you for doing this. At least you show respect towards us who have Lear and limoliberal on ignore.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Trump’s turning Texas Blue!

[Absolution9]

[If these numbers hold, Trump will lose by double digits in 2020.

It really depends on who the Dems run against Trump.  If they run a charismatic candidate with centerish positions on social issues they will win in a walk (economic issues can be more left).  If they run someone like Kamala Harris (no charisma, far-left Bay area views on social issues) it will be a much closer election.

Just because a southerner/mid-westerner disapproves of Trump doesn't mean they won't hold their nose and vote for him against a candidate whose views are way outside the regional mainstream.

[GeorgiaModerate]

[If these numbers hold, Trump will lose by double digits in 2020.

It really depends on who the Dems run against Trump.  If they run a charismatic candidate with centerish positions on social issues they will win in a walk (economic issues can be more left).  If they run someone like Kamala Harris (no charisma, far-left Bay area views on social issues) it will be a much closer election.

Just because a southerner/mid-westerner disapproves of Trump doesn't mean they won't hold their nose and vote for him against a candidate whose views are way outside the regional mainstream.

I think this is spot on.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Just because a southerner/mid-westerner disapproves of Trump doesn't mean they won't hold their nose and vote for him against a candidate whose views are way outside the regional mainstream.

That's true; but all things being equal, Trump can't afford to lose more than a few thousand votes from his 2016 total in those key rust belt states. And if the Democrats pick a candidate who is less unpopular than Hillary Clinton was with moderates and millennials, Trump will likely need to gain votes from people who didn't support him in 2016, not just hold onto his base.

[Devout Centrist]

[If these numbers hold, Trump will lose by double digits in 2020.

It really depends on who the Dems run against Trump.  If they run a charismatic candidate with centerish positions on social issues they will win in a walk (economic issues can be more left).  If they run someone like Kamala Harris (no charisma, far-left Bay area views on social issues) it will be a much closer election.

no

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Also policy positions don't matter. The only thing that matters is messaging and image. There is literally zero substantive difference between Kamala Harris and Joe Biden on social issues but the former is "far-left" and the latter isn't. Lots of voters thought Trump was a moderate because of the way he talked despite running on the most substantively conservative platform ever. 

[Absolution9]

Just because a southerner/mid-westerner disapproves of Trump doesn't mean they won't hold their nose and vote for him against a candidate whose views are way outside the regional mainstream.

That's true; but all things being equal, Trump can't afford to lose more than a few thousand votes from his 2016 total in those key rust belt states. And if the Democrats pick a candidate who is less unpopular than Hillary Clinton was with moderates and millennials, Trump will likely need to gain votes from people who didn't support him in 2016, not just hold onto his base.

Yeah but the Dems have a few candidates including Kamala Harris (arguably the front runner) who might be a considerably worse fit than Hillary was in those states.  Don't want to pick on females but Gillibrand and Warren are also questionable on this account. 

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Just because a southerner/mid-westerner disapproves of Trump doesn't mean they won't hold their nose and vote for him against a candidate whose views are way outside the regional mainstream.

That's true; but all things being equal, Trump can't afford to lose more than a few thousand votes from his 2016 total in those key rust belt states. And if the Democrats pick a candidate who is less unpopular than Hillary Clinton was with moderates and millennials, Trump will likely need to gain votes from people who didn't support him in 2016, not just hold onto his base.

Yeah but the Dems have a few candidates including Kamala Harris (arguably the front runner) who might be a considerably worse fit than Hillary was in those states.

In what world is Harris the front runner? And jeesh who knows if she would be or not. Few people in 2006 thought America was ready to elect a black man as President two years later, but it happened because Obama crafted a killer narrative as the post-racial uniter (and where was Trump in 2014?). No reason why Harris couldn't do something similar.

[Devout Centrist]

Just because a southerner/mid-westerner disapproves of Trump doesn't mean they won't hold their nose and vote for him against a candidate whose views are way outside the regional mainstream.

That's true; but all things being equal, Trump can't afford to lose more than a few thousand votes from his 2016 total in those key rust belt states. And if the Democrats pick a candidate who is less unpopular than Hillary Clinton was with moderates and millennials, Trump will likely need to gain votes from people who didn't support him in 2016, not just hold onto his base.

Yeah but the Dems have a few candidates including Kamala Harris (arguably the front runner) who might be a considerably worse fit than Hillary was in those states.  Don't want to pick on females but Gillibrand and Warren are also questionable on this account. 

Where the hell do you get the idea that Harris is the frontrunner? It's January of 2018 and you seriously believe that Kamala Harris is arguably the frontrunner? We're very far out, dude, and statements like this are really, really odd.

More importantly, Clinton was a bad candidate because she didn't elicit much enthusiasm from the base. In fact she may have depressed turnout and caused otherwise Democratic voters to seek other options. Unless any of those candidates are hit with a scandal of some kind, or pivot hard to the center, they won't fall victim to the same pitfalls Clinton did.

Hell, Harris and Warren might help boost turnout among young people.

[Absolution9]

Just because a southerner/mid-westerner disapproves of Trump doesn't mean they won't hold their nose and vote for him against a candidate whose views are way outside the regional mainstream.

That's true; but all things being equal, Trump can't afford to lose more than a few thousand votes from his 2016 total in those key rust belt states. And if the Democrats pick a candidate who is less unpopular than Hillary Clinton was with moderates and millennials, Trump will likely need to gain votes from people who didn't support him in 2016, not just hold onto his base.

Yeah but the Dems have a few candidates including Kamala Harris (arguably the front runner) who might be a considerably worse fit than Hillary was in those states.

In what world is Harris the front runner? And jeesh who knows if she would be or not. Few people in 2006 thought America was ready to elect a black man as President two years later, but it happened because Obama crafted a killer narrative as the post-racial uniter (and where was Trump in 2014?). No reason why Harris couldn't do something similar.

Maybe I shouldn't say frontrunner, she has just gotten a ton of press and checks the boxes for the Hillary Clinton primary voting base.

She isn't comparable to Obama in my opinion.  He was far more personally charismatic, a senator from the Midwest not California, and he had a huge tailwind at his back with the unpopular Iraq War and especially the economic crisis.

I don't put Bernie Sanders into that bucket.  I think, barring age related issues, he would easily defeat Trump.  He is from a rural state and is more moderate on social issues (or at least less focused on them).  He is also rather charismatic and has a distinctive/authentic personality.  If he is better prepared on policy specifics/platform coherency than in late 2015/early 2016 he would be a very strong candidate.

[pbrower2a]

Gallup poll to be entered  after I first show the Cook PVI ratings, which predicts reasonably well how the states would go if  one assumes two things: that states will vote on average in the next election as they did in the last two on average against the assumption  of a 50-50 election. This model does not change between Presidential elections.

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

DC -- way out of reach for any Republican.

ME-01 D+8
ME-02 R+2

NE-01 R+11
NE-02 R+4
NE-03 R+27

(data from Wikipedia, map mine)

Here  is the Gallup data for 2017. Figuring that this is an average from early February to late December, I will have to assume an average date of July 15 or so for the polling data. This is now rather old data, and in some cases obsolete. For example, I see Trump support cratering in the Mountain and Deep South. the Mountain South and Deep South are going back to a populist phase (the South has typically oscillated between the  two) or whether The Donald is beginning to appear as a bad match for either part of the South.  This data (or later polling) is not  intended to show anything other than how support appears at some time or at an average of times. As a general rule, new polling supplants even better old  polling.

So here  is the Gallup polling with a number  of 100-DIS reflecting what I consider the ceiling for Donald Trump. This is lenient to the extent that I assume that he can pick up most undecided voters but recognizes that undoing disapproval at any stage requires miracles. By definition, miracles are unpredictable.

 Gallup data from all polls in 2017 (average assumed  in mid-July):

*Approval lower than disapproval in this state

for barely-legible numbers for DC and some states -- CT 37 DC 11 DE 42 HI 40 MD 35 RI 38

Lightest shades are for a raw total of votes that allows for a win with a margin of 5% or less; middle shades are for totals with allow for wins with 6 to 10% margins; deepest shades are for vote percentages that allow wins of 10% or more. Numbers are for the projected vote for Trump.

This is polling from October or later, and I will be adding a poll of Florida from October because it is newer than the Gallup polling data.

 I use 100-DIS as a reasonable ceiling for the Trump vote in 2020. Thus:

Lightest shades are for a raw total of votes that allows for a win with a margin of 5% or less; middle shades are for totals with allow for wins with 6 to 10% margins; deepest shades are for vote percentages that allow wins of 10% or more. Numbers are for the projected vote for Trump.

Note -- if Trump is underwater in the polling, then the results come out in pink.    

[LimoLiberal]

Holy heck.

Ipsos 1/25-29

Approve: 40 (+3)
Disapprove: 55 (-4)

Very worrying sign.

[Virginiá]

Not really, no.

[BudgieForce]

Not really, no.

I'm not even sure why he continues this stupid shtick since we've all wised up to it.
Anyway, the fluctuations of tracking polls is fun to watch but not worth the headache.

[pbrower2a]

Holy heck.

Ipsos 1/25-29

Approve: 40 (+3)
Disapprove: 55 (-4)

Very worrying sign.

Still within the margin of error. Nothing to get concerned or excited about, either way.

The State of the Union speech, the political equivalent of the Super Bowl among Presidential communications,is tonight, and the President has the opportunity to recover some of his lost credibility or make an even bigger fool of himself. This is his best opportunity because even people who hate his guts will be giving him a chance that they would never otherwise give him.

I can say this: I think he has little to lose and much to gain. Empty platitudes would be improvements over his usual expressions. He gets to announce his infrastructure program without showing its faults (privatization to his cronies, monopolization by his cronies, and corruption on behalf of his cronies which I expect in anything involving this President). He can propose huge tax breaks for companies that choose to retrofit their power sources to belch beautiful black smoke from coal-fired furnaces in an effort to be a friend of coal miners.

As for infrastructure -- he can promise gleaming new highways full of gas-guzzling vehicles (he might even promote a 'cash-for-clunkers' program that gives people driving unpatriotic small cars that sip gasoline incentives to buy vehicles that wolf down gasoline) and of course remove lots of solar panels and wind turbines  in favor of greater consumption of fossil fuels. He will tell people in places with real winters that they need not worry about Florida being inundated; Floridians will be coming up to Michigan and Wisconsin to bid up real estate prices. He will tell us about all the jobs involved in collecting tolls on what have been free routes since the 1950s. Maybe he will tell us of the educational advantages that Americans will get from learning Russian as a desirable supplement to their learning.

But at this I am treating President Trump as Voltaire's strawman character Doctor Pangloss from Candide, and as you can obviously tell, I fall far short of the literary merit of Voltaire. At that, Donald Trump isn't as smart or witty, either, as Voltaire's strawman.

OK, I would not want any business dealings with Donald Trump, and I trust him in politics even less. .          

[Gass3268]

Ipsos 1/25-29

Approve: 40 (+3)
Disapprove: 55 (-4)

[pbrower2a]

OK -- now for the tricky merger of old and new material.

Here  is the Gallup data for 2017. Figuring that this is an average from early February to late December, I will have to assume an average date of July 15 or so for the polling data. This is now rather old data, and in some cases obsolete. For example, I see Trump support cratering in the Mountain and Deep South. the Mountain South and Deep South are going back to a populist phase (the South has typically oscillated between the  two) or whether The Donald is beginning to appear as a bad match for either part of the South.  This data (or later polling) is not  intended to show anything other than how support appears at some time or at an average of times. As a general rule, new polling supplants even better old  polling.

So here  is the Gallup polling with a number  of 100-DIS reflecting what I consider the ceiling for Donald Trump. This is lenient to the extent that I assume that he can pick up most undecided voters but recognizes that undoing disapproval at any stage requires miracles. By definition, miracles are unpredictable.

 Gallup data from all polls in 2017 (average assumed  in mid-July):

*Approval lower than disapproval in this state

for barely-legible numbers for DC and some states -- CT 37 DC 11 DE 42 HI 40 MD 35 RI 38

Lightest shades are for a raw total of votes that allows for a win with a margin of 5% or less; middle shades are for totals with allow for wins with 6 to 10% margins; deepest shades are for vote percentages that allow wins of 10% or more. Numbers are for the projected vote for Trump.

This is polling from October or later, and I will be adding a poll of Florida from October because it is newer than the Gallup polling data.

Now for the attempt to merge the map of Gallup polling data and the latest polls (October to now). With few exceptions I am looking at Florida and Georgia because I can hardly believe that Trump could lose those states 59-41 and Minnesota because the poll in question has a huge number of undecided voters. For those states I am going with the Gallup data. For other states that have recent polls I am going with the most recent poll, November or later. With this measure I am giving Trump a little slack. on the net.  The states to fill in? Gallup data.  

 I use 100-DIS as a reasonable ceiling for the Trump vote in 2020. Thus:

for barely-legible numbers for DC and some states -- CT 37 DC 11 DE 42 HI 40 MD 35 RI 38

Lightest shades are for a raw total of votes that allows for a win with a margin of 5% or less; middle shades are for totals with allow for wins with 6 to 10% margins; deepest shades are for vote percentages that allow wins of 10% or more. Numbers are for the projected vote for Trump.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

On average, SOTUs have resulted in a <0.3% bump in approval rating. DOOOOOOM

[LimoLiberal]

Incredible Surge.

Rasmussen 1/31

Approve: 44 (+1)
Disapprove: 54 (-2)

[Doimper]

Rasmussen 1/31

Approve: 44 (+1)
Disapprove: 54 (-2)

[pbrower2a]

Democratic revival in Kansas anyone?

Possible.  Kansas has become contested in recent gubernatorial and senatorial elections. The Hard Right has taken over the GOP, which used to be fairly moderate... and if the GOP moderates either drift into the Kansas Democratic Party or take it over, then the current leadership of the Kansas GOP is in deep trouble.

But let's remember: Kansas has not voted for a Democratic nominee for President since 1964 . Well, much the same was said of Virginia in 2008.

The '53' (ehich reflects 47% disapproval) is a putrid performance for a Republican President in Kansas, and that is an average of Gallup polling throughout 2017. That data suggests an average age from July. In view of the overall collapse of Republican  support since July, reality for the Kansas GOP could be even worse now. Could be, that is. I do not predict polling results. The only analogues in recent polling  that I have for Kansas are Iowa, and Oklahoma, and both analogues are flawed. Much of Kansas agriculture is ranching, and Iowa is not at all a ranching state. Kansas is undeniably and almost wholly Midwestern, and Oklahoma straddles the Midwest and the Mountain South.  As such Kansas cannot quite have the political culture of either Iowa or Oklahoma. Give me Nebraska and I have a good analogue for Kansas. 

[LimoLiberal]

The surge continues.

Yougov, 1/31

Approve: 39
Disapprove: 51 (-1)

Blue wave narrative on its last legs.

[super6646]

Ipsos (all adults):

Approval: 40% (+3)

Disapproval: 55% (-3)

Registered voters:

Approval: 42% (+3)

Disapproval: 55% (-3)

Overall still very underwater, but a net movement of +6 is still more than just statistical noise. Given trumps ability to blow this though, he will probably see it drop and rise steadily until it's really a seesaw. As I've said, he probably needs 45% among registered voters to win 2020, and he simply isn't there right now.