Trump approval ratings thread 1.3

[twenty42]

My preference from lowest to highest;

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

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

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

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

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

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

[pbrower2a]

My preference from lowest to highest;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

[twenty42]

My preference from lowest to highest;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[KingSweden]

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

[pbrower2a]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just say no to America's Rafael Leonidas Trujillo.

[twenty42]

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

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

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

[OneJ]

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

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

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

Here's what I feel that you're ignoring though. Things in history continue to happen over and over again...until they don't. Elliott County voted Democratic in every election since 1872 and I'm pretty sure quite a few people assumed that it would vote for Clinton in 2016. Obviously that was wrong.

My point is that you shouldn't be too confident in Trump winning reelex in 2020 because the good economy is gonna save him or whatever else is supposed to save him. Hell, we don't even know what the economy will look like between now and 2020. And yes, of course, I understand that there's a chance that he might win in 2020.

[cvparty]

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

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

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

Here's what I feel that you're ignoring though. Things in history continue to happen over and over again...until they don't. Elliott County voted Democratic in every election since 1872 and I'm pretty sure quite a few people assumed that it would vote for Clinton in 2016. Obviously that was wrong.

My point is that you shouldn't be too confident in Trump winning reelex in 2020 because the good economy is gonna save him or whatever else is supposed to save him. Hell, we don't even know what the economy will look like between now and 2020. And yes, of course, I understand that there's a chance that he might win in 2020.

this is a good point
i see a lot of people try to look for patterns in everything and cling to them (not specifically referring to twenty42) but the thing is nothing lasts forever

[pbrower2a]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Inmate Trump]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed on all points.

[twenty42]

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I may ask, how has your life changed in the last 17 months? PM me if you don't want to post it publicly.

[BudgieForce]

Gallup:

Approve - 42%(+1)
Disapprove - 53%(-2)

Like always, don't read too much into the fluctuations of trackers.

https://twitter.com/NumbersMuncher/status/1013808023993712650

[BudgieForce]

Also, 538 needs to do something about YouGov.

Out of the last 15 polls entered into the aggregate, 9 have been YouGov.

I know YouGov doesnt mean it to be, but its outright spam.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Also, 538 needs to do something about YouGov.

Out of the last 15 polls entered into the aggregate, 9 have been YouGov.

I know YouGov doesnt mean it to be, but its outright spam.

At least they're putting them at a low weight.

[Progressive Pessimist]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[KingSweden]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Progressive Pessimist]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is exactly my point. The constitution really should have been amended or updated throughout its lifetime.

[pbrower2a]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[LimoLiberal]

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

[Gass3268]

Lol, Survey Monkey (D- pollster from 538)

[BudgieForce]

Yeah, I know they're probably cheap but I'd prefer if NBC used their own polling firm.

[KingSweden]

Yeah, I know they're probably cheap but I'd prefer if NBC used their own polling firm.

Is NBC not partnering with WSJ anymore?

[BudgieForce]

Yeah, I know they're probably cheap but I'd prefer if NBC used their own polling firm.

Is NBC not partnering with WSJ anymore?

I assume they still are, but since landline + cellphone polling costs so much money, it's just cheaper to higher an online only firm who can give you quick data points to report on.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Morning Consult/Politico, June 28-29, 1990 RV

Approve 43 (nc)
Disapprove 53 (nc)

Strongly approve 21 (-2)
Strongly disapprove 40 (-1)

GCB: D 43 (-1), R 35 (-2)

[pbrower2a]

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

Fourth of July bump? That doesn't last.