Trump approval ratings thread 1.3

[twenty42]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reagan 50.75%
Anderson 6.61%
Carter 41.01%

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

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

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


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

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

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

Also, as an historical aside, it is very rare to see a presidential candidate win a majority of the NPV in an election where third party is pulling in 7%. Reagan 1980 is an exception, but you’ll notice it has only happened twice since 1836 (the other being 1924). My point being that a 7% third party result is very likely to be pulling from both parties, even in an otherwise decisive election such as 1996. Dems winning 53% while a third party is winning 7% not only suggests that Trump’s approval among Republicans has plummeted, but that Dems have an extremely popular nominee who managed to woo a significant number of rock solid Republican voters. I can’t say I see both of these events materializing in two short years.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If you take a look at where Anderson got his votes, it's pretty clear most of his support came from Liberal Republicans hesitant to vote for Reagan, but not yet willing to vote Democratic, especially for a candidate as conservative as Carter was perceived to be in 1980.

It wasn't just the economy or Iran that led Kennedy to contest the nomination in 1980.

[IceSpear]

I love how people here will ceaselessly rip each other into shreds like a pack of rabid hyenas based on whether Trump's approval rating is 41% or 43%, lol.

[Hindsight was 2020]

I love how people here will ceaselessly rip each other into shreds like a pack of rabid hyenas based on whether Trump's approval rating is 41% or 43%, lol.

[KingSweden]

I love how people here will ceaselessly rip each other into shreds like a pack of rabid hyenas based on whether Trump's approval rating is 41% or 43%, lol.

[ltomlinson31]

I love how people here will ceaselessly rip each other into shreds like a pack of rabid hyenas based on whether Trump's approval rating is 41% or 43%, lol.

[GeorgiaModerate]

No, the real question is whether it's 42.31% or 42.34%.

[KingSweden]

No, the real question is whether it's 42.31% or 42.34%.

Commence five pages of heated arguing, personal attacks and more posters putting Limo on ignore

[pbrower2a]

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

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

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

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

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GeorgiaModerate]

YouGov, July 1-3, 1500 adults including 1259 registered voters

Among all adults:

Approve 41 (+3)
Disapprove 49 (-3)

Strongly approve 23 (nc)
Strongly disapprove 38 (-2)

Among RV:

Approve 45 (+2)
Disapprove 51 (-1)

Strongly approve 30 (+1)
Strongly disapprove 42 (-2)

GCB (RV only): D 42 (-1), R 38 (nc)

[GeorgiaModerate]

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

[KingSweden]

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

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

[twenty42]

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

I thought the president didn’t have anything to do with unemployment/the economy. Or are you just handpicking narratives again?

[afleitch]

YouGov questions are interesting

Overturn Roe?

Dem - 12%
Ind - 22%
Rep - 52%

Overturn Obergefell?

Dem - 20%
Ind - 30%
Rep - 61%

[BudgieForce]

YouGov questions are interesting

Overturn Roe?

Dem - 12%
Ind - 22%
Rep - 52%

Overturn Obergefell?

Dem - 20%
Ind - 30%
Rep - 61%

That makes little sense to me. Gay marriage less popular than abortion? But its YouGov so I wont take it too seriously.

[OneJ]

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

I thought the president didn’t have anything to do with unemployment/the economy. Or are you just handpicking narratives again?

That's not even the point of his post...

[GeorgiaModerate]

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

I thought the president didn’t have anything to do with unemployment/the economy. Or are you just handpicking narratives again?

That's not even the point of his post...

And it's also a misrepresentation of my position (which I've said a number of times on this forum).  That is, I believe that the general public tends to give the current President credit/blame for how well/badly the economy is doing, regardless of what that President may have actually done to affect it.  For the record, I do believe that some things the President does can affect the economy, generally in the long term (though there can be some short-term reactions), and obviously the unemployment rate goes with the overall health of the economy.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

YouGov questions are interesting

Overturn Roe?

Dem - 12%
Ind - 22%
Rep - 52%

Overturn Obergefell?

Dem - 20%
Ind - 30%
Rep - 61%

"Republicans are evolving on Gay Marriage!"

[tallguy23]

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

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

Agreed. If a recession hits he's toast.

[pbrower2a]

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

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

Agreed. If a recession hits he's toast.

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

[Frodo]

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

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

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

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

Agreed. If a recession hits he's toast.

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

He shook hands with North Korea and Kennedy stepped down, GOP got momentum back. OH 12 will go red on 8/7

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

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

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

Agreed. If a recession hits he's toast.

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

He shook hands with North Korea and Kennedy stepped down, GOP got momentum back. OH 12 will go red on 8/7

Enough, King Lear. Polls clearly don't show that.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Marist showed DeWine ahead in Ohio and O Connor is losing in OH 12.

I said the momentum for keeping control of Congress, but yes they will lose a dozen House seats and Senate will be divided and blue gov mansions will go Dem

[pbrower2a]

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

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