Trump approval ratings thread, 1.4

[GeorgiaModerate]

Gallup weekly: 40/56.  No change from last week after several bouncy weeks.

[pbrower2a]

Statewide polls (should we see them) are typically weekend-only. The week-long Gallup poll includes polling from before the sentencing memos of Flynn, Cohen, and Man O' Fraud, however redacted, were released. Next week's Gallup poll might show the effect of the decisions of federal courts on those three. (I have much sympathy for Flynn, little for Cohen -- crooked lawyer at the worst sort who participated in his client's crimes, and none for Man O 'Fraud, and that is probably how most people see things). The Gallup poll relating public opinion from this week will be more interesting.

That is as much as I say about polling. I do not predict the results of polls, but I can suggest themes  of news that polls are likely to reflect.

[Person Man]

Gallup weekly: 40/56.  No change from last week after several bouncy weeks.

It would be very weird if he gets about the same share of the vote again in 2020.

[GeorgiaModerate]

CNN/SSRS, Dec. 6-9, 1015 adults including 919 RV (prior poll Nov. 1-3)

Adults:

Approve 39 (nc)
Disapprove 52 (-3)

Strongly approve 30 (nc)
Strongly disapprove 44 (-1)

RV:

Approve 40 (-1)
Disapprove 53 (-1)

Strongly approve 31 (-2)
Strongly disapprove 46 (-1)

[pbrower2a]

No uptick on Trump approval -- but not on overall disapproval, either.

With 39% approval, a spirited and competent campaign might get him 45% of the popular vote -- but I am guessing that the electorate is onto him. Nobody can say definitively that the 2018 midterm election definitively establishes his failure as President, but it certainly does not suggest that Americans will vote for him.

In theory he can be re-elected if Democrats simply run up the electoral results for Democrats in states like California, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York only to underperform in Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin -- but Republicans did badly in those states in 2018 and polling for Trump in those states has been abysmal. Republicans also lost the majority of House votes and two of four house seats in Iowa.

Midterm electorates are usually more R than  Presidential elections that follow, at least since the 1980s. Any rescue of President Trump from a likely defeat in 2020 will require one of the three conditions that applied in the 1980s

(1) new young voters being more conservative on economics and politics than older voters
(2) a conservative trend in public life, as with the rise of the Moral Majority and fundamentalism
(3) a President competent at promoting conservative solutions against liberal muddles


The youngest voters are decidedly liberal, there is no cultural trend toward conservatism or Christian fundamentalism in any 'new' areas, and Donald Trump completely lacks the skill set of Ronald Reagan. It is more likely that the next Democratic President will have the same skill set as Reagan. Like Obama, perhaps? 

[GeorgiaModerate]

Emerson, Dec. 6-9, 800 RV (change from Oct.)

Approve 43 (nc)
Disapprove 47 (-3)

And a 2020 GCB poll: D 46, R 44

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Emerson, Dec. 6-9, 800 RV (change from Oct.)

Approve 43 (nc)
Disapprove 47 (-3)

And a 2020 GCB poll: D 46, R 44

Poor Emerson.

[Reaganfan]

Obama's approvals were similar if not even lower at similar points in 2010 and he had a mega-huge wipeout in the midterms. Every red avatar on this forum was shaking it off. But because it's Trump...

Double standards, double standards.

[Person Man]

Obama's approvals were similar if not even lower at similar points in 2010 and he had a mega-huge wipeout in the midterms. Every red avatar on this forum was shaking it off. But because it's Trump...

Double standards, double standards.

Business Cycle

[pbrower2a]

Obama approval, according to Gallup polls, has been consistently higher than that of Trump in the first two years. .

[Thatkat04]

Obama's approvals were similar if not even lower at similar points in 2010 and he had a mega-huge wipeout in the midterms. Every red avatar on this forum was shaking it off. But because it's Trump...

Double standards, double standards.

I'm sure many were panicking about Obama's reelection chances after 2010.

[ON Progressive]

Obama's approvals were similar if not even lower at similar points in 2010 and he had a mega-huge wipeout in the midterms. Every red avatar on this forum was shaking it off. But because it's Trump...

Double standards, double standards.

I'm sure many were panicking about Obama's reelection chances after 2010.

I actually did once go back to 2010 posts and yeah. People were actually worried Obama would lose re-election in 2010.

[pbrower2a]

Obama's approvals were similar if not even lower at similar points in 2010 and he had a mega-huge wipeout in the midterms. Every red avatar on this forum was shaking it off. But because it's Trump...

Double standards, double standards.

I'm sure many were panicking about Obama's reelection chances after 2010.

I have typically gone with 1-DISapproval as the potential ceiling for any incumbent. Those who disapprove of the nominee are not going to vote for him, and winning means campaigning to win over the undecided. 

[Brittain33]

Obama's approvals were similar if not even lower at similar points in 2010 and he had a mega-huge wipeout in the midterms. Every red avatar on this forum was shaking it off. But because it's Trump...

Double standards, double standards.

I'm sure many were panicking about Obama's reelection chances after 2010.

I actually did once go back to 2010 posts and yeah. People were actually worried Obama would lose re-election in 2010.

I remember posting on Facebook around this time 8 years ago, and have seen it in "On this day", that I felt Obama would probably lose reelection in 2012. It wasn't until the campaign got really underway in spring 2012 and I saw how much Obama still controlled the conversation and how feckless the Republican campaigners were that I started to get hope again. And of course every Democrat had a heart attack after that one debate where Obama looked like a zombie and Romney caught up with him in the polls.

[pbrower2a]

Obama's approvals were similar if not even lower at similar points in 2010 and he had a mega-huge wipeout in the midterms. Every red avatar on this forum was shaking it off. But because it's Trump...

Double standards, double standards.

I'm sure many were panicking about Obama's reelection chances after 2010.

I actually did once go back to 2010 posts and yeah. People were actually worried Obama would lose re-election in 2010.

I remember posting on Facebook around this time 8 years ago, and have seen it in "On this day", that I felt Obama would probably lose reelection in 2012. It wasn't until the campaign got really underway in spring 2012 and I saw how much Obama still controlled the conversation and how feckless the Republican campaigners were that I started to get hope again. And of course every Democrat had a heart attack after that one debate where Obama looked like a zombie and Romney caught up with him in the polls.

Trump obviously isn't another Obama. One must ask oneself whether Obama had done anything to not get re-elected. The economy was still awful, but for that he was not culpable. People wanted out of the recession faster, and the Republicans offered their own formula for change. The Republicans had a well-financed, well-organized campaign to take Congress back and they defeated practically every vulnerable Democrat in Congress. Obama had neither sexual scandals (as a black man that would have been a killer to his campaign) nor any hint of graft. He had not botched any responses to natural disasters.He was neither abrasive nor self-righteous. He got along surprisingly well with the military and the intelligence services (a very bad thing -- for Osama bin Laden).

Most professional historians have held that Obama is one of the better Presidents that we had short of Washington, Lincoln, and FDR -- and having a skill set like that of Ronald Reagan and a temperament like that of Eisenhower didn't hurt.

It may be that he sealed a second term when Seal Team 6 whacked Osama bin Laden. All in all, he got re-elected. Sure, multitudes hated him, but all in all he showed in 2012 why he won in 2008.

Although his approval numbers were mediocre, his disapproval numbers were low enough that he had a chance to win if he ran a spirited and competent campaign for re-election. He ran to pick up the voters who had bailed from the Democratic Party in 2010 and convinced enough of them that he deserved their vote again. He was still a genial fellow operating in an adult manner of discourse. That wins. 

So what is different this time?  Trump isn't Obama. One thinks his agenda wonderful or thinks it an abomination. He is not a genial fellow, to put it tamely.  He has accused anyone who falters in belief in him as stupid, dishonest,  or 'crooked'.  His accomplishments are suspect; it is all special-interest legislation, and he offers nothing more than more of the same. He has bungled responses to natural disasters, he has disparaged rational science, and he has insulted America's allies. Corruption runs rampant in his administration.

He has not had a disaster of foreign policy yet even if he has broken the rules. (I see it as a matter of time before Emperor Kim Jong-Un breaks his word, as there is no enforcement of the deal). The economy is not yet in recession, but it can be. "Corrections" become recessions. He talks down to people.

With a competent, focused, spirited campaign for re-election he could win were it not for all the scandals. At the least the FBI under Obama could find nothing on anyone involved with him, and it turned its focus onto crimes such as illicit commerce.

Trump promised that he could use his business acumen to make the government work better and foster prosperity. He is not, never has been, and  never will be a polished politician. He had a dream situation with majorities in both Houses of Congress and so many Republican Governors capable of effecting a profits-first America. At that he failed, and 2018 shows that. He has botched responses to natural disasters. He has aligned himself with political systems hostile to democracy instead of with democracies.

So imagine that President Obama had been something other than a paragon of marital fidelity. Clinton got away with it, but Obama never could. You can believe that the right-wing media would have been delighted to offer pictures of quarter-black children by him and pretty white women if such were available. Any sign of incompetence or corruption would imploded his image as a leader as would have happened less severely with someone with far less melanin.  Obama did not fully fit mainstream American culture and never could. He simply did few things wrong. 

We have a President challenging the very fabric of our political tradition; it is hard to calculate how that will go, for we have no precedent. It will all be crystal-clear two years from now, and ti will seem inevitable.   

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I remember posting on Facebook around this time 8 years ago, and have seen it in "On this day", that I felt Obama would probably lose reelection in 2012. It wasn't until the campaign got really underway in spring 2012 and I saw how much Obama still controlled the conversation and how feckless the Republican campaigners were that I started to get hope again. And of course every Democrat had a heart attack after that one debate where Obama looked like a zombie and Romney caught up with him in the polls.

Ah yes, the "Big Bird debate", where Mitt just wanted to talk about his favorite show 'Sesame Street' the whole time.

[Person Man]

I remember posting on Facebook around this time 8 years ago, and have seen it in "On this day", that I felt Obama would probably lose reelection in 2012. It wasn't until the campaign got really underway in spring 2012 and I saw how much Obama still controlled the conversation and how feckless the Republican campaigners were that I started to get hope again. And of course every Democrat had a heart attack after that one debate where Obama looked like a zombie and Romney caught up with him in the polls.

Ah yes, the "Big Bird debate", where Mitt just wanted to talk about his favorite show 'Sesame Street' the whole time.

I thought Obama was going to win after he caught bin Laden and the economy started to pick up a little.

[MAINEiac4434]

I remember posting on Facebook around this time 8 years ago, and have seen it in "On this day", that I felt Obama would probably lose reelection in 2012. It wasn't until the campaign got really underway in spring 2012 and I saw how much Obama still controlled the conversation and how feckless the Republican campaigners were that I started to get hope again. And of course every Democrat had a heart attack after that one debate where Obama looked like a zombie and Romney caught up with him in the polls.

Ah yes, the "Big Bird debate", where Mitt just wanted to talk about his favorite show 'Sesame Street' the whole time.

I thought Obama was going to win after he caught bin Laden and the economy started to pick up a little.

After he got Bin Laden I figured it was over. If all else failed, he could’ve just ran on that eked out a victory.

[Person Man]

I remember posting on Facebook around this time 8 years ago, and have seen it in "On this day", that I felt Obama would probably lose reelection in 2012. It wasn't until the campaign got really underway in spring 2012 and I saw how much Obama still controlled the conversation and how feckless the Republican campaigners were that I started to get hope again. And of course every Democrat had a heart attack after that one debate where Obama looked like a zombie and Romney caught up with him in the polls.

Ah yes, the "Big Bird debate", where Mitt just wanted to talk about his favorite show 'Sesame Street' the whole time.

I thought Obama was going to win after he caught bin Laden and the economy started to pick up a little.

After he got Bin Laden I figured it was over. If all else failed, he could’ve just ran on that eked out a victory.

I'm not sure if that alone did in the GOP in 2012, but the economy started to steadily improve in the late 2011. There were people with money who didn't like Obama and they knew that continuing to "go Galt" worked for them in 2010, but by 2012, people would catch on. Consequently, they started hiring folks again and the economy improved. This is what Obama and Clinton had going for them a weak economy that was turning a corner, but not too soon to save their Congressional majorities. Trump has a very strong economy where the only way it doesn't come back to bite him in the ass is if we have somehow managed to engineer an era of perpetual prosperity.

[pbrower2a]

Posted in a thread about the 2020 election:

Say what you want about FoX Propaganda Channel, but at least it does good polling.

December 9-11

Approve: 46% (strongly 27%)
Disapprove 52% (strongly 42%)

But how do people think they will be voting?




This is worse, and likely more accurate and relevant , than my cautious measure of 100-DISapproval as a predictor of a re-election bid for an incumbent if I dislike the President (or other incumbent).

This is  how people see the 2020 Presidential election shaping up:



This is consistent with polls of six state polls of a few months back by Marist polling that a majority of voters in Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin in which a majority wanted someone other than Donald Trump to be elected President in 2020. Trump lost only one of those states (barely), won four of them by margins less than 4%, and won two by 8% or more. I shall try to recover that information. I took that data as overpowering evidence that President Trump would lose a re-election bid.

That is not to say that some other Republican would lose as the Republican nominee as President.Thus if he were to cease being President due to resignation, death, or incapacitation such data would become completely irrelevant.  This also does not say that the Democrat would get 55%, let alone 61%, of the popular vote; if only 39% of the electorate chooses to vote for Donald Trump, then such implies that a conservative alternative is getting at least 6% of the popular vote.

If I am to use Jimmy Carter as a model of an electoral failure in a re-election bid (and I cannot see Trump doing much worse), then it is possible that the vote splits 51 (about what Obama did in 2008) - 41 Trump - 6 for someone who offers  a more traditional sort of conservatism. Anyone 45 or older is familiar with such an election. That is how Reagan did in 1980, winning all but 49 electoral votes.

Let me make this abundantly clear: Jimmy Carter is a man of integrity and decency; he is about as good a person as Donald Trump isn't.  But know this well: we have never had a President with such pervasive and systematic corruption as Donald Trump. I could have as easily spoken of Herbert Hoover, whose re-election bid is so far back that one would be almost as old as Jimmy Carter to remember. Hoover managed to get about 40% of the popular vote and 59 electoral votes in 1932 after bungling the response to the worst economic meltdown in eighty years -- before or after. But Hoover was at least a man of integrity and personal decency.

I can think of scenarios in which either Mike Pence or even Paul Ryan becomes President and runs for re-election in 2020; in either case everything that I say about a Trump bid for re-election becomes irrelevant.

Here is some old polling data asking the question in three states:



This is from July, so this data is already obsolete.

Marist polls asking the question of "elect or not re-elect" went

Arizona 35-57
Florida 37-54
Ohio 34-58

in June.

All in all I suspect that those last three states are more Republican than the US as a whole, so the old Marist polls might now overstate current opinion on whether to elect or not re-elect the President. Arizona and Florida have shown themselves close to the national average, and the 8% margin that Trump won Ohio by will not hold up. I am guessing that the FoX News numbers show America with 6% more proclivity to vote for President Trump than Marist polls showed in June and July.  So adding 6% to 're-elect' and take 4% from 'elect someone else', and one gets

AZ 41-51
FL 43-48
MI 34-56
MN 36-54
OH 40-52
WI 37-57

(Regrettably I have no numbers on any other states except for a poll in New Hampshire that I must reject for comparison due to some ambiguity as an analogue. Trump was doing badly there).

The variance from the national average with an assumption that the Marist polls are off by 6% from current reality (they may have been accurate in the summer, but that is past)  are

AZ R+2
FL R+4
MI D+5
MN D+3
OH R+1
WI D+2

I would love to see results for some other states: Georgia, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.  On the other hand, we may see a Presidency imploding in the wake of prison terms for some Trump associates. I have 94 electoral votes  accounted -- 94 of the most critical electoral votes of 2020.

[pbrower2a]

Marist, Dec 4 release, somehow missed:

adults 44-52
Northeast 42-53
Midwest 42-54
South 49-47
West 40-57

college grad 42-55
not college grad 46-49
white 51-45
black 21-77
Latino 35-64

white college grad 43-56
white non-college 60-38

18-29 27-71
30-44 42-53
45-59 52-45
60+ 55-42

Men 52-45
Women 37-58
white evangelical Christian 72-23

big city 31-68
small city 43-53
suburban 38-57
small town 54-40
rural 61-35

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_Immigration_1812051721-1.pdf#page=3

[GeorgiaModerate]

CNBC All-America Economic Survey (Hart Research/Public Opinion Strategies), Dec. 3-6, 802 adults (change from Oct.)

Approve 41 (nc)
Disapprove 47 (-2)

On economic issues:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Badger]

Posted in a thread about the 2020 election:

Say what you want about FoX Propaganda Channel, but at least it does good polling.

December 9-11

Approve: 46% (strongly 27%)
Disapprove 52% (strongly 42%)

But how do people think they will be voting?




This is worse, and likely more accurate and relevant , than my cautious measure of 100-DISapproval as a predictor of a re-election bid for an incumbent if I dislike the President (or other incumbent).

This is  how people see the 2020 Presidential election shaping up:



This is consistent with polls of six state polls of a few months back by Marist polling that a majority of voters in Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin in which a majority wanted someone other than Donald Trump to be elected President in 2020. Trump lost only one of those states (barely), won four of them by margins less than 4%, and won two by 8% or more. I shall try to recover that information. I took that data as overpowering evidence that President Trump would lose a re-election bid.

That is not to say that some other Republican would lose as the Republican nominee as President.Thus if he were to cease being President due to resignation, death, or incapacitation such data would become completely irrelevant.  This also does not say that the Democrat would get 55%, let alone 61%, of the popular vote; if only 39% of the electorate chooses to vote for Donald Trump, then such implies that a conservative alternative is getting at least 6% of the popular vote.

If I am to use Jimmy Carter as a model of an electoral failure in a re-election bid (and I cannot see Trump doing much worse), then it is possible that the vote splits 51 (about what Obama did in 2008) - 41 Trump - 6 for someone who offers  a more traditional sort of conservatism. Anyone 45 or older is familiar with such an election. That is how Reagan did in 1980, winning all but 49 electoral votes.

Let me make this abundantly clear: Jimmy Carter is a man of integrity and decency; he is about as good a person as Donald Trump isn't.  But know this well: we have never had a President with such pervasive and systematic corruption as Donald Trump. I could have as easily spoken of Herbert Hoover, whose re-election bid is so far back that one would be almost as old as Jimmy Carter to remember. Hoover managed to get about 40% of the popular vote and 59 electoral votes in 1932 after bungling the response to the worst economic meltdown in eighty years -- before or after. But Hoover was at least a man of integrity and personal decency.

I can think of scenarios in which either Mike Pence or even Paul Ryan becomes President and runs for re-election in 2020; in either case everything that I say about a Trump bid for re-election becomes irrelevant.

Here is some old polling data asking the question in three states:



This is from July, so this data is already obsolete.

Marist polls asking the question of "elect or not re-elect" went

Arizona 35-57
Florida 37-54
Ohio 34-58

in June.

All in all I suspect that those last three states are more Republican than the US as a whole, so the old Marist polls might now overstate current opinion on whether to elect or not re-elect the President. Arizona and Florida have shown themselves close to the national average, and the 8% margin that Trump won Ohio by will not hold up. I am guessing that the FoX News numbers show America with 6% more proclivity to vote for President Trump than Marist polls showed in June and July.  So adding 6% to 're-elect' and take 4% from 'elect someone else', and one gets

AZ 41-51
FL 43-48
MI 34-56
MN 36-54
OH 40-52
WI 37-57

(Regrettably I have no numbers on any other states except for a poll in New Hampshire that I must reject for comparison due to some ambiguity as an analogue. Trump was doing badly there).

The variance from the national average with an assumption that the Marist polls are off by 6% from current reality (they may have been accurate in the summer, but that is past)  are

AZ R+2
FL R+4
MI D+5
MN D+3
OH R+1
WI D+2

I would love to see results for some other states: Georgia, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.  On the other hand, we may see a Presidency imploding in the wake of prison terms for some Trump associates. I have 94 electoral votes  accounted -- 94 of the most critical electoral votes of 2020.

I never buy these races against some mythical generic Democrat or someone else. There are lots of people who dislike Trump who will hold their nose to vote for him, just like last time, when presented with a demonized version of an actual flesh-and-blood alternative candidate. Hillary Clinton is a course exhibit a.

[Blackacre]

I wonder if the trend of Trump's approval basically staying in the same 2 point range will hold for the next couple years

[Person Man]

I wonder if the trend of Trump's approval basically staying in the same 2 point range will hold for the next couple years

Add 6 to 42% and you get 48% of the 2PV. That's a loss between 3 and 5%. He basically has to get really lucky again AND the economy has to stay strong. If it isn't, I think he gets like 45% of the the 2PV.