Trump approval ratings thread, 1.4

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I think the SOTU speech bounce could be significant given the soft support potential Trump has. Every time he goes a few weeks without doing anything immensely stupid (at least to the public knowledge) his numbers tend to improve.

The speech was such a twisted mess that it won' t help him.

[GeorgiaModerate]

The Economist/YouGov, Feb. 2-5, 1500 adults including 1294 RV (1-week change)

Adults:

Approve 40 (+3)
Disapprove 52 (-1)

Strongly approve 22 (-1)
Strongly disapprove 41 (-3)

RV:

Approve 42 (-1)
Disapprove 54 (nc)

Strongly approve 27 (-1)
Strongly disapprove 46 (-1)

[pbrower2a]

When "strongly disapprove" is higher than "total approve", the President has a huge problem.

After praising someone that everyone admires (an astronaut) and attacking something that everyone dislikes (childhood cancer), the President left a tangled web of lies and fanatical partisanship. I doubt that he will get much of a bump in his approval rating. The President is simply clueless. People believe him or they are irrelevant.   

[GeorgiaModerate]

Ipsos/Reuters Core Political Data, Jan. 30-Feb. 5, 2470 adults (1-week change)

Approve 38 (-1)
Disapprove 57 (+1)

Strongly approve 18 (-3)
Strongly disapprove 44 (+2)

D: 9/90 (strongly 3/78)
R: 79/19 (strongly 45/9)
I: 32/63 (strongly 10/39)

[GeorgiaModerate]

For a laugh:

California: Quinnipiac, Jan. 30-Feb. 4, 912 RV

Approve 28
Disapprove 67

[ProudModerate2]

For a laugh:

California: Quinnipiac, Jan. 30-Feb. 4, 912 RV

Approve 28
Disapprove 67

The man is pure scum and we know that quite well here in Cali.

[pbrower2a]

For a laugh:

California: Quinnipiac, Jan. 30-Feb. 4, 912 RV

Approve 28
Disapprove 67

As if anyone is surprised.

Nancy Pelosi gets 55% approval for her handling of the job of Speaker of the House. 

Maryland: DFM Research

Trump approval 25% strong 12% somewhat
Trump disapproval 4% somewhat, 56% strong

http://dfmresearch.com/uploads/Maryland_Rail_Survey__2019_Crosstabs.pdf

Jan 19-22, 2019

Nevada: DFM Research

Trump approval
Strong 33%, Somewhat 8%
Trump disapproval -- somewhat 6%, strong 52%

DFM has its primary focus in those polls on  rail safety (two-person crews in locomotives as a minimum).



unsure/neutral 2%

http://dfmresearch.com/uploads/Nevada_Rail_Survey__2019_Crosstabs.pdf

With cumulative electoral vote totals in each category.

55% and higher
50-54%
49% or less and positive
tie (white)
44-49% and negative 112
40-43% 19
under 40%  109

An asterisk will be applied to any state in which the President's approval rating is above 43% for which the disapproval rating is 50% or higher.

No segregation of districts in Maine and Nebraska -- yet.

33 more states, and 297 electoral votes to go!

[Brittain33]

80% approval among Republicans is really bad, although as we got closer to election time a number of the remaining 20% would come home. Herbert Hoover held on to 80% of his 1928 vote in the 1932 election.

[pbrower2a]

Morning Consult's 50-state data, colors signifying 100-disapproval, which I see as the Trump ceiling for 2020 unless things change dramatically.  

Without electoral votes and with no distinction for districts:

Basically -- dark blue, Trump wins 55% or more
medium blue, Trump ahead with at least 50% with 100-DIS
pale blue, Trump tied or ahead with 49% or more but less than 53%
white -- Trump tied or behind with 50% or less

Every state in any shade of red is one in which Democrats won a majority of the statewide votes for House candidates in 2018. This is an apples-to-apples comparison because House votes are on issues perceived to be federal matters. Republicans still could win majorities of House delegations in some such states, but they cannot gerrymander out the relevance of  the statewide vote on how people perceive the biggest of all federally-elected officials. This may be mere coincidence, but Republicans are in trouble in these states. The President is already toxic, and stands to lose every one of them. Should he pick up two of the states with ten or more electoral votes in this category (most likely among Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), then he gets re-elected. But even if Democrats aren't running the calendar down on hi9m in these states. the President is clearly not gaining in them.
 
Every state in white is a possible loss for the President. Approval is lower than disapproval in these states or he is tied with disapproval just under 50%. The President is at a 48-48 tie in Texas, which is awful for a state in which no Democratic nominee has won in a Presidential election since 1976. Sure, the demographics of Texas are getting uglier for Republicans, but they are getting uglier elsewhere too. Trump may have won Ohio by 8% in 2016, but a favorability poll for Trump was underwater and that same poll had Trump barely behind on a poll asking whether people wanted to re-elect him or wanted someone else. And don't even ask me about a Marist poll from the summer in which Trump support was abysmal.

Utah? Trump is a bad match for Utah culture. His serial divorces do not fit Mormon family values.

With this map I show the most favorable view of the prospect of the 2020 election for Trump -- and it does not look good. At this point, any state in pink looks to have at least a 70% chance of voting for the Democratic nominee in 2020. States in white? 30-70% one way or the other, and practically any one of them (all but Utah has at least 10 electoral votes to offer) is a killer for any chance of a Trump re-election in the event of a Trump loss.

How some of the states will go will reflect who the Democratic nominee is, what campaign strategies the Trump campaign uses, and of course events between now and November 2020. I can predict none of those now. But -- there is no international disaster that has materialized in the loss of an ally, and the economy is not in a meltdown. I do not expect the President to recover from the serious scandals involving his associates. His personality is unlikely to change, and there is no cultural trend (such as a religious revival favoring the Right as in the 1970s) moving political life toward the Right.    

[ProudModerate2]

... Every state in white is a possible loss for the President.

In all honesty, I would be happy if he just lost all those states in pink.
But having some of the states in white go to Biden, wouldn't hurt.

[Progressive Pessimist]

... Every state in white is a possible loss for the President.

In all honesty, I would be happy if he just lost all those states in pink.
But having some of the states in white go to Biden, wouldn't hurt.

He will not even come close to losing Missouri, Texas, or Utah. The other ones in white can flip, but only if absolutely everything goes right for the strongest Democratic ticket possible. So yeah, I agree. I'd be content if he just lost the pink states too.

[pbrower2a]

... Every state in white is a possible loss for the President.

In all honesty, I would be happy if he just lost all those states in pink.
But having some of the states in white go to Biden, wouldn't hurt.

He will not even come close to losing Missouri, Texas, or Utah. The other ones in white can flip, but only if absolutely everything goes right for the strongest Democratic ticket possible. So yeah, I agree. I'd be content if he just lost the pink states too.

Utah is absolutely not a possible win for a Democrat. Three things must happen  for Trump to lose Utah. First, the Mormon (LDS) hierarchy must decide that Trump must lose. Second,someone must run an  unusually strong Third Party or independent conservative campaign against Trump. Third, the small Utah Democratic Party must endorse that conservative alternative to Trump. That is asking for a lot. Could another Ross Perot beat Trump in Utah? That is one of two of the necessary conditions right there.

Missouri is a stretch. It has not been a swing state since 2008, and its political culture has become increasingly unsuited to Democrats at every level except in Greater Kansas City and Greater St. Louis.  Texas is Texas, and the state has had polls suggesting closeness in 2020. The state is drifting Democratic, but perhaps not enough for a Democratic nominee to win the state next year.  

Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Ohio have been swing states or potential swing states in recent years.

It is premature to predict a Trump collapse. He needs to solve lots of problems if he is to cut into opposition in states in pink that might allow him an electoral win. If he had the characteristics of an above-average President, like Obama, then he would win. But he can't communicate effectively to slightly more than half of the American electorate. He offends a wide spectrum of sensibilities. I still see a high likelihood of a close election in 2020, but that is of a close election that Trump loses.

I see him in the position in which he must cheat to win.  He has the character for such in his ruthless amorality and his win-at-all-cost attitude. He stands clearly for what America's economic elites believe in -- that for people other than those elites, no human suffering can ever be in excess so long as such suffering creates, enhances, indulges, or enforces the gain of that elite.

My assessments of states in white:

1. Ohio -- Trump is a disappointment. He made promises that he can never keep to blue-collar workers.
2. North Carolina -- the D drift that appeared in 2008 has yet to go away.
3. Florida -- the more that people get to know Trump, the more they dislike him. He has been spending too much time at Mar-a-Lago. Floridians are getting to know him too well.
4. Georgia -- demographic drift is not going the Republican way, to put it lightly.
5. Texas -- the suburbs of Dallas, Fort Worth, and Houston are filling with college-educated people who can offset the right-wing drift in the Panhandle and East Texas, not growth areas. The Mexican-American electorate is growing rapidly, and Trump has found ways to offend its cultural conservatism.
5. Missouri -- just look at Kansas and Nebraska. It's hard to believe that Harry Truman was from here.  
6. Utah -- I have said enough. If it appears as anything other than a Republican win it will be in Atlas green for a third-party winner.

In any event, 100-DIS is a very soft standard for predicting how Trump will do. Should he be behind 47-49 I assume that he picks up everything undecided and ends up winning 51-49. That's how things usually work for an incumbent.  All that you need to know about them is that Donald Trump dares not lose any one of them. 

Remember -- at this point, 100-DIS is as charitable as anyone can be about President Trump's chances in any state. Anything more sympathetic to him assumes that he can recover by cutting into disapproval.   

[GeorgiaModerate]

Rasmussen has had a significant bounce for Trump this week and is up to 50/49 today.  Expect a Trump tweet when he hears about it.

[ProudModerate2]

... Every state in white is a possible loss for the President.

In all honesty, I would be happy if he just lost all those states in pink.
But having some of the states in white go to Biden, wouldn't hurt.

He will not even come close to losing Missouri, Texas, or Utah. The other ones in white can flip, but only if absolutely everything goes right for the strongest Democratic ticket possible. So yeah, I agree. I'd be content if he just lost the pink states too.

...
5. Texas -- the suburbs of Dallas, Fort Worth, and Houston are filling with college-educated people who can offset the right-wing drift in the Panhandle and East Texas, not growth areas. The Mexican-American electorate is growing rapidly, and Trump has found ways to offend its cultural conservatism.

I wonder how much having Beto O'Rourke on the ticket (as the VP candidate) would have in Texas.
He ran a pretty-damn good race in Texas against Cruz.
Could the Dems take Texas with him on the ticket?

[Thatkat04]

Rasmussen has had a significant bounce for Trump this week and is up to 50/49 today.  Expect a Trump tweet when he hears about it.

I hope that if they completely blow the next cycle like 2018, 538 and RCP ban them from their aggregates.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Rasmussen has had a significant bounce for Trump this week and is up to 50/49 today.  Expect a Trump tweet when he hears about it.

I hope that if they completely blow the next cycle like 2018, 538 and RCP ban them from their aggregates.

538 usually bans pollsters only for outright fakery or dishonesty.  But if they continue to be far off, their rating will drop the next time 538 evaluates pollsters, which would reduce their weighting in the average.  I think Ras went from a B in the previous cycle to a C+ currently.

[Thatkat04]

Rasmussen has had a significant bounce for Trump this week and is up to 50/49 today.  Expect a Trump tweet when he hears about it.

I hope that if they completely blow the next cycle like 2018, 538 and RCP ban them from their aggregates.

538 usually bans pollsters only for outright fakery or dishonesty.  But if they continue to be far off, their rating will drop the next time 538 evaluates pollster, which would reduce their weighting in the average.  I think Ras went from a B in the previous cycle to a C+ currently.

At this point, I'm not sure they arent just making up numbers. As far as I can tell, their poll breakdowns arent public.

[pbrower2a]

Morning Consult's 50-state data, colors signifying 100-disapproval, which I see as the Trump ceiling for 2020 unless things change dramatically.  

I had 100-DIS numbers for all fifty states and DC, only to lose them. I'm going to try to show that again.

Without electoral votes and with no distinction for districts:

Basically -- dark blue, Trump wins 55% or more
medium blue, Trump ahead with at least 50% with 100-DIS
pale blue, Trump tied or ahead with 49% or more but less than 53%
white -- Trump tied or behind with 50% or less

Every state in any shade of red is one in which Democrats won a majority of the statewide votes for House candidates in 2018. This is an apples-to-apples comparison because House votes are on issues perceived to be federal matters. Republicans still could win majorities of House delegations in some such states, but they cannot gerrymander out the relevance of  the statewide vote on how people perceive the biggest of all federally-elected officials. This may be mere coincidence, but Republicans are in trouble in these states. The President is already toxic, and stands to lose every one of them. Should he pick up two of the states with ten or more electoral votes in this category (most likely among Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin), then he gets re-elected. But even if Democrats aren't running the calendar down on hi9m in these states. the President is clearly not gaining in them.
 
Every state in white is a possible loss for the President. Approval is lower than disapproval in these states or he is tied with disapproval just under 50%. The President is at a 48-48 tie in Texas, which is awful for a state in which no Democratic nominee has won in a Presidential election since 1976. Sure, the demographics of Texas are getting uglier for Republicans, but they are getting uglier elsewhere too. Trump may have won Ohio by 8% in 2016, but a favorability poll for Trump was underwater and that same poll had Trump barely behind on a poll asking whether people wanted to re-elect him or wanted someone else. And don't even ask me about a Marist poll from the summer in which Trump support was abysmal.

Utah? Trump is a bad match for Utah culture. His serial divorces do not fit Mormon family values.

With this map I show the most favorable view of the prospect of the 2020 election for Trump -- and it does not look good. At this point, any state in pink looks to have at least a 70% chance of voting for the Democratic nominee in 2020. States in white? 30-70% one way or the other, and practically any one of them (all but Utah has at least 10 electoral votes to offer) is a killer for any chance of a Trump re-election in the event of a Trump loss.

How some of the states will go will reflect who the Democratic nominee is, what campaign strategies the Trump campaign uses, and of course events between now and November 2020. I can predict none of those now. But -- there is no international disaster that has materialized in the loss of an ally, and the economy is not in a meltdown. I do not expect the President to recover from the serious scandals involving his associates. His personality is unlikely to change, and there is no cultural trend (such as a religious revival favoring the Right as in the 1970s) moving political life toward the Right.    


Hard to see

CT 40
DC 19
DE 44
HI  37
NH 42
RI 42
VT 34

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Kevin,
Trump won Texas by 9 points.  It almost certainly will be closer in 2020, but that doesn't mean he'll have a chance of losing Texas in 2020. The problem with pbrower's methodology is that it assumes everyone, including those who don't like both major candidates, will vote. The methodology also assumes that those who don't like either and will vote, will divide roughly equally. I don't think either assumption reflects reality all that well, but better assumptions would be more complicated to devise and test. So while pbrower's methodology has its flaws, unless someone's willing to spend even more time and effort on modelling, it's probably about as good as we're going to get as far as raw data to use for a starting point.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

^nowhere in my original post did I say he would lose Texas. Merely that it will likely be close

In the margin it may well be close, but PM was referring to the chance that Trump will lose Texas in 2020, which is indeed 0%. The best a Democrat can reasonably hope to do in the Presidential race in Texas next year is to match Beto's performance.

[pbrower2a]

Kevin,
Trump won Texas by 9 points.  It almost certainly will be closer in 2020, but that doesn't mean he'll have a chance of losing Texas in 2020. The problem with pbrower's methodology is that it assumes everyone, including those who don't like both major candidates, will vote. The methodology also assumes that those who don't like either and will vote, will divide roughly equally. I don't think either assumption reflects reality all that well, but better assumptions would be more complicated to devise and test. So while pbrower's methodology has its flaws, unless someone's willing to spend even more time and effort on modelling, it's probably about as good as we're going to get as far as raw data to use for a starting point.

I see a Presidency in danger of collapse before re-election time. One did not see such with Clinton, Dubya, or Obama. They all won in different ways and got re-elected for different reasons. Neither is a good analogue for Trump, though. Clinton and Obama won with huge margins in the popular vote and could lose a little and get re-elected. Dubya had 9/11 to cause Americans to rally around him long enough for him to get away with his inadequacies as a leader.

Going back to the elder Bush, I see that he solved many of the problems that existed when he was inaugurated but solved those into his own irrelevancy. He had no idea of what to do in a second term. Dubya lost, but he had given people little reason to want him to remain President. (I can't see why he did not get a Nobel Peace Prize -- he deserved it more than did Obama!) I thought Obama somewhat analogous to the elder Bush for having solved a problem that existed when he became President (the worst economic meltdown in eighty years). If Indiana were the pattern for much of America (Obama winning it by 1.03% in 2008 and losing it by 10.20% in 2012), then Obama would have lost nationwide in 2012 by Republicans peeling off North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania. The credit crunch was gone, the economic meltdown had become a recovery, and energy was cheap again, so Indiana voters could safely go back to old habits.

I look at the statewide polls and I see a troubled Presidency. The economy has yet to tank, and there is no diplomatic or military debacle to destroy his Presidency -- yet. But the offenses to moderate-liberal sensibilities have been mounting, as have been the criminal charges against people associated with him. I see a Presidency more likely to collapse electorally than to redeem itself.

The political climate now is not what it was in 2016. To win re-election barely Trump must take advantage of Democrats being satisfied with running up the vote in a few hyper-partisan states (most obviously California and New York) while barely losing the close states of 2016. I already see Trump losing most of the close states of 2016, including Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. He is not going to win states that he barely lost, like New Hampshire, Nevada, Maine, or Minnesota.

At this stage the polls have been consistent. Iowa and Ohio, which Trump by high-single digits in 2016, are very much in contention. Polls for Trump have been execrable for a Republican in either Arizona or Georgia and shaky in Florida and North Carolina. I have seen several near-even polls in Texas in the last few months. Utah is simply weird. Missouri (and in in a different polling scheme, Alaska) are new to seeming in contention.

If I were to make a projection of the 2020 election I would say that the Democratic nominee -- practically any Democratic nominee wins somewhere between 296 and 413 electoral votes, with Arizona and NE-02 as the shakiest. I have consistently said that Texas straddles 400 electoral votes for a Democratic nominee.

Yes, the election is nearly 22 months away, and if nothing really changes but the extinction of time and opportunity between now and Election Day, the range of possibilities will narrow.  So let us suppose that Trump is up 4% in Texas now -- he probably has a 60% chance of winning the state now. But if he is up 4% in Texas in October, then he has about a 99% chance of winning the state on Election Day.

I use the analogy of American football (a timed sport with points scored mostly in chunks of 3 and 7 and less often 2, 6, or 8 )... a team down by ten points (field goal and a touchdown with an extra point) at the half typically considers itself in the game. It is about as easy for the team ahead to score ten points as it is for the team behind, but if the team ahead scores ten more points and the team behind scores nothing in the third quarter, then things are getting bleak for the team behind.  But if both teams have gotten ten points on a touchdown, field goal, and extra-point as the two-minute warning expires in the fourth quarter, a ten-point lead is tough to beat. Miracles are possible, but good defensive teams are good at stopping miracles.

But -- if you are ahead by a large margin early.. let us say 30-6 at the half, you can play the nickel defense. Tom Landry did not try to run up the score when he had good Cowboys teams. The opposing team is down 20 or more points, and it needs to score lots of points fast. Landry put five defensive backs in the backfield to make the opposing team's passing game futile. There was always a good defense against any pass, meaning a very high likelihood of an incomplete pass, a sack of the quarterback who would have nobody on his own team to whom to make a pass, or an interception. Defensive backs often end up making the plays on running backs, which is not the optimum -- but it is good enough in the scheme. The Cowboys yielded a time-consuming ground game that might allow the opposing team to get a touchdown in ten minutes, which is fine for Landry but ineffective for the opposing team. His offensive team is going to grind down the clock with six-yard running plays that get his team a score.

I see the Democrats in a good position to start playing the nickle-back defense on enough states in which to seal the election.

By the way -- I see Texas straddling 400 electoral votes for a Democratic nominee.  Texas going for the Democrat? Electoral landslide. That's about like Washington or Illinois going to the Republican. Texas to the Democrat is still thinkable, and Washington or Illinois to Trump isn't.        

[Tender Branson]

At Rasmussen, Trump is now at 52% approval and got a 9% bump since the SOTU speech.

He was at 43% last week.

The 52% approval is his best rating at Rasmussen since March 2017.

[136or142]

At Rasmussen, Trump is now at 52% approval and got a 9% bump since the SOTU speech.

He was at 43% last week.

The 52% approval is his best rating at Rasmussen since March 2017.

Rasmussen.  Hahahahahahahahhahahhahahaha

[Tender Branson]

At Rasmussen, Trump is now at 52% approval and got a 9% bump since the SOTU speech.

He was at 43% last week.

The 52% approval is his best rating at Rasmussen since March 2017.

Rasmussen.  Hahahahahahahahhahahhahahaha

Yeah, but let's see what other pollsters show before claiming "hahahahaha".

[136or142]

At Rasmussen, Trump is now at 52% approval and got a 9% bump since the SOTU speech.

He was at 43% last week.

The 52% approval is his best rating at Rasmussen since March 2017.

Rasmussen.  Hahahahahahahahhahahhahahaha

Yeah, but let's see what other pollsters show before claiming "hahahahaha".

Doesn't change that Rasmussen polls are junk polls.