Trump approval ratings thread, 1.4

[IceSpear]

No idea why people are paying attention to junk polls like Gallup and Rasmussen when we just got a "poll" of absolutely certain voters with a sample size of ~110 million a few weeks ago. Especially when Gallup is polling all adults, which is irrelevant because nobody cares what you think if you can't/won't vote.

His approval is roughly 45-55, which matches pretty well with the election results and common sense. Almost everyone who voted for him in 2016 still likes him. Almost everyone who didn't vote for him in 2016 dislikes him. I see no reason to expect this to change. Even if it does, it'll just go back to the status quo within a few weeks like it always does.

[Doimper]

https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1067157237746012171

Only Trump could screw up a booming economy by allowing Democrats to pick up their biggest House gain in almost 50 years. Thanks Donny!

If he wasn't a moron he'd be around 50% approval right now.

He is such an awful person that it has overshadowed how utterly incompetent he is.

It's pretty easy to imagine a Nixon-esque "smart fascist" doing a much better job of accomplishing their goals. (read: dismantling liberal democracy). We'd be in a lot of sh**t if Tom Cotton happened to stumble into the Presidency and a cult following.

[pbrower2a]

No idea why people are paying attention to junk polls like Gallup and Rasmussen when we just got a "poll" of absolutely certain voters with a sample size of ~110 million a few weeks ago. Especially when Gallup is polling all adults, which is irrelevant because nobody cares what you think if you can't/won't vote.

His approval is roughly 45-55, which matches pretty well with the election results and common sense. Almost everyone who voted for him in 2016 still likes him. Almost everyone who didn't vote for him in 2016 dislikes him. I see no reason to expect this to change. Even if it does, it'll just go back to the status quo within a few weeks like it always does.

Elections are the definitive expression of American political values. Voters are generally more politically conservative than non-voters, perhaps expressing that voting is more likely for people who have stakes in the social order.  

At this point I use the divide in the voting for Representatives as the proxy for what I expect in the Presidential election. Know well, though, that there will be psychological dynamics in political life. Some people could support Donald Trump out of the perception that he is a 'winner' and that Democrats have been 'losers', and that will change.

This said, a 53-46 split in the vote for the House of Representatives now looks like the best prediction for the national split in the vote for the Presidency in 2020. That is close to the margin of victory of Barack Obama in 2008, and it makes especial sense if one sees the dubious achievements of President Trump analogous to those of the second term of Dubya. The economy was still humming along in 2006, too, although there is no corrupt boom in real estate to collapse this time. The President has badly botched his responses to natural disasters, which is a valid parallel. Face it: the collaboration between Barack Obama (D, POTUS) and Rick Scott (R, Gov-FL) in discussing responses to hurricanes as the storms bear down on Florida seems much more effective than the collaboration between  Donald Trump and Rick Scott. I am no fan of Rick Scott, but meeting natural disasters and other calamities effectively is an important part of the duty of a President, as shown from Theodore Roosevelt (Great San Francisco Earthquake of 1906) onward. (It is one of the most critical tasks that a Governor can perform, too).    Your guess is as good as mine on how hurricane seasons will go with  Donald Trump (R, POTUS) and Ron De Santis (R, Gov-FL)

I see rifts between this President and senior military officers that would have never happened under Ronald Reagan (whom the military seems to have loved)  and did not happen under Barack Obama (whom it tolerated grudgingly but came to respect). Obama ran a tight ship without being a pompous ass, which is likely what the military wants in civilian life. The Trump Presidency has been a chaotic mess while the President is the most pompous ass that any President has ever been.  

The 45.93% of the popular vote that Donald Trump got in 2016 is close to the 45.60% that John McCain got in 2008 and the 45.68% that Mike Dukakis got in 1988. Most of us recognize McCain and Dukakis as bigger losers in their quests for the Presidency than John Kerry (48.26% in 2004) or Mitt Romney (47.15% in 2012).

Trump is going to need more than 46% of the popular vote nationwide to get re-elected. A 55% disapproval among voters of 2020 will not allow him more than 46% of the vote. I don't see the President gaining any constituency other than the vote of well-heeled heels who saw him as a dangerous demagogue but like his tax cuts and regulatory relief. The Democratic nominee will need 48% or more nationwide because anything less simply means that the Democrat is running up huge vote totals in California, New York, Maryland, and Massachusetts instead of convincing people to vote for them in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

The House vote is the best proxy for now. When I see statewide polls that differ from what I saw before the election I will recognize real change from 2018 in public attitudes. Events will happen, some with either lasting or ephemeral effects, and we will not then know whether the effects are lasting or ephemeral. I recall thinking that Barack Obama had sealed a landslide re-election when Seal Team 6 whacked Osama bin Laden; there was no landslide.  

Still, the 38-60 approval for President Trump is one of the worst points in polling of the current President. I have typically used 100-DISapproval as my predictor of the next Presidential election  for Obama and now for Trump  as a ceiling (the assumption is that the incumbent President can pick up practically all of the undecided if they are on his side of the political spectrum but nothing not on his side). That is not to say that those who disapprove of the President will vote for the President's Democratic opponent; they might vote for a Third Party or Independent nominee, especially if that opponent is a conservative.

But take note: in recent years, Presidential elections get a more Democratic-leaning electorate than do midterm elections. President Trump will win re-election with an electorate much like those of 2010 or 2014 -- should such be the electorate of 2020.  He loses with the electorate of 2006, 2008, 2012, or 2018, and will have a shaky chance with an electorate like that of 2016 (winning not so much the plurality as winning the right votes).  To expect the new midterm voters who voted heavily Democratic in 2018 to not vote in 2020 is asking for something highly unlikely. He will get the sorts of voters who made possible the Republican waves of 2010 and 2014 -- but he will need more voters than that, and it is hard to see where those voters will come from. He will need such a phenomenon as the rise of the Religious Right in the late 1970s and early 1980s that underpinned Reagan landslides, even if at a lower level; I just do not see that happening.

The younger right-wingers are libertarians, and  not supporters of the superstition and cronyism of the current GOP.

[Yank2133]

https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1067157237746012171

Only Trump could screw up a booming economy by allowing Democrats to pick up their biggest House gain in almost 50 years. Thanks Donny!

If he wasn't a moron he'd be around 50% approval right now.

He is such an awful person that it has overshadowed how utterly incompetent he is.

It's pretty easy to imagine a Nixon-esque "smart fascist" doing a much better job of accomplishing their goals. (read: dismantling liberal democracy). We'd be in a lot of sh**t if Tom Cotton happened to stumble into the Presidency and a cult following.

Yup.

My biggest fear is that when Trump leaves office, people make the wrong assumption that our institutions held up, when reality we were saved by Trump's incompetence.

[Person Man]

No idea why people are paying attention to junk polls like Gallup and Rasmussen when we just got a "poll" of absolutely certain voters with a sample size of ~110 million a few weeks ago. Especially when Gallup is polling all adults, which is irrelevant because nobody cares what you think if you can't/won't vote.

His approval is roughly 45-55, which matches pretty well with the election results and common sense. Almost everyone who voted for him in 2016 still likes him. Almost everyone who didn't vote for him in 2016 dislikes him. I see no reason to expect this to change. Even if it does, it'll just go back to the status quo within a few weeks like it always does.

Elections are the definitive expression of American political values. Voters are generally more politically conservative than non-voters, perhaps expressing that voting is more likely for people who have stakes in the social order. 

At this point I use the divide in the voting for Representatives as the proxy for what I expect in the Presidential election. Know well, though, that there will be psychological dynamics in political life. Some people could support Donald Trump out of the perception that he is a 'winner' and that Democrats have been 'losers', and that will change.

This said, a 53-46 split in the vote for the House of Representatives now looks like the best prediction for the national split in the vote for the Presidency in 2020. That is close to the margin of victory of Barack Obama in 2008, and it makes especial sense if one sees the dubious achievements of President Trump analogous to those of the second term of Dubya. The economy was still humming along in 2006, too, although there is no corrupt boom in real estate to collapse this time. The President has badly botched his responses to natural disasters, which is a valid parallel. Face it: the collaboration between Barack Obama (D, POTUS) and Rick Scott (R, Gov-FL) in discussing responses to hurricanes as the storms bear down on Florida seems much more effective than the collaboration between  Donald Trump and Rick Scott. I am no fan of Rick Scott, but meeting natural disasters and other calamities effectively is an important part of the duty of a President, as shown from Theodore Roosevelt (Great San Francisco Earthquake of 1906) onward. Your guess is as good as mine on how hurricane seasons will go with  Donald Trump (R, POTUS) and Ron De Santis (R, Gov-FL)

I see rifts between this President and senior military officers that would have never happened under Ronald Reagan (whom the military seems to have loved)  and did not happen under Barack Obama (whom it tolerated grudgingly but came to respect). Obama ran a tight ship without being a pompous ass, which is likely what the military wants in civilian life. The Trump Presidency has been a chaotic mess while the President is the most pompous ass that any President has ever been. 

The 45.93% of the popular vote that Donald Trump got in 2016 is close to the 45.60% that John McCain got in 2008 and the 45.68% that Mike Dukakis got in 1988. Most of us recognize McCain and Dukakis as bigger losers in their quests for the Presidency than John Kerry (48.26% in 2004) or Mitt Romney (47.15% in 2012).

Trump is going to need more than 46% of the popular vote nationwide to get re-elected. A 55% disapproval among voters of 2020 will not allow him more than 46% of the vote. I don't see the President gaining any constituency other than the vote of well-heeled heels who saw him as a dangerous demagogue but like his tax cuts and regulatory relief. The Democratic nominee will need 48% or more nationwide because anything less simply means that the Democrat is running up huge vote totals in California, New York, Maryland, and Massachusetts instead of convincing people to vote for them in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

The House vote is the best proxy for now. When I see statewide polls that differ from what I saw before the election I will recognize real change from 2018 in public attitudes. Events will happen, some with either lasting or ephemeral effects, and we will not then know whether the effects are lasting or ephemeral. I recall thinking that Barack Obama had sealed a landslide re-election when Seal Team 6 whacked Osama bin Laden; there was no landslide. 

Still, the 38-60 approval for President Trump is one of the worst points in polling of the current President. I have typically used 100-DISapproval as my predictor of the next Presidential election  for Obama and now for Trump  as a ceiling (the assumption is that the incumbent President can pick up practically all of the undecided if they are on his side of the political spectrum but nothing not on his side). That is not to say that those who disapprove of the President will vote for the President's Democratic opponent; they might vote for a Third Party or Independent nominee, especially if that opponent is a conservative.

But take note: in recent years, Presidential elections get a more Democratic-leaning electorate than do midterm elections. President Trump will win re-election with an electorate much like those of 2010 or 2014 -- should such be the electorate of 2020.  He loses with the electorate of 2006, 2008, 2012, or 2018, and will have a shaky chance with an electorate like that of 2016 (winning not so much the plurality as winning the right votes).  To expect the new midterm voters who voted heavily Democratic in 2018 to not vote in 2020 is asking for something highly unlikely. He will get the sorts of voters who made possible the Republican waves of 2010 and 2014 -- but he will need more voters than that, and it is hard to see where those voters will come from. He will need such a phenomenon as the rise of the Religious Right in the late 1970s and early 1980s that underpinned Reagan landslides, even if at a lower level; I just do not see that happening.

The younger right-wingers are libertarians, and  not supporters of the superstition and cronyism of the current GOP.

I still think what saved Reagan, Clinton, and Obama was that they were elected during a poor economy, eventually got the blame for it, and lost their first midterm. In 1996 and 1984 the economy improved and both Clinton and Reagan overperfomed. The economy was mediocre, that is, greatly improved but still struggling, in 2012. As such, Obama underperformed but still won comfortably in 2012. There may have been a time in Early October where he looked like he was going to lose but that's about it.

The thing now is that the economy was doing well in 2016 and Trump still barely won. There is now no slack in the economy and still he lost the midterms. I think the only way that he wins in 2020 is that the Democrats run a campaign that makes us all question their viability as a party or that there is a long term opportunity for Trump to play Captain America through the next two elections. There is a third opportunity for him to do well. That is, there has been a fundamental shift in the country and world economy that has made the US virtually immune to recessions.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Kaiser Family Foundation, Nov. 14-19, 1201 adults (previous poll Sep. 19-Oct. 2)

Approve 37 (-3)
Disapprove 58 (+4)

Strongly approve 23 (nc)
Strongly disapprove 48 (+5)

[GeorgiaModerate]

YouGov, Nov. 25-27, 1500 adults including 1293 RV

Adults:

Approve 40 (nc)
Disapprove 52 (+3)

Strongly approve 22 (-2)
Strongly disapprove 41 (nc)

RV:

Approve 45 (nc)
Disapprove 53 (+4)

Strongly approve 27 (-4)
Strongly disapprove 46 (nc)

[Bandit3 the Worker]

President Big Boy is collapsing at an unprecedented rate.

[Person Man]

President Big Boy is collapsing at an unprecedented rate.

You think this could be because of his loss of his status as an Unbeatable Titan? That moderate republicans now think there may be an opportunity arising to build a future around their needs by not supporting the president?

[pbrower2a]

I still think what saved Reagan, Clinton, and Obama was that they were elected during a poor economy, eventually got the blame for it, and lost their first midterm. In 1996 and 1984 the economy improved and both Clinton and Reagan overperfomed. The economy was mediocre, that is, greatly improved but still struggling, in 2012. As such, Obama underperformed but still won comfortably in 2012. There may have been a time in Early October where he looked like he was going to lose but that's about it.

The thing now is that the economy was doing well in 2016 and Trump still barely won. There is now no slack in the economy and still he lost the midterms. I think the only way that he wins in 2020 is that the Democrats run a campaign that makes us all question their viability as a party or that there is a long term opportunity for Trump to play Captain America through the next two elections. There is a third opportunity for him to do well. That is, there has been a fundamental shift in the country and world economy that has made the US virtually immune to recessions.

You have something there.

I have been trying to scale back expectations of a defeat of President Trump since the midterm election, figuring that President Trump  has an ace up his sleeve or might get lucky.

If  "It's the economy, stupid" in most recent times, Trump is underperforming an economy that should be favoring his re-election. Clinton and Obama both won with margins in the electoral college of 100 or more, and Reagan... well, it looks as if he solved many problems for many people. Figure that a Republican with some moral compass (Romney?) would hold onto a House majority and gain perhaps seven Senate seats. Robert Mueller would be an obscure figure likely paying attention to pornography, drugs, illegal gambling, or insurance fraud.

Donald Trump has lost credibility. He denies science; he makes frequent, pointless lies. He has pushed tax cuts for the rich that give at most tidbits to the non-rich only to take those tidbits back and impose a big tax hike in the form of tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and really bad taxes that distort a free-market economy.

He has gone after Obamacare, and if he got his way he would price people into the grave. (A real solution would be to raise taxes to meet the costs of Obamacare, whether imposing a federal sales tax or to add Medicare-based income taxes).

OK... I am still convinced that Barack Obama was a fine President due to a solid moral compass, caution, respect for expertise, and good political skills. The next effective conservative President will have that, but will have a conservative agenda. That is what Republicans needed this time, and Trump has only the agenda. Global warming? Were I a conservative I would be scared of damage to defense assets (practically all naval bases alone are on the oceans or the Gulf Coast). As huge amounts of farmland that feeds hundreds of millions of people is on lands that will be inundated (this includes much of China, India, and Bangladesh) -- what does the world do with so many peasant farmers that feed their people? iPods and smart cars will not feed people. Even in America we would see legal  chaos as prime real estate in coastal areas becomes worthless, and so do financial instruments that have such property as the basis of underwriting on such property.

If I am a conservative on foreign policy I do not accept "Trust me!" from a dictator who has shown little cause for trust. Obama typically made deals that depended upon China or Russia agreeing on terms involving North Korean missiles and nukes. Well, Obama foreign policy is still Reagan-Bush foreign policy with which many Americans, not all of them conservatives, remain comfortable.

I see incompetence in meeting natural disasters and terrorism. We saw the President tossing out paper towels to people who needed food, housewares, medical care, building repairs, and restoration of electrical power. 

The handling of illegal aliens in separating parents from children has slowed deportations of illegal aliens. The rhetoric that has included such fecal 'gems' as "There are good people on both sides" even when one side aligns itself with Nazi-style expressions of racism is a disgrace. Good people do not excuse drug trafficking, child sexual abuse, ordinary crime, Stalinism, or Nazis.

President Trump went to full-bore demagoguery in his campaign, and he has unwelcome consequences for such. 

[pbrower2a]

I am starting over with post-midterm polls. Note that I have approval if positive and disapproval if negative. This will probably be neater.

Approval number shown if positive, 100-DIS if negative.

Approval over 55%
Approval 50%  but under 55%
Approval positive (at least over 45% but under 50%)
Tie -- or approval and disapproval both under 45% (white)
Disapproval  under 50% but greater than approval
Disapproval 50%  but under 55%
Disapproval 55%  but under 60%
Disapproval 60% or higher (reddish black) 



I apologize for the anticlimax applicable here. It's Massachusetts. Cue tuba fanfare and trombone, descending glissando from The Price I$ Right .

https://polsci.umass.edu/sites/default/files/Toplines2018_2020_0.pdf?_ga=2.89396699.1955185550.1543468112-1099726066.1543468112

Trump approval 33, disapproval 66.

Remember -- Massachusetts can vote for the 'right' Republican. It voted twice for Reagan (skill set) and twice for Eisenhower (temperament). It once voted for Mitt Romney for Governor. It also has a Republican Governor now.

The Republican Governor Charlie Baker has 73% approval and 21% disapproval.  But 52% of those polled thought Baker very different from Trump.  That is about the same number that distinguishes Charlie Barker from the GOP as a whole.  He would still lose in the primary to Trump.

University of Massachusetts at Amherst, November 7-14, registered voters. 

[Comrade Funk]

Bet you his utter subservient ass kissing of Saudi Arabia ain't helping.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Bet you his utter subservient ass kissing of Saudi Arabia ain't helping.

His approval rating in Saudi Arabia is probably off the charts.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Bet you his utter subservient ass kissing of Saudi Arabia ain't helping.

His approval rating in Saudi Arabia is probably off the charts.

Only if MBS is publishing the charts.

[pbrower2a]

   
OH-PPP: Brown/Biden/Sanders beat Trump; Trump ahead of Hillary/Warren
« on: Today at 03:08:17 pm »


https://www.cleveland.com/politics/2018/11/think-sherrod-brown-should-run-for-president-you-might-like-this-2020-poll.html


44-50 Trump favorability. Favorability and approval have typically been about the same. Ohio is a possible hold for Trump with these numbers should he face a weak and ineffective opponent. If Ohio is a toss-up, then Trump loses. 

I do not show favorability polls.      

[Person Man]

   
OH-PPP: Brown/Biden/Sanders beat Trump; Trump ahead of Hillary/Warren
« on: Today at 03:08:17 pm »


https://www.cleveland.com/politics/2018/11/think-sherrod-brown-should-run-for-president-you-might-like-this-2020-poll.html


44-50 Trump favorability. Favorability and approval have typically been about the same. Ohio is a possible hold for Trump with these numbers should he face a weak and ineffective opponent. If Ohio is a toss-up, then Trump loses. 

I do not show favorability polls.      

If we have a recession, Trump loses Florida and Ohio. Guaranteed.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Selzer, Nov. 24-27, 1000 adults including 828 likely 2020 voters (change from Sep.)

Adults:

Approve 43 (+4)
Disapprove 45 (-5)

Vote to re-elect Trump?

Definitely vote to re-elect 32 (+2)
Consider someone else 18 (nc)
Definitely someone else 41 (-2)
Would not vote 5 (nc)
Not sure 4 (+1)

LV (no prior):

Approve 44
Disapprove 47

Vote to re-elect Trump?

Definitely vote to re-elect 35
Consider someone else 17
Definitely someone else 45
Would not vote 1  [then why are they a likely voter??]
Not sure 3

[pbrower2a]

Selzer, Nov. 24-27, 1000 adults including 828 likely 2020 voters (change from Sep.)

Adults:

Approve 43 (+4)
Disapprove 45 (-5)

Vote to re-elect Trump?

Definitely vote to re-elect 32 (+2)
Consider someone else 18 (nc)
Definitely someone else 41 (-2)
Would not vote 5 (nc)
Not sure 4 (+1)

LV (no prior):

Approve 44
Disapprove 47

Vote to re-elect Trump?

Definitely vote to re-elect 35
Consider someone else 17
Definitely someone else 45
Would not vote 1  [then why are they a likely voter??]
Not sure 3

Possible interpretation: people are beginning to accept the status quo, and that includes the Trump Presidency. Maybe they expect the Democrats who will have the majority in the House to thwart the tendencies that many have seen troublesome in the President. Yes, he still is President.

President Trump has an absolute floor of 32% among adults and an absolute ceiling of 59%. "Likely voters" give him an absolute floor of 35% and an absolute ceiling of 55%, in either case implying that people who will definitely not vote for him could not vote for him under any circumstances or have decided that they want two terms of him.

"Adults" are less certain than are "likely voters" -- or it could be that they are more open-minded and will make decisions on what follows than what has happened so far.

Approval numbers now put the President in range of winning re-election (contrast the September results) if things turn out sort-of-OK and the President runs a competent and spirited campaign for re-election. One wins not by consolidating one's support but instead by winning over the undecided. There are now enough undecided voters to make such possible.

It will be up to House Democrats to offer sane, humane, and relevant proposals even if the Trump administration and the majority-R Senate shoot them down. We need remember: Tea Party pols made Obama look good in 2012 by contrast. This poll suggests that it won't be simple enough for just any Democratic nominee to defeat Trump in 2012.  Quality matters.

On the other hand, the GOP has supported political extremism; Trump has been an awful President by almost any objective standard other than shared ideology. He could conceivably shake up his troubled Administration of the fanatics and shysters and revert to Presidential norms. Obama, Clinton, and Reagan all faced huge losses for their Parties in the midterms after their initial elections, fine-tuned their legislative agendas, and heeded the opposition ... and got re-elected. Could Trump do the same?

We will know in two months. So far, Democrats have been able to leave the attacks on the President's conduct and ethics to a legal process that the President holds in contempt. The President so far has succeeded only at getting a tax cut favoring the Master Class at the expense of everyone else. He has scandal upon scandal, and he has already botched responses to natural disasters.

Liberals may have thought Reagan an intellectual mediocrity (No mo' Ron '84, Ronnie Ray-gun) but obviously underestimated him. Conservatives might have thought Clinton and Obama aberrations in the long view, a long view holding that America will be most successful when it defers to the wise choices of owners and executives and gets economic growth that solves all problems.

So what do I think? If I predict anything, it will be that the President will have much the same character and ideology that he has shown so far. The scandals are too numerous, too severe, and too pervasive to blow away. Trump is too judgmental to compromise, so if you thought his failure to get legislation to make a pure plutocracy (Make America Great Again -- as in the Gilded Age? the 1920s?)  out of America when he had obedient House and Senate majorities, then wait until you see what happens when he has but one Congressional majority -- and a shaky one at that, one likely to disappear in 2020. If President Trump changes his tune, then he has a chance of winning re-election, regaining Republican control of the House, and keeping a Senate Republican majority. But that is more than either Clinton or Obama did.   

[Person Man]

This is just one poll.

[pbrower2a]

This is just one poll.

True -- but it is by a very good pollster. It has strange results, but reality has changed.

In any event, America is split  nearly 50-50 Left and Right with little middle. I expect Right-leaning people to rally around conservative causes that will be stalled, if not reversed.

Donald Trump is getting a second chance, and this time he clearly must give something to get something. Effective politics is wheeling and dealing, and if he wants a huge tax cut for the super-rich, he will have to offer something in return. Will he? Who knows?

Many pundits of the time wrote off Obama, Clinton, and even Reagan after their inability to hold onto House majorities... yet they got re-elected.

President Trump's legal problems remain. If he remains an arrogant SOB who can do little more than belittle his opponents, rivals, and any Republican who fails to follow his line, then he goes back to his recent pattern of 40% approval and 55% disapproval.  History suggests that a President who has lost big in the House can get re-elected.

[Person Man]

This is just one poll.

True -- but it is by a very good pollster. It has strange results, but reality has changed.

In any event, America is split  nearly 50-50 Left and Right with little middle. I expect Right-leaning people to rally around conservative causes that will be stalled, if not reversed.

Donald Trump is getting a second chance, and this time he clearly must give something to get something. Effective politics is wheeling and dealing, and if he wants a huge tax cut for the super-rich, he will have to offer something in return. Will he? Who knows?

Many pundits of the time wrote off Obama, Clinton, and even Reagan after their inability to hold onto House majorities... yet they got re-elected.

President Trump's legal problems remain. If he remains an arrogant SOB who can do little more than belittle his opponents, rivals, and any Republican who fails to follow his line, then he goes back to his recent pattern of 40% approval and 55% disapproval.  History suggests that a President who has lost big in the House can get re-elected.

At least no president has ever won back control over the house after losing it in his second campaign.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Gallup's weekly poll continues to be very bouncy:

Approve 40 (+2)
Disapprove 56 (-4)

So over the last 5 weeks it's been:

40/54
38/56
43/53
38/60
40/56

[Person Man]

Gallup's weekly poll continues to be very bouncy:

Approve 40 (+2)
Disapprove 56 (-4)

So over the last 5 weeks it's been:

40/54
38/56
43/53
38/60
40/56

But the fundamentals are unchanged though I imagine all presidents get a post electoral bounce save lame ducks getting thrown under the bus.

[Thatkat04]

This is just one poll.

Selzer is good, but you are very right. I remember back in September when Selzer had the generic ballot at D+2 and alot of people were freaking out. But as we know, the results weren't +2 and that the average was very accurate. So what I'm trying to say is, put the poll in the average and dont worry too much about individual outliers.

[Thatkat04]

Selzer, Nov. 24-27, 1000 adults including 828 likely 2020 voters (change from Sep.)

Adults:

Approve 43 (+4)
Disapprove 45 (-5)

Vote to re-elect Trump?

Definitely vote to re-elect 32 (+2)
Consider someone else 18 (nc)
Definitely someone else 41 (-2)
Would not vote 5 (nc)
Not sure 4 (+1)

LV (no prior):

Approve 44
Disapprove 47

Vote to re-elect Trump?

Definitely vote to re-elect 35
Consider someone else 17
Definitely someone else 45
Would not vote 1  [then why are they a likely voter??]
Not sure 3

Just to correct you, Selzer's last poll does seem to have a LV screen for approval numbers.

https://localtvwhotv.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/grinnell-college-national-poll-a-challenging-road-to-2020-release-with-data-embargoed-until-september-5-2018.pdf

It was

Approve: 43%
Disapprove: 50%
Not Sure: 7%

Sadly, no i.d breakdown. Would be interesting to see if this Trump bump is due to democrats tuning out and not picking up their phones.