Trump approval ratings thread, 1.4

[Mr. Smith]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/19/politics/poll-of-the-week-trump-unsuccessful-president-record/index.html

He doesn't have to bring his up. He just has to bring theirs down.

Exactly. That's why it's foolish to ever count him out. I won't feel confident about him losing until election day 2020 if the Democrat attains 270 electoral votes.

Or 269, unless The House flips

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/19/politics/poll-of-the-week-trump-unsuccessful-president-record/index.html

He doesn't have to bring his up. He just has to bring theirs down.

Exactly. That's why it's foolish to ever count him out. I won't feel confident about him losing until election day 2020 if the Democrat attains 270 electoral votes.

We need to remember that he got elected President with less than a plurality of the popular vote in 2016, and if Democratic nominee win the popular vote by getting 70% of the popular vote in four states (CA, MD, MA, and NY), then we could get the result in which Trump wins re-election with something like 45% of the popular vote while the Democrat gets 49%. Trump won a smaller share of the popular vote in 2016 than did Romney in 2012, Kerry in 2004, Gore in 2000, and Ford in 1976... and little more than McCain in 2008 or even Dukakis in 1988.

He has severely debased public life as a mockery of statesmanship. He was successful at grinding down his opponents in the primaries and in the general election in 2016, and I expect him to try much the same in 2020.  He promotes cynicism. dread, hostility, and despair, and it is up to the rest of us to reject such as abnormal and unacceptable. He won on identity and will try that again.

But...57% of American voters, according to one pollster, will not vote for him in 2020 -- in contrast to the 40% who said eight years ago that they would not vote to re-elect Barack Obama. 100-WNR ("WNR" meaning "will not re-elect") gave Obama a ceiling of 60% which he missed by 9%. 100-WNR gives Trump a ceiling of 43% nationwide. If he should reaches that, and he will be closer to reaching that than Obama was to reaching 60%, he will fall short. Bigly.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/19/politics/poll-of-the-week-trump-unsuccessful-president-record/index.html

He doesn't have to bring his up. He just has to bring theirs down.

Exactly. That's why it's foolish to ever count him out. I won't feel confident about him losing until election day 2020 if the Democrat attains 270 electoral votes.

Or 269, unless The House flips

Actually, because the House votes for President by States, if the current House voted, Trump would win 26-22-2.

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/19/politics/poll-of-the-week-trump-unsuccessful-president-record/index.html

He doesn't have to bring his up. He just has to bring theirs down.

Exactly. That's why it's foolish to ever count him out. I won't feel confident about him losing until election day 2020 if the Democrat attains 270 electoral votes.

Or 269, unless The House flips

Actually, because the House votes for President by States, if the current House voted, Trump would win 26-22-2.

...and that is when things get really messy, with Wyo0ming counting as much as California.

Should there be any electoral reform through Constitutional Amendment,  I can easily see the national popular vote being the first tier of selection followed by the current mechanism. (I suggest at least one more than 45% for an adequate plurality. (That would have pushed the election to the Electoral College in 1912, 1968, and 1992 -- but in such cases, Wilson, Nixon, and Clinton would have won those three-way races.

The new tier applied to 2000 would have given us Al Gore and in 2016 would have given us Hillary Clinton. American experience with Dubya and especially Trump would make such a reform attractive.

Another method would be to apportion the electoral vote by state based upon shares of the total vote, but that is a complicated formula which I have discussed elsewhere. It does reflect federal representation so that (for now) California gets 55 and Wyoming gets 3. 

[American2020]

YouGov


Approve
42%

Disapprove
56%

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/m6e9fl3l35/tabs_Trump_Tweets_20190118.pdf

[GeorgiaModerate]

YouGov


Approve
42%

Disapprove
56%

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/m6e9fl3l35/tabs_Trump_Tweets_20190118.pdf

These daily snapshots by YouGov tend to be very bouncy.  I think it's more useful to look at their larger weekly survey.

[Sorenroy]

There's a big difference between the election being Dem 46, Trump 43, Other 11, and the election being, like, Dem 55, Trump 43, Other 2. Not sure which of the two you're describing.

I was thinking somewhere in the middle of that, say Dem 50, Trump 43.

Based on 2012 and 2016 PVI, what a two way race might look like:

Dem. Challenger — 347 EV (53.76%)
Donald Trump — 191 EV (46.24%)

Margin: ≤5% shown as 30%, ≤10% shown as 40%, >10% shown as 60%.


Five closest districts:

NE-02: 50.15% R - 49.85% D
North Carolina: 50.75% D - 49.25% R
Ohio: 50.84% D - 49.16% R
Arizona: 51.03% R - 48.97% D
Georgia: 51.09% R - 48.91% D

A slight adjustment, if 2020 has the same PVI shift as 2008&2012 to 2012&2016 had:

Dem. Challenger — 350 EV (53.76%)
Donald Trump — 188 EV (46.24%)

Margin: ≤5% shown as 30%, ≤10% shown as 40%, >10% shown as 60%.


Five closest districts:

Georgia: 50.19% D - 49.81% R
NE-02: 50.27% D - 49.73% R
North Carolina: 51.01% D - 48.99% R
Ohio: 51.16% R - 48.84% D
Wisconsin: 51.33% D - 48.67% R


Honestly, I see this as the more likely map: with Trump keeping some of his hold on the Rust Belt and northern white states but continuing the downward trend in the Sun and Black Belt.

[Reaganfan]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/19/politics/poll-of-the-week-trump-unsuccessful-president-record/index.html

He doesn't have to bring his up. He just has to bring theirs down.

Exactly. That's why it's foolish to ever count him out. I won't feel confident about him losing until election day 2020 if the Democrat attains 270 electoral votes.

Or 269, unless The House flips

Actually, because the House votes for President by States, if the current House voted, Trump would win 26-22-2.

...and that is when things get really messy, with Wyo0ming counting as much as California.

Should there be any electoral reform through Constitutional Amendment,  I can easily see the national popular vote being the first tier of selection followed by the current mechanism. (I suggest at least one more than 45% for an adequate plurality. (That would have pushed the election to the Electoral College in 1912, 1968, and 1992 -- but in such cases, Wilson, Nixon, and Clinton would have won those three-way races.

The new tier applied to 2000 would have given us Al Gore and in 2016 would have given us Hillary Clinton. American experience with Dubya and especially Trump would make such a reform attractive.

Another method would be to apportion the electoral vote by state based upon shares of the total vote, but that is a complicated formula which I have discussed elsewhere. It does reflect federal representation so that (for now) California gets 55 and Wyoming gets 3. 

That's like saying a basketball team would have won if three point shots were worth 10 points.

It's our system, deal with it.

[swf541]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/19/politics/poll-of-the-week-trump-unsuccessful-president-record/index.html

He doesn't have to bring his up. He just has to bring theirs down.

Exactly. That's why it's foolish to ever count him out. I won't feel confident about him losing until election day 2020 if the Democrat attains 270 electoral votes.

Or 269, unless The House flips

Actually, because the House votes for President by States, if the current House voted, Trump would win 26-22-2.

...and that is when things get really messy, with Wyo0ming counting as much as California.

Should there be any electoral reform through Constitutional Amendment,  I can easily see the national popular vote being the first tier of selection followed by the current mechanism. (I suggest at least one more than 45% for an adequate plurality. (That would have pushed the election to the Electoral College in 1912, 1968, and 1992 -- but in such cases, Wilson, Nixon, and Clinton would have won those three-way races.

The new tier applied to 2000 would have given us Al Gore and in 2016 would have given us Hillary Clinton. American experience with Dubya and especially Trump would make such a reform attractive.

Another method would be to apportion the electoral vote by state based upon shares of the total vote, but that is a complicated formula which I have discussed elsewhere. It does reflect federal representation so that (for now) California gets 55 and Wyoming gets 3. 

That's like saying a basketball team would have won if three point shots were worth 10 points.

It's our system, deal with it.

Why do you hate representative democracy?

[pbrower2a]

The  rationale behind the Electoral College is that the States, and not the People, elect the President. It works against  certain forms of vote fraud (let us say a state having fabricated 90 million votes) or having a veritable single-Party system in which the second-largest Party is effectively shut out, as was true in much of the post-Reconstruction South. Thus the Electoral College recognizes no difference between winning a state 51-48 or winning it 81-18 in assessing the value of the votes. Thus if democracy failed in one state that state would not have inordinate power in the federal government.

The problem is that minorities within states become irrelevant -- like blacks in most of the South. maybe rural interests in New York State -- even if they are significant.  I want to see Democratic Presidential candidates seeking votes among Mexican-Americans in Texas, and I want Republican Presidential candidates seeking votes among agricultural interests in California.  Minorities matter in close elections.   

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/19/politics/poll-of-the-week-trump-unsuccessful-president-record/index.html

He doesn't have to bring his up. He just has to bring theirs down.

Exactly. That's why it's foolish to ever count him out. I won't feel confident about him losing until election day 2020 if the Democrat attains 270 electoral votes.

Or 269, unless The House flips

Actually, because the House votes for President by States, if the current House voted, Trump would win 26-22-2.

...and that is when things get really messy, with Wyo0ming counting as much as California.

Should there be any electoral reform through Constitutional Amendment,  I can easily see the national popular vote being the first tier of selection followed by the current mechanism. (I suggest at least one more than 45% for an adequate plurality. (That would have pushed the election to the Electoral College in 1912, 1968, and 1992 -- but in such cases, Wilson, Nixon, and Clinton would have won those three-way races.

The new tier applied to 2000 would have given us Al Gore and in 2016 would have given us Hillary Clinton. American experience with Dubya and especially Trump would make such a reform attractive.

Another method would be to apportion the electoral vote by state based upon shares of the total vote, but that is a complicated formula which I have discussed elsewhere. It does reflect federal representation so that (for now) California gets 55 and Wyoming gets 3. 

That's like saying a basketball team would have won if three point shots were worth 10 points.

It's our system, deal with it.

No, that's like saying three point shots are worth three points at one end of the core, but only one point at the other end.

It's a f*****-up system, and trust me, we're seeking to "deal with it" the same way one deals with a rabid raccoon.

[libertpaulian]

The  rationale behind the Electoral College is that the States, and not the People, elect the President. It works against  certain forms of vote fraud (let us say a state having fabricated 90 million votes) or having a veritable single-Party system in which the second-largest Party is effectively shut out, as was true in much of the post-Reconstruction South. Thus the Electoral College recognizes no difference between winning a state 51-48 or winning it 81-18 in assessing the value of the votes. Thus if democracy failed in one state that state would not have inordinate power in the federal government.

The problem is that minorities within states become irrelevant -- like blacks in most of the South. maybe rural interests in New York State -- even if they are significant.  I want to see Democratic Presidential candidates seeking votes among Mexican-Americans in Texas, and I want Republican Presidential candidates seeking votes among agricultural interests in California.  Minorities matter in close elections.   

Agreed, but the EC also makes sure that rural and small-town voters aren't marginalized in the political process at the expense of the cities and the coasts.

[pbrower2a]

These were the ten largest cities in the United States in 1790.

Two of them have been absorbed into Philadelphia, so they no longer exist as such.
 
1    New York    New York    33,131    New York ranked as the nation's most populous city at the time of the first census count.
2    Philadelphia    Pennsylvania    28,522    Philadelphia has remained on the top 10 list of largest American cities throughout its history.
3    Boston    Massachusetts    18,320    
4    Charleston    South Carolina    16,359    
5    Baltimore    Maryland    13,503    Existed as a township at the time. Now an independent city.
6    Northern Liberties    Pennsylvania    9,913    Township now absorbed in Philadelphia. See Northern Liberties, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
7    Salem    Massachusetts    7,921    Listed as a town in 1790 census. Presently a city.
8    Newport    Rhode Island    6,716    Listed as a town in 1790 census. Presently a city.
9    Providence    Rhode Island    6,380    Listed as a town in 1790 census. Now a city.
10    Marblehead    Massachusetts    5,661    Still a town as of 2006.
Southwark    Pennsylvania    5,661    Before 1854 Act of Consolidation, Southwark was an independent municipality; it is now a neighborhood in south South Philadelphia.

America was quite rural then, so the Founding Fathers had little cause to concern themselves about giant cities dominating  American public life.

For contrast, 1860. Brooklyn was yet to become a part of New York City; Philadelphia had just incorporated some sizable cities into itself. America had a huge problem, and it was definitely not the urban-rural divide:

1    New York    New York    813,669    
2    Philadelphia    Pennsylvania    565,529    The large jump in population between the seventh and eighth censuses is due to the 1854 Act of Consolidation, which merged the County and City of Philadelphia into a single government entity and abolished all other local governments.
3    Brooklyn    New York    266,661    
4    Baltimore    Maryland    212,418    
5    Boston    Massachusetts    177,840    
6    New Orleans    Louisiana    168,675    
7    Cincinnati    Ohio    161,044    
8    St. Louis    Missouri    160,773    
9    Chicago    Illinois    112,172    First appearance in the top 10. In the previous census, it was the 24th largest American city with a population of 29,963. Chicago would be one of the world's fastest growing cities in its infancy.
10    Buffalo    New York    81,129    First appearance in the top 10. Would disappear from list by next census and not re-appear until 1900.

http://www.liquisearch.com/largest_cities_in_the_united_states_by_population_by_decade

[Beet]

The  rationale behind the Electoral College is that the States, and not the People, elect the President. It works against  certain forms of vote fraud (let us say a state having fabricated 90 million votes) or having a veritable single-Party system in which the second-largest Party is effectively shut out, as was true in much of the post-Reconstruction South. Thus the Electoral College recognizes no difference between winning a state 51-48 or winning it 81-18 in assessing the value of the votes. Thus if democracy failed in one state that state would not have inordinate power in the federal government.

The problem is that minorities within states become irrelevant -- like blacks in most of the South. maybe rural interests in New York State -- even if they are significant.  I want to see Democratic Presidential candidates seeking votes among Mexican-Americans in Texas, and I want Republican Presidential candidates seeking votes among agricultural interests in California.  Minorities matter in close elections.   

Agreed, but the EC also makes sure that rural and small-town voters aren't marginalized in the political process at the expense of the cities and the coasts.

It depends - if you're a rural and small-town voter in Nebraska, Vermont, or any other non-swing state, it makes sure you're even more marginalized than you otherwise would be. Really the benefits go to swing states - swing state North Carolina on the coast benefits at the expense of small-town Oklahoma in the heartland.

[Badger]

The  rationale behind the Electoral College is that the States, and not the People, elect the President. It works against  certain forms of vote fraud (let us say a state having fabricated 90 million votes) or having a veritable single-Party system in which the second-largest Party is effectively shut out, as was true in much of the post-Reconstruction South. Thus the Electoral College recognizes no difference between winning a state 51-48 or winning it 81-18 in assessing the value of the votes. Thus if democracy failed in one state that state would not have inordinate power in the federal government.

The problem is that minorities within states become irrelevant -- like blacks in most of the South. maybe rural interests in New York State -- even if they are significant.  I want to see Democratic Presidential candidates seeking votes among Mexican-Americans in Texas, and I want Republican Presidential candidates seeking votes among agricultural interests in California.  Minorities matter in close elections.   

Agreed, but the EC also makes sure that rural and small-town voters aren't marginalized in the political process at the expense of the cities and the coasts.

Not true. Without the Electoral College a voter in a rural areas vote counts exactly as much as a voter in a city. It's the Electoral College that twists that math up.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

The  rationale behind the Electoral College is that the States, and not the People, elect the President. It works against  certain forms of vote fraud (let us say a state having fabricated 90 million votes) or having a veritable single-Party system in which the second-largest Party is effectively shut out, as was true in much of the post-Reconstruction South. Thus the Electoral College recognizes no difference between winning a state 51-48 or winning it 81-18 in assessing the value of the votes. Thus if democracy failed in one state that state would not have inordinate power in the federal government.

The problem is that minorities within states become irrelevant -- like blacks in most of the South. maybe rural interests in New York State -- even if they are significant.  I want to see Democratic Presidential candidates seeking votes among Mexican-Americans in Texas, and I want Republican Presidential candidates seeking votes among agricultural interests in California.  Minorities matter in close elections.    

Agreed, but the EC also makes sure that rural and small-town voters aren't marginalized in the political process at the expense of the cities and the coasts.

There are 5 million rural voters in California alone who are screwed by the Electoral College. If you're a rural voter in a big state you're actually disadvantaged just as much as any urban voter there is.

Likewise, the EC massively and disproportionately benefits voters in Nevada, which is the 4th most urban state in the US.

[pbrower2a]

The  rationale behind the Electoral College is that the States, and not the People, elect the President. It works against  certain forms of vote fraud (let us say a state having fabricated 90 million votes) or having a veritable single-Party system in which the second-largest Party is effectively shut out, as was true in much of the post-Reconstruction South. Thus the Electoral College recognizes no difference between winning a state 51-48 or winning it 81-18 in assessing the value of the votes. Thus if democracy failed in one state that state would not have inordinate power in the federal government.

The problem is that minorities within states become irrelevant -- like blacks in most of the South. maybe rural interests in New York State -- even if they are significant.  I want to see Democratic Presidential candidates seeking votes among Mexican-Americans in Texas, and I want Republican Presidential candidates seeking votes among agricultural interests in California.  Minorities matter in close elections.    

Agreed, but the EC also makes sure that rural and small-town voters aren't marginalized in the political process at the expense of the cities and the coasts.

There are 5 million rural voters in California alone who are screwed by the Electoral College. If you're a rural voter in a big state you're actually disadvantaged just as much as any urban voter there is.

Likewise, the EC massively and disproportionately benefits voters in Nevada, which is the 4th most urban state in the US.

True. In the recent past, some western states were less urban because they had yet to have the big city growth. Farming and ranching may not be the most glamorous of economic activities, but when the states (even California) had far-smaller populations, limitations on water limited the population. Farm and ranch interests are decidedly conservative and Republican-leaning. Democrats built big water projects during the New Deal and ended up attracting right-wing farmers. A little more water made ranching easier and profitable. The ranch population seems to have stayed much the same size, but the farm population soared in states like Arizona and California. The New Deal made that possible, and by the 1950s the West went heavily R after being strongly D in the '30s and '40s.  (This might be good for my thread on comparing elections). It is telling that a bunch of western states went from Truman to Eisenhower between 1948 and 1952, and remained with the Republican Party for a long time.

The West Coast started getting huge population increases in the 1950s, but those states would not start going D until the 1980s.  As the population changes (Hispanics may have been the stereotypical ill-paid farm laborers who lived on the brink of starvation at one time, but given a chance, they don't remain such) so do the voting habits.

The western states urbanized. You might not think of Chicago and Las Vegas as similar, but they have something in common: they are so large that they dominate the statewide politics of their respective states. But as Chicago grew as an industrial powerhouse much more populous than the heavily-rural rest of the state (separate Greater Chicago from Illinois and downstate Illinois is more rural and Republican than Indiana, let alone Iowa) it got the population and the voters. Farm interests got shoved aside even if most of Illinois is the sort of land that one has to be a farmer to appreciate. (Extreme southern Illinois is coal-mining country, and it is a dead-ringer for West Virginia in politics and social conditions). As Las Vegas grew as a center of population, its votes overwhelmed the stagnant population of its once-dominant ranching industry.

So if I am to look at the states that became part of America largely as the result of the transformation of what was Mexico's extreme north (Alta California and Coahuila-Tejas)  one finds

Texas (1845)   RRRRRRRRR
California (1850) RDDDDDDD
Nevada (1864) RDDRRDDD
Colorado (1876)* RDRRRDDD
Utah (1896)  RRRRRRRRR
Arizona (1912) RRDRRRRRR
New Mexico (1912) RDDDRDDD

showing how the states have voted in Presidential elections beginning in 1988. As late as 1988, every one of those states voted for the elder Bush. Texas was the only one of them to vote for Carter in 1976, and all of those states voted for Reagan twice.

I'm not predicting the 2020 election yet, as I got the 2016 election very wrong. Under no circumstances other than an election rigged as severely as those in Commie regimes do I see Trump winning California, Colorado, or New Mexico. Nevada looks competitive, but it probably is simply inelastic and D-favoring (see also Minnesota, a very different state, but as in Illinois the Twin Cities dominate statewide politics). Nevada typically had one D and one R Senator, but that seems to be over. The R hold in Texas seems to be weakening, and the R hold in Arizona is tenuous in the extreme with the Goldwater-McCain Senate seat highly likely to flip D in 2020.  Utah is so solidly R that it takes an incredible screw-up as a Republican to lose the state -- but it did go for the New Deal Coalition as late as 1948.

*more than half of Colorado was ever formally part of Mexico, and the part that never was in Mexican territory includes Denver. Denver has a huge Hispanic population).

But urban populations began to grow, and they did not care much for the rural interests with their desires for cheap labor and cheap water.      

[GeorgiaModerate]

PPP, Jan. 19-21, 760 RV (prior poll Jan. 10-11)

Approve 40 (-2)
Disapprove 57 (+4)

These are very bad numbers for Trump by PPP, which has been one of his better pollsters.

[Comrade Funk]

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1087818040605958144

[GeorgiaModerate]

Emerson, Jan. 20-21, 942 RV (prior poll Dec. 6-9)

Approval 42 (-1)
Disapproval 52 (+5)

There seems to be a trend in recent polls where Trump's approval has declined a little, but disapproval has spiked a lot.  It looks like the fence-sitters are moving into the disapproval camp.

(This poll should also win an award for longest URL in a poll release.)

[GeorgiaModerate]

Against the trend:

ARG economic survey (monthly), Jan. 17-20, 1100 adults

Approve 41 (+1)
Disapprove 54 (-3)

[GeorgiaModerate]

Research Co., Jan. 11-13, 1000 adults

Approve 38
Disapprove 58

This is a Canadian pollster that does mostly Canadian polls.  I don't see a prior poll of theirs with Trump approval.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Against the trend:

ARG economic survey (monthly), Jan. 17-20, 1100 adults

Approve 41 (+1)
Disapprove 54 (-3)

It's ARG, you might as well throw darts on a board.

[GeorgiaModerate]

CBS News, Jan. 18-21, 1102 adults (change from Nov.)

Approve 36 (-3)
Disapprove 59 (+4)

R: 77/20 (was 85/11)
D: 5/92 (was 7/90)
I: 34/58 (was 36/55)

[BlueSwan]

At fivethirtyeight both Trumps approval and disapproval are at their worst for Trump since last january. We are approaching 2017 territory.