Trump approval ratings thread 1.6

[pbrower2a]

As is my wont, I will try to do some analysis of the connection between Obama approval in 2011 and the election of 2012.



The vote share is what is left once third-party nominees and write-ins (especially such political luminaries as "Mickey Mouse", "Darth Vader", "Santa Claus", and "Jesus Christ") are culled out. Assume at this point that the 2020 election will be essentially a binary choice, with no third-party nominee getting more than 2% of the popular vote nationwide. Assume also that there will be no blatant manipulation of the vote for any purpose (it will be far too risky).

You will notice that Obama outperformed his 2011 approval  level in all states that he won and in his barest loss (North Carolina) Other states in which Obama lost seem to fit no pattern at all. There were two states in which Obama's approval rating was at or below 47% that he ended up winning: Colorado and New Hampshire, both of which Obama won by 6% and 10%, respectively. Maybe the 2011 polls understated Obama's chances in those two states.Otherwise the states that Obama lost seem to drift little away from the line in which the approval number of 2011 is equal to the vote share.  Utah is about 8% below Obama's approval there, but one can explain that with Mitt Romney being a Mormon in the Mormon state.  I have typically held that the favorite son effect is real if the politician is seen positively there.


OK, Obama campaigned in no states in which he expected to lose.  Trump will have to campaign in states in which his approval is under 47%, including in states that he is likely to lose. The only state in which Obama campaigned seriously in which he lost was North Carolina, which he barely won in 2008 and barely lost in 2012.


Approval numbers from October, Morning Consult. Close enough to a year away (November results are not in yet, as November is incomplete)

Assuming that Trump gets the same treatment from approval to vote share as Obama got between November 2011 and 2012 (which is the shakiest part of the assumption, because Trump is not Obama)


Trump will pick up on the average 4% in states in which his approval is 47% or higher. Any state in which his approval is 51% or higher as of now is effectively a gimme, with Trump getting 55% or more of the vote share.

48% to 50% suggest that Trump will win the state by a margin of 4% to 9% Only two states are in this category, but one is Texas.

Any state in which Trump has approval in the 46% or 47% can easily go either way. Such states are in white.  

Either Pennsylvania or Virginia could be close, but the range of possibilities for those two states does not include Trump wins.

Other states are in maroon.  You know what that means.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Honestly, this feels very similar to the rhetoric democrats were using to defend Clinton 2016, as in, how dare people believe that having allegations of corruption/nepotism over your head could hurt a candidate in the general election. And in this case, it is a fact that almost everyone views Hunter Biden getting his cushy job in Burisma negatively.

Sure, but that cannot be separated from Trump and how his family has even more blatantly used Trump's presidency to enrich themselves. That's what's so frustrating. Same with Clinton's emails. Nikki Haley and Trump's Ukraine scandal have made that an even sadder event in our nation's history, that something which continues to prove itself so inconsequential in comparison, managed to cause such a ripple effect in our country and its politics.

Peoples trusting their perceptions more than empirical facts is a major ailment in our republic that is part of many things that is causing it to slowly rot. It's why I cannot forgive American voters and spare them from some of the blame when it comes to elections and their consequences. Voters get the politicians they deserve, and politicians won't change unless the voters change too. Clearly, that's asking for something insurmountable though.

A phenomenon I have noticed is the tendency among independents right smack in the center to believe right-wing narratives about corruption and criminal doings, but not left-wing ones. Compare these two narratives:

1. Trump refuses to release his tax returns because they'll show he has significant financial ties to Russia, who is actively trying to get him elected so Putin can have a puppet in the White House.

2. Hillary Clinton scrubbed thousands of emails from her private server because they will uncover her scheme to sell weapons to ISIS, and (2019 version) conspiring with Cloudstrike and the Ukrainians to interfere in the 2016 election and frame Donald Trump.

To me, these are equally crazy, but independents seem much more likely to dismiss the first as a nothingburger, but find at least some truth in the second.

[Illiniwek]

Honestly, this feels very similar to the rhetoric democrats were using to defend Clinton 2016, as in, how dare people believe that having allegations of corruption/nepotism over your head could hurt a candidate in the general election. And in this case, it is a fact that almost everyone views Hunter Biden getting his cushy job in Burisma negatively.

Sure, but that cannot be separated from Trump and how his family has even more blatantly used Trump's presidency to enrich themselves. That's what's so frustrating. Same with Clinton's emails. Nikki Haley and Trump's Ukraine scandal have made that an even sadder event in our nation's history, that something which continues to prove itself so inconsequential in comparison, managed to cause such a ripple effect in our country and its politics.

Peoples trusting their perceptions more than empirical facts is a major ailment in our republic that is part of many things that is causing it to slowly rot. It's why I cannot forgive American voters and spare them from some of the blame when it comes to elections and their consequences. Voters get the politicians they deserve, and politicians won't change unless the voters change too. Clearly, that's asking for something insurmountable though.

A phenomenon I have noticed is the tendency among independents right smack in the center to believe right-wing narratives about corruption and criminal doings, but not left-wing ones. Compare these two narratives:

1. Trump refuses to release his tax returns because they'll show he has significant financial ties to Russia, who is actively trying to get him elected so Putin can have a puppet in the White House.

2. Hillary Clinton scrubbed thousands of emails from her private server because they will uncover her scheme to sell weapons to ISIS, and (2019 version) conspiring with Cloudstrike and the Ukrainians to interfere in the 2016 election and frame Donald Trump.

To me, these are equally crazy, but independents seem much more likely to dismiss the first as a nothingburger, but find at least some truth in the second.

Probably due to a presumed left wing bias in the media. "If I hear about the right committing wrongdoing, then it must be the mainstream media pushing its left-wing agenda. But if I hear about the left committing wrongdoing, then it must be true."

[Badger]

Honestly, this feels very similar to the rhetoric democrats were using to defend Clinton 2016, as in, how dare people believe that having allegations of corruption/nepotism over your head could hurt a candidate in the general election. And in this case, it is a fact that almost everyone views Hunter Biden getting his cushy job in Burisma negatively.

Sure, but that cannot be separated from Trump and how his family has even more blatantly used Trump's presidency to enrich themselves. That's what's so frustrating. Same with Clinton's emails. Nikki Haley and Trump's Ukraine scandal have made that an even sadder event in our nation's history, that something which continues to prove itself so inconsequential in comparison, managed to cause such a ripple effect in our country and its politics.

Peoples trusting their perceptions more than empirical facts is a major ailment in our republic that is part of many things that is causing it to slowly rot. It's why I cannot forgive American voters and spare them from some of the blame when it comes to elections and their consequences. Voters get the politicians they deserve, and politicians won't change unless the voters change too. Clearly, that's asking for something insurmountable though.

A phenomenon I have noticed is the tendency among independents right smack in the center to believe right-wing narratives about corruption and criminal doings, but not left-wing ones. Compare these two narratives:

1. Trump refuses to release his tax returns because they'll show he has significant financial ties to Russia, who is actively trying to get him elected so Putin can have a puppet in the White House.

2. Hillary Clinton scrubbed thousands of emails from her private server because they will uncover her scheme to sell weapons to ISIS, and (2019 version) conspiring with Cloudstrike and the Ukrainians to interfere in the 2016 election and frame Donald Trump.

To me, these are equally crazy, but independents seem much more likely to dismiss the first as a nothingburger, but find at least some truth in the second.

Probably due to a presumed left wing bias in the media. "If I hear about the right committing wrongdoing, then it must be the mainstream media pushing its left-wing agenda. But if I hear about the left committing wrongdoing, then it must be true."

I might hate this answer, but how truly " independent Center" should such voters really be considered? They sound like your typical semi-regular Fox News viewer

[Progressive Pessimist]

Honestly, this feels very similar to the rhetoric democrats were using to defend Clinton 2016, as in, how dare people believe that having allegations of corruption/nepotism over your head could hurt a candidate in the general election. And in this case, it is a fact that almost everyone views Hunter Biden getting his cushy job in Burisma negatively.

Sure, but that cannot be separated from Trump and how his family has even more blatantly used Trump's presidency to enrich themselves. That's what's so frustrating. Same with Clinton's emails. Nikki Haley and Trump's Ukraine scandal have made that an even sadder event in our nation's history, that something which continues to prove itself so inconsequential in comparison, managed to cause such a ripple effect in our country and its politics.

Peoples trusting their perceptions more than empirical facts is a major ailment in our republic that is part of many things that is causing it to slowly rot. It's why I cannot forgive American voters and spare them from some of the blame when it comes to elections and their consequences. Voters get the politicians they deserve, and politicians won't change unless the voters change too. Clearly, that's asking for something insurmountable though.

A phenomenon I have noticed is the tendency among independents right smack in the center to believe right-wing narratives about corruption and criminal doings, but not left-wing ones. Compare these two narratives:

1. Trump refuses to release his tax returns because they'll show he has significant financial ties to Russia, who is actively trying to get him elected so Putin can have a puppet in the White House.

2. Hillary Clinton scrubbed thousands of emails from her private server because they will uncover her scheme to sell weapons to ISIS, and (2019 version) conspiring with Cloudstrike and the Ukrainians to interfere in the 2016 election and frame Donald Trump.

To me, these are equally crazy, but independents seem much more likely to dismiss the first as a nothingburger, but find at least some truth in the second.

It is indeed some bulls***. The right always seems to control the narrative in this country, maybe even since the 1980's. I guess that makes sense when it comes from a political party that inherently exists as the embodiment of the status quo.

However, I would like to note that Obama's "controversies" and "scandals" that the right tried pushing during and leading up to his presidency never stuck to him either. So perhaps this concerning phenomenon has more to do with when the narrative started rather than the narrative itself.

Hillary Clinton was a target for the right since her husband won the 1992 election. Those 25 plus years of being an obsession for them definitely ended up bleeding into the mainstream subconscious and was always made worse due to her continued ambition of higher office throughout her existence as a public figure.

 Meanwhile, Obama's shorter career didn't give the Republicans as much time to insist on their characterizations of him. The same is probably true of Trump also, unfortunately. He came out of f***ing nowhere, in spite of wanting to run for President for decades, and has done so much that is awful throughout his lifetime that is hard to constantly remind voters about all of it. And he continues to do so much that is wrong that his actions diminish in effectiveness and have become too normalized to make Americans concerned about them anymore. That's possibly why the Ukraine scandal is or was seemingly resonating the most so far-it's simple and encompasses elements of many of his other misdeeds. If he could have been characterized earlier though, perhaps he could have gone the way of Clinton and been damaged enough already when he ran for the highest office in the country.

That's why I am more concerned than ever about Biden being the Democratic nominee in 2020. The Republicans may not have had 25 years to characterize him, but they got an early enough start combined with him constantly puts his own foot in his mouth. True or not (which it isn't), the alleged scandal involving Burisma and Hunter Biden are always going to be used against Biden, and the more that some Americans hear it, especially before he gets formally nominated, the more it will somehow end up defining him.

This could backfire though if Biden isn't the nominee. He isn't as inevitable as Clinton was in 2016. So they may have wasted their effort on Biden instead of distributing their false or misleading narratives across all of the Democratic front-runners. I sure hope so.

[Badger]

Honestly, this feels very similar to the rhetoric democrats were using to defend Clinton 2016, as in, how dare people believe that having allegations of corruption/nepotism over your head could hurt a candidate in the general election. And in this case, it is a fact that almost everyone views Hunter Biden getting his cushy job in Burisma negatively.

Sure, but that cannot be separated from Trump and how his family has even more blatantly used Trump's presidency to enrich themselves. That's what's so frustrating. Same with Clinton's emails. Nikki Haley and Trump's Ukraine scandal have made that an even sadder event in our nation's history, that something which continues to prove itself so inconsequential in comparison, managed to cause such a ripple effect in our country and its politics.

Peoples trusting their perceptions more than empirical facts is a major ailment in our republic that is part of many things that is causing it to slowly rot. It's why I cannot forgive American voters and spare them from some of the blame when it comes to elections and their consequences. Voters get the politicians they deserve, and politicians won't change unless the voters change too. Clearly, that's asking for something insurmountable though.

A phenomenon I have noticed is the tendency among independents right smack in the center to believe right-wing narratives about corruption and criminal doings, but not left-wing ones. Compare these two narratives:

1. Trump refuses to release his tax returns because they'll show he has significant financial ties to Russia, who is actively trying to get him elected so Putin can have a puppet in the White House.

2. Hillary Clinton scrubbed thousands of emails from her private server because they will uncover her scheme to sell weapons to ISIS, and (2019 version) conspiring with Cloudstrike and the Ukrainians to interfere in the 2016 election and frame Donald Trump.

To me, these are equally crazy, but independents seem much more likely to dismiss the first as a nothingburger, but find at least some truth in the second.

It is indeed some bulls***. The right always seems to control the narrative in this country, maybe even since the 1980's. I guess that makes sense when it comes from a political party that inherently exists as the embodiment of the status quo.

However, I would like to note that Obama's "controversies" and "scandals" that the right tried pushing during and leading up to his presidency never stuck to him either. So perhaps this concerning phenomenon has more to do with when the narrative started rather than the narrative itself.

Hillary Clinton was a target for the right since her husband won the 1992 election. Those 25 plus years of being an obsession for them definitely ended up bleeding into the mainstream subconscious and was always made worse due to her continued ambition of higher office throughout her existence as a public figure.

 Meanwhile, Obama's shorter career didn't give the Republicans as much time to insist on their characterizations of him. The same is probably true of Trump also, unfortunately. He came out of f***ing nowhere, in spite of wanting to run for President for decades, and has done so much that is awful throughout his lifetime that is hard to constantly remind voters about all of it. And he continues to do so much that is wrong that his actions diminish in effectiveness and have become too normalized to make Americans concerned about them anymore. That's possibly why the Ukraine scandal is or was seemingly resonating the most so far-it's simple and encompasses elements of many of his other misdeeds. If he could have been characterized earlier though, perhaps he could have gone the way of Clinton and been damaged enough already when he ran for the highest office in the country.

That's why I am more concerned than ever about Biden being the Democratic nominee in 2020. The Republicans may not have had 25 years to characterize him, but they got an early enough start combined with him constantly puts his own foot in his mouth. True or not (which it isn't), the alleged scandal involving Burisma and Hunter Biden are always going to be used against Biden, and the more that some Americans hear it, especially before he gets formally nominated, the more it will somehow end up defining him.

This could backfire though if Biden isn't the nominee. He isn't as inevitable as Clinton was in 2016. So they may have wasted their effort on Biden instead of distributing their false or misleading narratives across all of the Democratic front-runners. I sure hope so.

All absolutely true with one caveat. Hillary and Bill both had a bit of sleaze about them, that was fairly typical politician pay-to-play type stuff. Obama, relatively speaking to most presidents, was squeaky clean corruption and ethics wise.

[GeorgiaModerate]

CNN/SSRS, Nov. 21-24, 1007 adults (1-month change)

Approve 42 (+1)
Disapprove (-3)

Impeach and remove Trump?

Yes 50 (nc)
No 43 (nc)

Based on what you have heard or read about Donald Trump’s interactions with the President of Ukraine, do you believe that Trump improperly used the presidency to gain political advantage against a potential 2020 opponent, or do you think he did not use the presidency improperly?

Used improperly 53 (+4)
Did not use improperly 42 (-1)

[GeorgiaModerate]

Morning Consult/Politico, Nov. 22-24, 1988 RV (1-week change, some questions not asked last week)

Approve 40 (-1)
Disapprove 56 (+1)

Strongly approve 24 (nc)
Strongly disapprove 45 (nc)

2020:

Definitely Trump 28
Probably Trump 9
Probably someone else 6
Definitely someone else 48
(Net: Trump 37, someone else 54)

GCB: D 45, R 36

Support impeachment inquiry? Yes 48 (nc), No 43 (-2)

Impeach Trump? Yes 50 (+2), No 41 (-3)

Remove Trump? Yes 50 (+3), No 42 (-2)

[Progressive Pessimist]

Honestly, this feels very similar to the rhetoric democrats were using to defend Clinton 2016, as in, how dare people believe that having allegations of corruption/nepotism over your head could hurt a candidate in the general election. And in this case, it is a fact that almost everyone views Hunter Biden getting his cushy job in Burisma negatively.

Sure, but that cannot be separated from Trump and how his family has even more blatantly used Trump's presidency to enrich themselves. That's what's so frustrating. Same with Clinton's emails. Nikki Haley and Trump's Ukraine scandal have made that an even sadder event in our nation's history, that something which continues to prove itself so inconsequential in comparison, managed to cause such a ripple effect in our country and its politics.

Peoples trusting their perceptions more than empirical facts is a major ailment in our republic that is part of many things that is causing it to slowly rot. It's why I cannot forgive American voters and spare them from some of the blame when it comes to elections and their consequences. Voters get the politicians they deserve, and politicians won't change unless the voters change too. Clearly, that's asking for something insurmountable though.

A phenomenon I have noticed is the tendency among independents right smack in the center to believe right-wing narratives about corruption and criminal doings, but not left-wing ones. Compare these two narratives:

1. Trump refuses to release his tax returns because they'll show he has significant financial ties to Russia, who is actively trying to get him elected so Putin can have a puppet in the White House.

2. Hillary Clinton scrubbed thousands of emails from her private server because they will uncover her scheme to sell weapons to ISIS, and (2019 version) conspiring with Cloudstrike and the Ukrainians to interfere in the 2016 election and frame Donald Trump.

To me, these are equally crazy, but independents seem much more likely to dismiss the first as a nothingburger, but find at least some truth in the second.

-SNIP-

All absolutely true with one caveat. Hillary and Bill both had a bit of sleaze about them, that was fairly typical politician pay-to-play type stuff. Obama, relatively speaking to most presidents, was squeaky clean corruption and ethics wise.

Well that's kind of what I'm talking about. Certain aspects of Bill Clinton's conduct or presidency ended up becoming attributed to his wife, even when making that connection is somewhat tenuous. Perhaps for some other instances it isn't so unjustified but to name an example that isn't: I never thought it was fair for Clinton to end up becoming less popular because of her husband's tryst with Lewinsky, or how she gets pinned with some blame for the 1994 Crime Bill. But again, in being in the public eye for so long, the Republicans were able to use her long history of public presence against her and over time, very methodically, they ended up finally being able to deliver her the ultimate defeat and humiliation.

[pbrower2a]

Emerson, New Hampshire:

Trump approval: 42/53 (-11)
Trump impeachment: 47% support, 44% oppose
Sununu approval: 49/30 (+19)

Trump is not going to win New Hampshire.

[BlueSwan]

Used improperly 53 (+4)
Did not use improperly 42 (-1)

42% (!!!!) thinks Trump did NOT use his powers improperly in the Ukraine matter. Wow. That is honestly astounding. I mean this is textbook abuse of power, even if you interpret the matters in the most Trump-friendly manner. Even with no quid-pro-quo whatsoever, asking a foreign government to investigate (or just announce an investigation) into your presumed presidential challenger is abuse of power, period. Man, sometimes I wish the democrats had never even mentioned quid-pro-quo in the first place. Quid-pro-quo makes it worse, but it doesn't change the fact that it was abuse of power.

[Person Man]

Used improperly 53 (+4)
Did not use improperly 42 (-1)

42% (!!!!) thinks Trump did NOT use his powers improperly in the Ukraine matter. Wow. That is honestly astounding. I mean this is textbook abuse of power, even if you interpret the matters in the most Trump-friendly manner. Even with no quid-pro-quo whatsoever, asking a foreign government to investigate (or just announce an investigation) into your presumed presidential challenger is abuse of power, period. Man, sometimes I wish the democrats had never even mentioned quid-pro-quo in the first place. Quid-pro-quo makes it worse, but it doesn't change the fact that it was abuse of power.

I just think they are fine with corruption because they think they are benefiting from it. It’s like what happened in Brazil until the economy hit a soft spot.

[Koharu]

I was polled via text (!!) on Monday. I honestly can't remember already if there was approval or not, but there was opinions on impeachment, whether you'd vote for Trump or not, etc. So hopefully that will be released sometime soon. Curious if it was WI only or national.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Used improperly 53 (+4)
Did not use improperly 42 (-1)

42% (!!!!) thinks Trump did NOT use his powers improperly in the Ukraine matter. Wow. That is honestly astounding. I mean this is textbook abuse of power, even if you interpret the matters in the most Trump-friendly manner. Even with no quid-pro-quo whatsoever, asking a foreign government to investigate (or just announce an investigation) into your presumed presidential challenger is abuse of power, period. Man, sometimes I wish the democrats had never even mentioned quid-pro-quo in the first place. Quid-pro-quo makes it worse, but it doesn't change the fact that it was abuse of power.

The most Trump-friendly manner is to believe that Trump had to bypass the deep state to get to the bottom of Biden's connection to the DNC Crowdstrike / Ukrainian effort to meddle in the 2016 election and frame Trump something something Steele dossier something something FBI wiretapping...

42% of Americans are willing to entertain insane theories with no evidence whatsoever if it gives a glimmer of hope of rescuing this president. That is what's truly sad.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Quinnipiac, Nov. 21-25, 1355 RV (1-month change)

Approve 40 (+2)
Disapprove 54 (-4)

Strongly approve 32 (+4)
Strongly disapprove 50 (-3)

Appears to be reversion to the mean after an outlier.  Q polls since September:

9/25: 40/55 (strongly 29/48)
9/30: 41/53 (35/48)
10/8: 40/54 (29/47)
10/14: 41/54 (31/48)
10/23: 38/58 (28/53)
11/26: 40/54 (32/50)

[GeorgiaModerate]

The Economist/YouGov weekly tracker, Nov. 24-26, 1500 adults including 1189 RV

Adults:

Approve 41 (+2)
Disapprove 52 (+1)

Strongly approve 26 (+3)
Strongly disapprove 42 (+1)

Generic D 49 (nc), Trump 41 (+1)

Impeach? Yes 46 (+1), No 38 (-2)

Remove? Yes 45 (-2), No 40 (+1)


RV:

Approve 44 (nc)
Disapprove 53 (-1)

Strongly approve 31 (+3)
Strongly disapprove 46 (nc)

Generic D 49 (nc), Trump 41 (+1)

Impeach? Yes 49 (+1), No 42 (nc)

Remove? Yes 50 (+1), No 43 (+1)

GCB (RV only): D 47 (+1), R 41 (+2)

[GeorgiaModerate]

Ipsos Core Political Data (weekly), Nov. 25-26, 1118 adults including 971 RV

Adults:

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

Strongly approve 21 (nc)
Strongly disapprove 42 (nc)

Impeach? Yes 47 (+1), No 40 (-1)


RV:

Approve 43 (+2)
Disapprove 54 (-2)

Strongly approve 23 (+1)
Strongly disapprove 43 (-1)

Impeach? Yes 47 (-1), No 42 (nc)

[GeorgiaModerate]

Ipsos Core Political Data (weekly), Dec. 2-3, 1117 adults including 955 RV

Adults:

Approve 39 (-2)
Disapprove 55 (+1)

Strongly approve 22 (+1)
Strongly disapprove 40 (-2)

Impeach Trump? Yes 44 (-3), No 42 (+2)


RV:

Approve 42 (-1)
Disapprove 54 (nc)

Strongly approve 24 (+1)
Strongly disapprove 41 (-2)

Impeach Trump? Yes 45 (-2), No 45 (+3)


Most pollsters take a break around holidays (it's harder to poll people then), so the recent polling drought should be ending soon now that Thanksgiving is over.

[Person Man]

What have beem the main news stories since Thanksgiving-

- The economy is showing signs of slowing down (negligible hiring despite the beginning of the holiday season)
- Trump giving more mixed signals about the trade war
- Trump expanding the trade war
- Democrats wrapping up witnesses on impeachment
- The stock market has been eupohoric but appears to have peaked

[Bidenworth2020]

Ipsos Core Political Data (weekly), Dec. 2-3, 1117 adults including 955 RV

Adults:

Approve 39 (-2)
Disapprove 55 (+1)

Strongly approve 22 (+1)
Strongly disapprove 40 (-2)

Impeach Trump? Yes 44 (-3), No 42 (+2)


RV:

Approve 42 (-1)
Disapprove 54 (nc)

Strongly approve 24 (+1)
Strongly disapprove 41 (-2)

Impeach Trump? Yes 45 (-2), No 45 (+3)


Most pollsters take a break around holidays (it's harder to poll people then), so the recent polling drought should be ending soon now that Thanksgiving is over.

Concerning numbers on impeachment, but interesting that it comes with no Trump approval bounce.

[Person Man]

Ipsos Core Political Data (weekly), Dec. 2-3, 1117 adults including 955 RV

Adults:

Approve 39 (-2)
Disapprove 55 (+1)

Strongly approve 22 (+1)
Strongly disapprove 40 (-2)

Impeach Trump? Yes 44 (-3), No 42 (+2)


RV:

Approve 42 (-1)
Disapprove 54 (nc)

Strongly approve 24 (+1)
Strongly disapprove 41 (-2)

Impeach Trump? Yes 45 (-2), No 45 (+3)


Most pollsters take a break around holidays (it's harder to poll people then), so the recent polling drought should be ending soon now that Thanksgiving is over.

Concerning numbers on impeachment, but interesting that it comes with no Trump approval bounce.

People just either want to sound like they are "thinking" about the issues and having the nuance or maybe they just want to give up because they know the senate will just nullify and it is the Republican position that their president should have unlimited power. People just need to know that if Trump and the GOP go unpunished that it will be gross incompetence for the next Democrat to become president and NOT use international corruption to rig elections and control the media and pack the courts with their business and SJW partners.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Soooo Rassy posted on Twitter that Trump has a 26% approval rating amongst Democrats and I pointed out that they were the only pollster that had the GOP winning the 2018 midterms... they blocked me two minutes later.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Soooo Rassy posted on Twitter that Trump has a 26% approval rating amongst Democrats and I pointed out that they were the only pollster that had the GOP winning the 2018 midterms... they blocked me two minutes later.

Just like their snowflake idol would.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Soooo Rassy posted on Twitter that Trump has a 26% approval rating amongst Democrats and I pointed out that they were the only pollster that had the GOP winning the 2018 midterms... they blocked me two minutes later.

Just like their snowflake idol would.

Lol they don’t even hide it anymore. Their tweets are super targeted. They tweeted this to Mike Cernovich saying that it meant impeachment was failing.

[Person Man]

Soooo Rassy posted on Twitter that Trump has a 26% approval rating amongst Democrats and I pointed out that they were the only pollster that had the GOP winning the 2018 midterms... they blocked me two minutes later.

Just like their snowflake idol would.

Lol they don’t even hide it anymore. Their tweets are super targeted. They tweeted this to Mike Cernovich saying that it meant impeachment was failing.

So Rassy is now an internal pollster for national socialists?