Trump approval ratings thread 1.6

[Meclazine for Israel]

Pelosi has the highest homeless rate in San Francisco, I lived in her district and she wants to keep attention on protecting Biden and Ukraine. That's why Trump is at 49% not at 41 approvals and can still win

     Democrats are oftentimes their own worst enemies, and they don't seem to see this. Being "not Trump" isn't sufficient to win an election.

Pelosi is playing the character game against Trump with great effect. All of the media in Australia about the SOTU was her ripping up the speech. The home page of FoxNEWS for 6 hours was a gif of her ripping up the speech.

Will be interested to see the 'Pelosi' effect on the Trump scenario and if it is working.

In business I have a saying. Never talk about your competitors. Tell your customers about your products. It is simply professionalism.

As you said, simply being negative on your competitors is a very bad sales tactic.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Morning Consult, Feb. 4-5, 1989 RV (this isn't the usual Politico tracker, but I'll use that for comparison since it's MC's next most recent RV poll - Jan. 29-30)

Approve 44 (+1)
Disapprove 53 (-1)

Strongly approve 27 (+3)
Strongly disapprove 43 (nc)

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Polls that keep Trump under 45 percent are useless, Trump is gonna get a bounce of about 3-5 points from his SOTU speech

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

FWIW, I love Cory Booker's new algorithm 

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

FWIW, I love Cory Booker's new algorithm 

He’s the Atlas version of “What will it be Wednesday”

[wbrocks67]

Polls that keep Trump under 45 percent are useless, Trump is gonna get a bounce of about 3-5 points from his SOTU speech

Ratings were pretty dismal, there's no reason to expect a bump.

[Annatar]

On 538 which is not a source I consider very useful but this forum likes Trump's net approval is -7.9, the highest since March 17 2017. For comparison it was -11 on Nov 6 2018 when the exit polls found his approval at -9.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Trump is clearly an underdog in the race still and Bush W came back in part due to weakness of Edward's with no national security,  but Trump is closing the gap and a 270-268 is his pathway to reelection that wasnt possible during impeachment.  It was a very good speach

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Morning Consult/LX, Feb. 4-5, 2197 ADULTS (Aged 18-73), Online

Has the Senate impeachment trial made you:

A. Less likely to re-elect President Trump this year?
B. More likely to re-elect President Trump this year?
C. Neither more or less likely to re-elect President Trump this year?

Overall:

Less likely .............. 36%
More likely ............. 32%
Neither ................... 32%

Republicans

Less likely .............. 8%
More likely ............. 72%
Neither ................... 20%

Independents

Less likely .............. 31%
More likely .............. 22%
Neither .................... 47%

Democrats

Less likely ............... 68%
More likely ............... 5%
Neither ..................... 27%

Crosstabs here:  https://www.nbcwashington.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Impeachment-Crosstabs.pdf

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

So this poll reinforces that impeachment likely didn't change a lot of minds on President Trump.  People that were going to vote for him in November are just more excited to do so.  Those who are excited at the prospect of kicking him out of the White House seem just as fired up.  And while more surveyed Indies said that impeachment had made them LESS LIKELY to vote for President Trump by a nine-percent margin, a non-insignificant number answered that it made them MORE LIKELY to do the same.   But even amongst this prized group of voters, the same status-quo concept appears to be present in the 47% that answered NEITHER LESS OR MORE LIKELY to the question.  

Granted, this is just a single poll.  But I suspect that the numbers will come as a general disappointment to Democrats that were hoping impeachment would flip Trump-leaning voters to their side.  And for the Republicans, it seems that any sort of massive backlash against the Democrats hasn't materialized either.  Having said that, we are still early in the hard campaign season.  These numbers may change if and when impeachment re-enters the conversation later in the year.  

But overall, the numbers indicate what we already knew: the country is deeply divided along scorched partisan lines right now.  

[Person Man]

So this poll reinforces that impeachment likely didn't change a lot of minds on President Trump.  People that were going to vote for him in November are just more excited to do so.  Those who are excited at the prospect of kicking him out of the White House seem just as fired up.  And while more surveyed Indies said that impeachment had made them LESS LIKELY to vote for President Trump by a nine-percent margin, a non-insignificant number answered that it made them MORE LIKELY to do the same.   But even amongst this prized group of voters, the same status-quo concept appears to be present in the 47% that answered NEITHER LESS OR MORE LIKELY to the question. 

Granted, this is just a single poll.  But I suspect that the numbers will come as a general disappointment to Democrats that were hoping impeachment would flip Trump-leaning voters to their side.  And for the Republicans, it seems that any sort of massive backlash against the Democrats hasn't materialized either.  Having said that, we are still early in the hard campaign season.  These numbers may change if and when impeachment re-enters the conversation later in the year. 

But overall, the numbers indicate what we already knew: the country is deeply divided along scorched partisan lines right now. 

At this point two things probably happen, something really bad happens and Democrats get their ass together and max themselves out or nothing happens and Trump does a little worse in the electoral college and Republicans pick up a handful of seats in the house and maybe the Democrats pick up a seat in the senate but nothing really changes. 2022 would then be very interesting to watch. The third and least likely scenario is “Dems in disarray” where Trump sweeps all the battleground states, gets a near record Republican senate, and a narrow Republican house. This R landslide would require Trump to become valuable somehow.

[pbrower2a]

Trump is clearly an underdog in the race still and Bush W came back in part due to weakness of Edward's with no national security,  but Trump is closing the gap and a 270-268 is his pathway to reelection that wasnt possible during impeachment.  It was a very good speech

It was awful. I am old enough to remember those of Ronald Reagan. Even if I disagreed with him vehemently on some issues he was able to put in a kind word for people not on his side. With Trump it is little more than taking credit for everything that goes right and vilifying any disagreement.

People who thought him wonderful before the impeachment still think so of him. People who thought him awful still think so of him. 

[2016]

Interesting enough that none of Atlas Democrats is talking about the new "TheHill/HarrisX" Poll which pegs the Presidents JA at 49/51. The Hill isn't Trumps favorable Pollster.

The Economy added 225K Jobs in January far more compared to what Analysts were predicting.

I asked this again: Why the heck would you toss out a President with these kind of Job Numbers?

[Hindsight was 2020]

Interesting enough that none of Atlas Democrats is talking about the new "TheHill/HarrisX" Poll which pegs the Presidents JA at 49/51. The Hill isn't Trumps favorable Pollster.

The Economy added 225K Jobs in January far more compared to what Analysts were predicting.

I asked this again: Why the heck would you toss out a President with these kind of Job Numbers?

Because the economy isn’t the only thing that matters. Also his job numbers lag behind Obama’s who you b*tched about nonstop over petty things like tan suits and coffee salutes so you guys hypocrisy on this issue is duly noted

[GP270watch]

Interesting enough that none of Atlas Democrats is talking about the new "TheHill/HarrisX" Poll which pegs the Presidents JA at 49/51. The Hill isn't Trumps favorable Pollster.

The Economy added 225K Jobs in January far more compared to what Analysts were predicting.

I asked this again: Why the heck would you toss out a President with these kind of Job Numbers?

Because they're not impressive compared to Obama and downright pathetic when you count the fact that Trump massively cut taxes for the richest Americans and corporations creating debt the rest of us will pay for.

 Trump’s Jobs Record Is Weaker Than Everyone Thought
 

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

It’s been well studied that most voters have their minds made up in a general election year going into July. You’re running out of time, Dems...

[Hindsight was 2020]

It’s been well studied that most voters have their minds made up in a general election year going into July. You’re running out of time, Dems...

Ummm Trump is still down by a solid margin in h2h polling with Sanders and Biden so who’s in trouble?

[2016]

Interesting enough that none of Atlas Democrats is talking about the new "TheHill/HarrisX" Poll which pegs the Presidents JA at 49/51. The Hill isn't Trumps favorable Pollster.

The Economy added 225K Jobs in January far more compared to what Analysts were predicting.

I asked this again: Why the heck would you toss out a President with these kind of Job Numbers?

Because the economy isn’t the only thing that matters. Also his job numbers lag behind Obama’s who you b*tched about nonstop over petty things like tan suits and coffee salutes so you guys hypocrisy on this issue is duly noted

Obamas Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 (or Stimulus as it was called) was the biggest trainwreck in the United States History. Biggest of jokes entirely. I still loathe Susan Collins for voting for it. Specter lost in the Primary the year after and Dems lost that Senate Seat consequently and Snowe isn't in Office anymore. I won't cry one bit if Collins loses this year. I even would give up the Senate Majority for getting these Moderate RINOS out of Office once and for all.

Collins must go, Portman must go (hopefully in 2022), Murkowski must go (2022), Romney must go (2024)

I want a total conservative Republican Caucus in the House & Senate, a Caucus who doesn't make the slightest of deals if the next President is a Democrat.

Tim Geitner was a joke compared to Steven Mnuchin. Obama had bad Economic People.

Trump should relentlessly hammer the Message: Democrats create Mobs, Republicans create Jobs.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Interesting enough that none of Atlas Democrats is talking about the new "TheHill/HarrisX" Poll which pegs the Presidents JA at 49/51. The Hill isn't Trumps favorable Pollster.

The Economy added 225K Jobs in January far more compared to what Analysts were predicting.

I asked this again: Why the heck would you toss out a President with these kind of Job Numbers?

Because the economy isn’t the only thing that matters. Also his job numbers lag behind Obama’s who you b*tched about nonstop over petty things like tan suits and coffee salutes so you guys hypocrisy on this issue is duly noted

Obamas Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 (or Stimulus as it was called) was the biggest trainwreck in the United States History. Biggest of jokes entirely. I still loathe Susan Collins for voting for it. Specter lost in the Primary the year after and Dems lost that Senate Seat consequently and Snowe isn't in Office anymore. I won't cry one bit if Collins loses this year. I even would give up the Senate Majority for getting these Moderate RINOS out of Office once and for all.

Collins must go, Portman must go (hopefully in 2022), Murkowski must go (2022), Romney must go (2024)

I want a total conservative Republican Caucus in the House & Senate, a Caucus who doesn't make the slightest of deals if the next President is a Democrat.

Tim Geitner was a joke compared to Steven Mnuchin. Obama had bad Economic People.

Trump should relentlessly hammer the Message: Democrats create Mobs, Republicans create Jobs.

As others have pointed out, fewer jobs have been created during Trump's three years in office than during Obama's last three years.  In fact, Trump's best year falls short of any of Obama's last three.  But keep trying - you'll get it right one of these days!

[Progressive Pessimist]

Trump doesn't inherently affect the economy. No President does. How many more times does this need to be said!? While he may be able to influence certain policies, none are, or have been significant enough to affect the economy in a way that makes Trump a necessity to keep in power for it to remain stable. The economy was in a very similar position when he got elected, Clinton tried to capitalize on it and failed either due to personal circumstance getting in the way, or the economy's comfortable position making other issues the priority. The same could happen to Trump. So it's possible that some Americans are able to recognize that the numbers don't tell the whole story when the economy is just as much about personal experience. Granted, it's not actually up to the President to personally affect our lives and livelihoods. They can help or hurt in some ways, as I mentioned before but when it comes down to it the economy is just too complex and intricate for it to make sense for the President's mere existence to somehow correspond to the results.

There is more out of their control than any President would like to admit, and they won't admit it because the typical less informed American voter will always erroneously continue to think that the President should receive the blame or credit for the economy due to a lack of understanding of what the President's role actually is within our federal government. Hell, Trump doesn't even know that.

[pbrower2a]

Trump doesn't inherently affect the economy. No President does. How many more times does this need to be said!? While he may be able to influence certain policies, none are, or have been significant enough to affect the economy in a way that makes Trump a necessity to keep in power for it to remain stable. The economy was in a very similar position when he got elected, Clinton tried to capitalize on it and failed either due to personal circumstance getting in the way, or the economy's comfortable position making other issues the priority. The same could happen to Trump. So it's possible that some Americans are able to recognize that the numbers don't tell the whole story when the economy is just as much about personal experience. Granted, it's not actually up to the President to personally affect our lives and livelihoods. They can help or hurt in some ways, as I mentioned before but when it comes down to it the economy is just too complex and intricate for it to make sense for the President's mere existence to somehow correspond to the results.

The dirty little secret is that the common man as a worker, retiree, or welfare recipient has become little more than a conduit or funds from some groups of capitalists to other groups of capitalists. Thus it is for a software engineer in Silicon Valley -- one simply transfers money that appears as a payroll to taxing authorities, public utilities, landlords, grocers, oil companies, and auto lenders, among others. The reward as such a conduit depends upon the occupation and location.   Unlike Hoover, Dubya (for a short time) and Obama had the tools to prevent an economic meltdown  from becoming as severe as the Great Depression. 

There is more out of their control than any President would like to admit, and they won't admit it because the typical less informed American voter will always erroneously continue to think that the President should receive the blame or credit for the economy due to a lack of understanding of what the President's role actually is within our federal government. Hell, Trump doesn't even know that.

The worst situation for a political leadership is stagflation in which the economy is operating to its limits yet failing to meet the demands of those in the workforce. In the middle-to-late 1970's the American economy created millions of low-paying jobs in malls and fast-food places that of course paid a travesty of a wage while the industrial economy tanked. Real estate investment started to tank as there were few remaining farms in urban areas to be subdivided into low-cost tract housing.

Stopping stagflation means cutting wages and raising taxes -- and both sting. Carter was unwilling to do that. Reagan was. With such, Reagan succeeded in cutting expectations. We are still there, except that property rents keep soaring and commutes keep lengthening. 

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Interesting enough that none of Atlas Democrats is talking about the new "TheHill/HarrisX" Poll which pegs the Presidents JA at 49/51. The Hill isn't Trumps favorable Pollster.

The Economy added 225K Jobs in January far more compared to what Analysts were predicting.

I asked this again: Why the heck would you toss out a President with these kind of Job Numbers?

Because the economy isn’t the only thing that matters. Also his job numbers lag behind Obama’s who you b*tched about nonstop over petty things like tan suits and coffee salutes so you guys hypocrisy on this issue is duly noted

I want a total conservative Republican Caucus in the House & Senate, a Caucus who doesn't make the slightest of deals if the next President is a Democrat.

You already got that: it was called "The Tea Party".  And even at its peak, it likely cost the GOP Senate seats in Nevada and Delaware.  

Republicans are no different from Democrats in that they operate on a scale.  That strictly-conservative Republican may work well in that R+25 district, but he or she is too far to the right for that R+2 district.  Paul Gosar, for instance, plays well in Arizona's first district, but he'd be major deadweight in Pennsylvania's first district.  

Running ONLY the most severely ideological candidates may get you a more consistently-minded caucus, but at the expense of the quantity.  And in Congress, quantity is everything. 

You may not like GOP'ers such as myself, but shifting all the way to one end of the spectrum is a poor long-term plan.  

[atheist4thecause]

Interesting enough that none of Atlas Democrats is talking about the new "TheHill/HarrisX" Poll which pegs the Presidents JA at 49/51. The Hill isn't Trumps favorable Pollster.

The Economy added 225K Jobs in January far more compared to what Analysts were predicting.

I asked this again: Why the heck would you toss out a President with these kind of Job Numbers?

Because the economy isn’t the only thing that matters. Also his job numbers lag behind Obama’s who you b*tched about nonstop over petty things like tan suits and coffee salutes so you guys hypocrisy on this issue is duly noted

I want a total conservative Republican Caucus in the House & Senate, a Caucus who doesn't make the slightest of deals if the next President is a Democrat.

You already got that: it was called "The Tea Party".  And even at its peak, it likely cost the GOP Senate seats in Nevada and Delaware. 

Don't get me started on the Tea Party. I think it was Biden that talked about how the Parties used to come together instead of trying to prevent the other side from winning, and what has resulted is the country is losing more now where we used to win more. I agree with that. The country works best when the majority side gets to push through their ideas and the minority side gets to have influence to modify those positions to be more palatable.

[pbrower2a]

Interesting enough that none of Atlas Democrats is talking about the new "TheHill/HarrisX" Poll which pegs the Presidents JA at 49/51. The Hill isn't Trumps favorable Pollster.

The Economy added 225K Jobs in January far more compared to what Analysts were predicting.

I asked this again: Why the heck would you toss out a President with these kind of Job Numbers?

Because the economy isn’t the only thing that matters. Also his job numbers lag behind Obama’s who you b*tched about nonstop over petty things like tan suits and coffee salutes so you guys hypocrisy on this issue is duly noted

Obamas Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 (or Stimulus as it was called) was the biggest trainwreck in the United States History. Biggest of jokes entirely. I still loathe Susan Collins for voting for it. Specter lost in the Primary the year after and Dems lost that Senate Seat consequently and Snowe isn't in Office anymore. I won't cry one bit if Collins loses this year. I even would give up the Senate Majority for getting these Moderate RINOS out of Office once and for all.

Collins must go, Portman must go (hopefully in 2022), Murkowski must go (2022), Romney must go (2024)

I want a total conservative Republican Caucus in the House & Senate, a Caucus who doesn't make the slightest of deals if the next President is a Democrat.

Tim Geitner was a joke compared to Steven Mnuchin. Obama had bad Economic People.

Trump should relentlessly hammer the Message: Democrats create Mobs, Republicans create Jobs.

Democrats will hammer the message that the jobs being created pay badly and are temporary in nature. Such jobs might be ways of meeting emergencies or (for youth) as steppingstones to better -- but even those steppingstones are at best short-term solutions because they pay badly. 

[Arizona Iced Tea]

To give Trump credit, he does not drink.