Trump approval ratings thread 1.6

[Progressive Pessimist]

Global Strategy Group, Nov. 1-5, 1500 RV (1-month change)

Approve 41 (-3)
Disapprove 57 (+3)

Strongly approve 23 (-1)
Strongly disapprove 44 (-3)

Impeach Trump?

Yes 52 (nc)
No 41 (-2)

Regardless of whether you support or oppose impeachment, do you think Donald Trump has abused his power at any point as president?

Yes 62
No 33

Regardless of whether you support or oppose impeachment, do you think Donald Trump has committed a crime at any point as president?

Yes 54
No 38

I would like to have words with those people who think Trump has committed a crime as a president and don't want him impeached.

I'd bet it would go something like: "yeah, he committed crimes as a President, but it's too close to election season.  Let's vote him out at the ballot box." 

That's so terrible, but it wouldn't surprise me at all.

It reminds me a lot of the excuse about how Trump is too incompetent to commit crimes. In particular, Lindsey Graham's defense of Trump's Ukraine policy being so "incoherent" that he couldn't have possible done something unethical.

So yeah, that's comforting: Trump is a criminal and is completely incompetent at being President, or at anything really, but should still be given the opportunity to be re-elected. What a farce.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Where is the proof that Biden is a crook?

Trump is a crook. That has been proven many times. But Biden?

Don't pay attention to Olawakandi. Nobody understand show his mind works.

In answering your question though, for any other American who may legitimately think that Biden is corrupt, it's because Republicans interpret reality differently and stubbornly insist on it. That's it. It's the same reason why Clinton was apparently corrupt for her emails.

Sadly, if you say something enough-people listen, especially in our pathetic country. That works both ways though, it's possible that if Democrats hammer a corruption narrative against Trump and his entire party, which facts back up much more to boot, that they can alter public perception enough into having him and other Republicans be punished at the ballot box in November 2020.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Progressive Pessimist]

The next 100 days will be critical to understanding whether President Donald Trump will win a second term in office. His approval rating has been consistently low during his first term. Yet his supporters could always point out that approval ratings before an election year have not historically been correlated with reelection success.

But by mid-March of an election year, approval ratings, though, become more predictive. Presidents with low approval ratings in mid-March of an election year tend to lose, while those with strong approval ratings tend to win in blowouts and those with middling approval ratings usually win by small margins.
Let's start with where Trump is right now: an approval rating in the low 40s. Since World War II, two presidents have had an approval rating at or below 45% in mid-March of an election year. George H.W. Bush had an approval rating at 39%, while Jimmy Carter's was at 45% and falling fast. Both of them went on to lose reelection by greater than 5 points.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, there have been five presidents with an approval rating of 55% or above. There was Bill Clinton at 55%, Ronald Reagan at 55%, Richard Nixon at 58%, Dwight Eisenhower at 72% and Lyndon Johnson at 80%. All of these presidents won their elections by nine points or greater.
Finally, we have the group of presidents with approval ratings between between 46% and 54%. This includes Gerald Ford at 47%, Barack Obama at 47%, George W. Bush at 49% and Harry Truman at 51%. All of their elections were decided by less than 5 points.
Ford didn't win.

https://us.cnn.com/2019/12/07/politics/trump-100-days-reelection-analysis/index.html

Interesting, and somewhat encouraging, because I don't see how Trump ever consistently makes it into the 46-54% average range.

Of course, Trump being the anomalous enigma he usually is could make this yet another irrelevant predictor. I still wouldn't count him out.

[Progressive Pessimist]

The next 100 days will be critical to understanding whether President Donald Trump will win a second term in office. His approval rating has been consistently low during his first term. Yet his supporters could always point out that approval ratings before an election year have not historically been correlated with reelection success.

But by mid-March of an election year, approval ratings, though, become more predictive. Presidents with low approval ratings in mid-March of an election year tend to lose, while those with strong approval ratings tend to win in blowouts and those with middling approval ratings usually win by small margins.
Let's start with where Trump is right now: an approval rating in the low 40s. Since World War II, two presidents have had an approval rating at or below 45% in mid-March of an election year. George H.W. Bush had an approval rating at 39%, while Jimmy Carter's was at 45% and falling fast. Both of them went on to lose reelection by greater than 5 points.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, there have been five presidents with an approval rating of 55% or above. There was Bill Clinton at 55%, Ronald Reagan at 55%, Richard Nixon at 58%, Dwight Eisenhower at 72% and Lyndon Johnson at 80%. All of these presidents won their elections by nine points or greater.
Finally, we have the group of presidents with approval ratings between between 46% and 54%. This includes Gerald Ford at 47%, Barack Obama at 47%, George W. Bush at 49% and Harry Truman at 51%. All of their elections were decided by less than 5 points.
Ford didn't win.

https://us.cnn.com/2019/12/07/politics/trump-100-days-reelection-analysis/index.html

Interesting, and somewhat encouraging, because I don't see how Trump ever consistently makes it into the 46-54% average range.

Of course, Trump being the anomalous enigma he usually is could make this yet another irrelevant predictor. I still wouldn't count him out.

That last part is the one thing he can do. He is extremely gifted at playing the media in the way that people want and think they can play him.

Not only that but national numbers aren't as helpful in our national electoral system consisting of 51 plus simultaneous elections rather than one actual national election.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Wisconsin: Marquette, Dec. 3-8, 800 RV (prior poll Nov. 13-17)

Approve 47 (nc)
Disaspprove 50 (-1)

Strongly approve 32 (nc)
Strongly disapprove 44 (+2)

Impeach and remove Trump: Yes 40 (nc), No 52 (-1)

WHY!? Why do the worst states always have to be the most important! We're so f***ed next year...

[Progressive Pessimist]

Wisconsin: Marquette, Dec. 3-8, 800 RV (prior poll Nov. 13-17)

Approve 47 (nc)
Disaspprove 50 (-1)

Strongly approve 32 (nc)
Strongly disapprove 44 (+2)

Impeach and remove Trump: Yes 40 (nc), No 52 (-1)

WHY!? Why do the worst states always have to be the most important! We're so f***ed next year...

I wouldn't take opposing impeach and remove as meaning supporting Trump--I am opposed because it's a bad idea to have an acquittal on the eve of the election, and because I know Pence is far, far worse than Trump because he doesn't wear how incompetent and evil he is on his sleeve.

I'm pretty sure that your perspective on impeachment is far from common.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Fox News, Dec. 8-11, 1000 RV (prior poll OCt. 27-30)

Approve 45 (+3)
Disapprove 53 (-4)

Impeach and remove Trump?  Yes 50, No 46 (was 49/45)

Biden 48, Trump 41 (was 51/39)
Sanders 49, Trump 43 (49/41)
Bloomberg 45, Trump 40 (no prior)
Warren 46, Trump 45 (46/41)
Buttigieg 43, Trump 42 (41/41)

An interesting question: do you THINK <candidate> can beat Trump in 2020?

Biden: Yes 77, No 17 (was 68/17)
Sanders: 60/31 (54/34)
Warren: 59/34 (57/25)
Bloomberg: 55/33 (no prior)
Buttigieg: 48/42 (30/44)

Just as a reminder, in November 2016 (the last few days before Election Day), Trump's poll average had him at 44%, with Hillary Clinton leading him at 47%.

We all know how that turned out...  

Yeah, Trump got 46% and Hillary got 48%. Pretty close to be honest.

Edit: If your saying national polls are going to underestimate Trump, then I have to disagree with you. The national polls were pretty spot on in 2016, and Trump's approval rating in the 2018 exit polls was 45/54, which is spot on with where the polling aggregates had him and continue to have him.

I am not saying the polls are underestimating Trump -if anything I agree with you.  As this poll indicates, Trump is returning back to where his approvals were before Election Day 2016.  Which is somewhat ominous if unsurprising.  My point is that the polls are overestimating the Democratic candidates.  Once the general election really gets going, and Trump starts driving the Democratic nominee's numbers down to Hillary's levels, we are going to see a similar dynamic with the likelihood of Trump losing the popular vote but winning the electoral college.

This has always been my fear. That's really his only way of winning again, and he knows it. And it could happen again!

[Progressive Pessimist]

I can't take this s***! Every time a poll comes out that makes me feel even slightly encouraged, another comes out and neutralizes it. That's what I get for ever trying to be optimistic. Hope giveth, hope taketh away.

F*** this country. This really isn't a place for people like me. It's the Trumpian Republican Party's right wing fantasy-land. That's what it was always meant to be. The rest of us just live in it.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I really hope that this bump, by Trump standards, is mostly due to the holiday season. In spite of that though, that's a really stupid phenomenon:

"Me too preoccupied with Christmas shopping to pay attention to news or care about historic occurrence in country's history. Me might have to take out second mortgage on farm to pay for Christmas gifts due to Trump trade war, but me still support him and think Democrats bad! Me not read transcript, but me believe Trump anyway."

This country needs to put out of its misery.

If you thought my straw-man above was unfair though, I have some piss and vinegar for Democrats as well, if they are indeed becoming more skittish about impeachment according to polls: any Democrats turning on impeachment out of fear of it backfiring are just as cowardly as Jeff Van Drew and may be helping the process self-destruct in on itself and create a self-fulfilling prophecy that will help Trump. If cautious Democrats in the House or Senate, or even the very few possible Republicans with the potential to vote for his impeachment/conviction, continue to see polling that suggests that impeachment is losing support, what reason do they have to even consider it anymore? A self-interested rationale is the only one that will work, and if the politicians fear repercussions at the ballot box, they're more likely to listen. If impeachment does become less popular than it may very well end up hurting Democrats next year, which is the fear, but not one that is as inevitable as Trump's acquittal. Trump can be acquitted by his cabal in the Senate and it still yield bad results for them. The 1998 Clinton impeachment scenario is only one data point that may also suggest that it could at least help tarnish Trump and his party given how the 2000 election went. We don't know what will happen, and all the punditry around impeachment needs to be taken with a grain of salt. The media narrative will be far worse if we turn on our country's only real non-electoral consequence for a President. Democrats giving up is an infuriating surrender to a worse fate than one where we stand by our principles and emphasize how inexcusable Trump's conduct is.

From a less cynical standpoint, if Trump isn't held accountable, even if he ends up getting away with it (which is guaranteed) he would have gotten away with it anyway if he wasn't impeached.  So why not actually do the right thing if we're in another, all too common, lose-lose situation? I'm as pessimistic as anyone, but I would rather remain a pessimist and go down with a fight than remain helpless in the face of the GOP's destruction of our republic.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I really hope that this bump, by Trump standards, is mostly due to the holiday season. In spite of that though, that's a really stupid phenomenon:

There is no evidence to support a "holiday bump" in approval rating. Going by 538, on Dec 16, 2017, Trump actually hit his all time lowest approval rating of 36.4. In 2018, his approval rating was essentially stagnant at ~42.0 from October all the way through January.

That makes me feel even worse...

[Progressive Pessimist]

I really hope that this bump, by Trump standards, is mostly due to the holiday season. In spite of that though, that's a really stupid phenomenon:

There is no evidence to support a "holiday bump" in approval rating. Going by 538, on Dec 16, 2017, Trump actually hit his all time lowest approval rating of 36.4. In 2018, his approval rating was essentially stagnant at ~42.0 from October all the way through January.

That makes me feel even worse...

Also, not to be rude, but your recent posts make me think you should take a break. We're 11 months from the election. Trump will have more bumps and downtrends. If you freak out every month because of polling movement, your gonna have a miserable 2020.

Haha! I appreciate that. You're totally right. My inner voice tells me that all the time, but I can't help but think about this kind of s*** all the time even if I am not on this forum.

Posting here actually offers me some catharsis. I also visit because I just need some kind of encouragement to cling to, any kind, even if it's just a poll.  I'll probably end up taking a break soon enough anyway with Christmas being next week.

[Progressive Pessimist]

This. At this point it seems highly unlikely indeed that Trump could Flip any Clinton States. His poll numbers in Michigan and Pennsylvania have been anywhere from poor to DOA. Any Democrat flipping those two states alone would be enough to deny Trump re-election, assuming no more than 1 Democratic collector flipped to vote for Trump rather than a third party, which would of course simply move the election into the presumably democratic-controlled house.

None of this even requires places like Iowa, Georgia, Maine 2nd District, or above all Wisconsin, to flip.

You're wrong about that. The Democrat would fall very slightly short of 270 if they hold every Clinton state and just win Michigan and Pennsylvania. They'd need at least one more state with Wisconsin being the top contender. That's why the scenario you described would actually be the nightmare scenario where one state, probably by a less than 1% margin, once again robs a Democrat of a victory in the electoral college (by two f***ing electoral votes!) while they simultaneously win the popular vote, probably by 3 points or more.

[Progressive Pessimist]

That Michigan poll has Trump's approval/disapproval ratings surprisingly high in spite of him doing so relatively poorly in match-ups against the Democrats. It makes me feel slightly optimistic about this state. I don't know if I am convinced 100% that it will flip, but it will definitely be the first Trump state to flip and signal that Trump is going to do worse overall than in 2016. Will it be enough for him to not get re-elected though? I guess we'll see.

[Progressive Pessimist]

https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1215416481988718592?s=21

For Wisconsin, I'll take it!

[Progressive Pessimist]

Quinnipiac, Jan. 8-12, 1562 RV (1-month change)

Approve 43 (nc)
Disapprove 52 (nc)

Strongly approve 34 (nc)
Strongly disapprove 46 (nc)

Approve of impeachment: 51/46
Remove Trump: 46/48

Was killing Soleimani the right action to take?

Right action 45
Wrong action 41

Should Trump consult with Congress if he plans to launch more military strikes in the Middle East?

Yes 65
No 29

Impact of killing Soleimani on the safety of Americans:

More safe 32
Less safe 45
No impact 18

I'm a bit confused at how Americans think the Soleimani strike made the country less safe, but can square that with supporting the strike against him. Maybe I should just stop trying to understand the American public...

[Progressive Pessimist]

This is an interesting article from 538 regarding an alternative method of measuring Trump's approval.  Instead of simple approval/disapproval, this survey asks whether the respondent views Trump more or less favorably than each of several other Republicans.

Before the midterms, Trump’s favorability rating was statistically indistinguishable from Pence’s, and only Palin was rated less favorably. Following impeachment, Trump was even lower relative to the other Republicans we asked about. Not only is he the least popular president to run for reelection since Gerald Ford according to polls asking the standard presidential approval question, but in our measure, he is now also rated less favorably than his vice president.
...
But the bottom line is that the president appears even more unpopular than previously thought, and more disliked than the standard presidential approval question is able to reveal. Although the electoral implications of Trump’s unpopularity and impeachment remain to be seen, the data we do have isn’t promising for Trump.

I like what I read there, but as always, I am going to take it with a grain of salt. Penn Quaker Girl's signature seems to have much to spare, which we will all need going through this election year and scrutinizing all of the data it gives us.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Voter enthusiasm swings towards the GOP: https://apnews.com/4daf1b154eeff75b97b886e2fe8c1d29

Basically, Trump will equal or better his electoral landslide of 2016.

66% of Democrats are anxious about the election compared to just 46% for the Republicans. That's a big plus imo.

Republicans should know better than anyone that fear is effective.

[Progressive Pessimist]

If only 19% think the trial is being conducted fairly something tells me this will not be widely seen as "vindication".

I don't see it that way. As I see it, for 81% of Americans to agree on anything means that about half of these people are Democrats, liberals, or Trump opponents who rightly see the trial as unfair since it was rushed and avoided considering some evidence. And meanwhile the other half or so are conservatives, Republicans, and Trump flunkies may see it as unfair just because it happened at all.

I am not going to let this number reassure me about anything.

[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.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I wouldn't read a lot (in either direction) into turnout for a primary in which there's an incumbent with no significant challengers.

Trump actually held a rally just before the Republican primary, which is unusual. Obama didn't. Obama seemed not to like wasting Presidential time or government funds.

What I noticed was that 9.1% of the Republican primary vote went to William Weld and a small number to write-ins, indicating that many Republicans have cold feet about Trump.

Let us put it this way -- the Democrats together got 296,622 votes, which is fewer than 50K away from what Hillary Clinton won in 2016.   

"Many" relative to the party becoming Trump's personal cheer-leading squad.

[Progressive Pessimist]

What the f*** is it going to take for this idiotic country to give our fraud of a President the approval numbers he deserves!?