Trump approval ratings thread 1.6

[pbrower2a]

Just preparing for the witching hour on "1.5". So far I am putting in some utilities. Most obviously, here is a blank map for general use:

Without electoral votes and with no distinction for districts:

Please don't post here yet. "1.5" is still alive.


----------------------------------------

The fundamental beginning of the 2020 Presidential campaign -- states and districts within 10% of being even in the 2016 Presidential election:


2016 result among states decided by 10% or less:

8% or more -- saturation 7
4% to 7.99% -- saturation 5
1.5% to 2.99% -- saturation 3
under 1.5% -- saturation 2

States in gray look too far away to be affected by a shift in votes from 2016 to polling in 2018. Should any such state go into play, then differences between 2016 and 2020 ar profound in the extreme. This range of states is between 203 and 413 electoral votes for a Democrat (and 125 and 335 for Trump). Assuming that no state that Trump lost by 10% or more in 2016 will vote for him in 2020, President Trump has at most a chance for being re-elected much like Obama in 2012 -- but he can lose as badly as GHWB did in 1992.

Remember that if such a state as Oregon goes into play for Trump, then the Democrat is in supreme trouble and at risk of losing a landslide. On the other side, if a state such as Missouri goes into play, then Trump is at risk of a landslide loss. Because there is no distinction between winning with 270 and 335 (or 413, or even 538 electoral votes)... the significance of a landslide win or loss is coattails in Congress

This is still relevant 40 months after the 2016 election and 8 months before the 2020 election.  

..................................................

Furthermore, the electoral histories of the states are relevant over the last five Presidential elections. All but the 2008 election were close, and I am not going to show anything before 2000 because several states that used to be reliably D in their voting are quite the opposite now.

How states have voted from 2000 on:

all 5 for the Republican
4 R, 1 D
3 R, 2D  
3 D, 2 R
4 D, 1 R
all five for the Democrat

If there is to be any show of any swing to 2016, then it is from 2000 if it is to show any change in state's electoral habits. The 2016 election is more similar to that of 2000 than to any other and thus more comparable in that

(1) both involved open seats
(2) both followed a Democrat who had won decisive majorities in the electoral vote in the two prior elections
(3) both had the winner of the plurality of the popular vote losing the electoral vote
(4) neither election was a decisive mandate for change although the inner so interpreted the election as such
(5) both Dubya and Trump promised peace and prosperity with a basis in pro-business solutions above all else
(6) both Dubya and Trump had rather thin experience in electoral politics (Trump had been Governor of Texas, but that is a largely ceremonial task; Trump had no experience in electoral politics)
(7) both Dubya and Trump were derided in elite-to-mass media as ignorant buffoons.
( neither Dubya nor Trump had much margin for losing electoral support from their first Presidential election and winning the second time.

This is not to say that 2020 will be analogous to 2004.  An economic meltdown like that of 2008 could make 2008 or even 1932 more relevant. I can think of results analogous to 2008 for the 2020 election, but not 1932 (or 1980); such would unfold before us in unpredictable ways.  

..................................................

  
Flips based on 2000-2016 by margin:

(**favorite son as nominee in 2000. No asterisk for 2016 because both nominees were from New York
* state 'flipped" from 2000 to 2016)

swing 10% or more 80% saturation
swing 5-9.9% 60% saturation
swing 2-4.9% 40% saturation
swing under 2% 20% saturation

Utah -- a third-party nominee finished in second place above the Democrat in 2016, so I show this in green with no other significance.  

Ignore districts of Maine and Nebraska, as I have inadequate data on those.

color shows the direction of the swing of the margin -- red to the Democrat, blue to the Republican


You are welcome to draw whatever conclusions you wish. Except that tiny swings from 2000 to 2016 were enough to swing Wisconsin and Nebraska, swings that flipped the other states (CO, IA, MI, PA, VA) were much larger than necessary. It's obvious that except for Mississippi (which seems to vote close to an ethnic divide), the good old days for Democrats in the Mountain and Deep South (and this includes Missouri) from the New Deal to the 1990's are much in the past. Otherwise, Democrats seem to be doing better in the western US but decidedly worse (except for Illinois) in the Rust Belt.  You are also welcome to draw conclusions of applicability to 2020.  

I may not be accurate, and I would not pay much attention to small swings unless you want to make your changes.

----------------------------------------

Repeated verbatim from "1.5", as it has not really changed:

Assumptions that we can all reasonably make, lest everything be void:

1. That Donald Trump will be the nominee for President -- that he will not decide not to run, that he will not die in office, and that he will not removed for diminished capacity (as after entering an irreversible coma).

2. That we will not have a military coup. Sure, we have never had one. But Seven Days in May is becoming much more plausible with this President, if for very different reasons. Doddering old leader? Check. Highly unpopular leader? Check. "Too liberal"? The opposite. "Too squeamish about taking harsh measures"? Exactly the opposite.

I would not rule out that the military would turn on him rather than soil itself in aggressive war against Iran or Venezuela. Yes, the military has not intervened in the government at any time  in American history, and 240 years of civilian control of the military will come to an end only under exceptional circumstances.

So imagine that you are a four-star general and you must choose between overthrowing Donald Trump or becoming complicit in war crimes. You don't know what you would do? Even I can't speak for myself.

3. That the elections of 2020 will not be rigged. The 2018 Congressional, Senatorial, and Gubernatorial elections looked clean enough.

4. That the Democrat will not be exposed in having done something discreditable -- insider trading, having sex with minors, being involved in a business failure the result of malfeasance, having a dishonorable discharge from the military, or having a criminal record. That is clearly in the category of 'unforeseen events'  that have nothing to do with polling.

5. That we can derive any conclusions from polling. By November 2010 we could see Obama within easy reach of winning re-election even if his Party was severely defeated in the midterm election -- it would take a spirited campaign by him and competent strategy as a candidate to turn approval in the 45-47% range into either a bare majority or even a plurality. It is a reasonable assumption that a spirited campaign and good campaign strategy were good for turning something like 45% approval into 51% of the vote. Obama ran a competent enough campaign with which to win despite a disapproval rating in the mid 40s around September 1 (just after the Republican national convention, I guess).  44% + 7% = 51%, so it looks as if he did what he needed.  

I look at recent polling numbers for Donald Trump, and he will be lucky to get 46% of the popular vote. Sure, he won with 46% of the popular vote because Hillary Clinton ran up the vote totals in places like California and New York -- but just look at the polling for Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Those look really bad. The poll of Pennsylvania had Trump disapproval in the mid-fifties.

That disapproval of a nominee is in the 50s may not assure that that nominee will lose 54-46 to the opponent. Maybe it will be more like 49-46-5, which only looks sort of close.

6. That Democrats will not be facing a strong left-wing alternative that guts their support. This is the most likely thing to go wrong for the Democratic nominee for President. I cannot yet rule it out.

7. That there will be no event that changes American political culture by identifying the President with some rush of patriotism or a movement toward a right-wing 'religious revival' to the benefit of 'conservative' politics.  I see nothing of the sort. Today's young adults are seemingly abandoning religion.    

But I can't completely rule out such things as an invasion from outer space, an eruption of a supervolcano or meteor strike that does great damage to human populations, a zombie apocalypse, or the Coming of a Messiah, either.  Any of these makes the Presidential election an irrelevant concern. Were I to get a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer with a prognosis of three months to live, I would be finding better things to do with my life than posting here.

Voter participation:

[pbrower2a]

Crayons out for Morning Consult.

90% shades -- 20% or more either way
70% shades 10-19%
50% shades-- 5-9%
20% shades -- under 5%
...white would be for ties (but there are none).

Is any comment necessary here?

[pbrower2a]

Crayons out for Morning Consult.

90% shades -- 20% or more either way
70% shades 10-19%
50% shades-- 5-9%
20% shades -- under 5%
...white would be for ties (but there are none).

Is any comment necessary here?

Is this based simply on approval numbers, with a state going against Trump if he has a higher disapproval rating than approval rating?

What if we moved the goal posts a bit, in Trump's favor, and only turned states against him if either of the following were true:

a.) His approval rating was at 42% or below
b.) His disapproval rating was 60% or higher

Would he still get re-elected?

I do not understand the methodology of Morning Consult. I can say this:

Figuring that winning the Presidency is basically fifty statewide elections (analogous to gubernatorial or Senatorial elections), five Congressional elections (districts of Maine and Nebraska) and one city-wide election (Dee Cee), and that Nate Silver's classic analysis in The Myth of 50%...

an incumbent Governor or Senator has about a 50% chance of winning the statewide election if his early support (approval rating is the best proxy that I have for most states) is at 43.5%. Go above 43.5%, and to the extent that one is above 43.5%, the chance of re-election approaches 100% quite rapidly. Go below 43.5%, and the chance of re-election for an incumbent drops rapidly to near zero. The typical elected incumbent got elected with a competent and spirited campaign, and against the usual challenger, the average result of a competent and spirited campaign is to add about 6.5% to early support to get the vote share in the subsequent election. (This ignores third parties and such write-in luminaries as "Mickey Mouse", "Jesus Christ", "Santa Claus", and "Darth Vader").

This applies in close elections and wave elections. A blatant exception to this pattern was Senator George Allen (R-VA), who started with about 50% support  -- but faced an unusually-strong opponent and rapidly-deteriorating reality for his Party.... and he had some unfortunate incidents while campaigning. On the other side, there is little data for incumbents whose support is 35% or lower. Most see themselves with no chance of winning and choose not to run. 

Disapproval is another critter altogether, expressing the idea that people have simply given up on the pol. Those in the undecided category can go either way, and those who approve are set to vote for the pol.    Campaigning in practice works to convince the undecided that re-election is a good idea.

In my experience, the undecided vote usually tends to go ineffectively toward the eventual loser.  So suppose that in a state split perhaps 45-10-45 left-right-moderate. Using a hypothetical election (2012 with Obama approval at 40%)... his disapproval rating is 52%.
 
Note that Presidential approval is lower than the level of people on the ideological Left. But those who already disapprove  are enough to give his opponent 52% of the undecided vote before the undecided vote is split.

So 7% of the undecided to to Obama and 1% go to the challenger. Obama ends up losing in 2012 much as he won in 2008.

 (Reality was that Obama typically had  about 47% early support with the Republican getting about 40%. Obama ended up with 52% of the vote).

If I have a favorite proxy before statewide matchups appear, then it is 100-disapproval, a ceiling for the pol. Trump is not going to win any state in which his disapproval is at 52% or higher. Nationwide? Sure. I see 52% disapproval as the threhold of sure defeat. 
 a
     

[pbrower2a]

Georgia, Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Do you approve or disapprove of the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump?

1. Approve – 54%

2. Disapprove – 44%

3. Don’t know; refused to answer – 2%

Based on what you know at this point, do you think that Donald Trump should or should not be impeached and removed from office?

1. Should be impeached and removed – 47%

2. Should not be impeached and removed – 47%

3. Don’t know; refused to answer – 6%

Note: The survey was conducted by telephone, with 70% of calls made to cellphones and 30% to traditional landlines. The data are weighted based on race, age and sex to accurately reflect the demographics of the state. Some totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.

https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/ajc-poll-georgians-support-impeachment-inquiry-split-trump-ouster/grQAEPhAanEgDiSYfqsAaL/

There will be a poll out tomorrow on approval and disapproval of the President. It's been a while since I have seen a one-state poll about Georgia. Most approval ratings of the President in Georgia have looked hideous for the president.

[pbrower2a]

As a rule I do not predict polling results except to expect more of the same. I am at least as much concerned with disapproval as with approval.

Now how important are leads with time? Close to Election Day, electoral leads of even 1% can give the leader nearly 2/3 of a chance of winning the state. Leads that may not look 'that bad' for the nominee behind in polling can go from troubling to ominous to politically lethal over a year even if the lead remains the same.

  I just got my hands on Nate Silver's The Signal and the Noise (why so many predictions but some don't)It relates probability well, and as I have suggested, being up 5% in a binary election a year before means little, being up 5% a month before the election is huge. It is from 2012, and it relates much other than elections (like sports, poker, and even chess). What it says of electoral leads as a campaign approaches its conclusion is telling.

On page 63, Figure 2-4 shows the probability of a Senate candidate winning (1998 to 2008) with a certain lead (1, 5, 10, and 20 points) at one year, six months, three months, one month, one week, and one day. Because statewide races for President are much like statewide races for the Senate -- with the qualification that Presidential nominees do not usually make appearances where they see themselves losing -- unless they really are losing nationwide.

Time to election  |1 point|5 points||10 points|20 points|
one day............. |...64%|....95%|.....99.7%|.99.999%|
one week........... |...60%|....89%|.......98%|...99.97%|
one month......... |...57%|....81%|.......95%|.....99.7%|
three months..... |...55%|....72%|.......87%|........98%|
six months..........|...53%|....66%|.......79%|.......93%|
one year.............|....52%|...59%|.......67%|.......81%|

(I am going to put this back in my "electoral theory" section because it will remain relevant.

So what conclusions can I draw? You might be surprised that a five-point lead one month before Election Day is no less significant than a twenty-point lead one year before the election. Thus one hears things like Democrats saying "We have a chance of winning West Virginia if everything goes right" and Republicans say that they have a chance of winning Massachusetts... yadda, yadda, yadda. Or is it "Yabba, dabba, doo!" Likewise, being one point ahead on the day before the election is worth almost as much as being five points ahead six months before the election or even ten points ahead  a year before the election.

Polling can be surprisingly stable. But a 5% lead that doesn't mean much in November 2019 (59%, which is insignificant in difference between winning and losing, as there is plenty of time to catch up and plenty of time for events to unfold) is decisive (95% chance of winning) on Election Day in 2020. Electoral results are not so random as they might seem. 

OK, we all thought in November 2019 that Donald Trump would be the Republican nominee unless the Grim Reaper took him away from us, but how many  of us could have predicted that Joe Biden would be the Presidential nominee? Many liberals were looking for grounds on which to impeach the President, but nobody predicted what those grounds would be, and what the consequences would be upon the 2020 election even if Trump got away with some impeachable behavior. Above all, who would have predicted  that this fellow



would be the big event in American politics in 2020.

OK. Politicians cannot change direction on a dime. A leader who loses does acts of unpredictable incompetence or gets tripped up in a scandal. Senators may not be as likely to get the blame for military debacles and blunders of foreign policy -- but the President does. Positive events such as military victories and improvements in economic statistics are less swift to change perceptions than are bad events.

[pbrower2a]

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Georgia.

45% approve, 54% disapprove.

https://ajc-isabetai.s3.amazonaws.com/polls/poll-nov-2019-crosstabs.pdf

[pbrower2a]

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Georgia, as promised.

45% approve, 54% disapprove.

https://ajc-isabetai.s3.amazonaws.com/polls/poll-nov-2019-crosstabs.pdf
[/quote]

Trump re-election bid, 2020: dead in the water with a swarm of tiger sharks circling.

He's not winning Georgia with these approval ratings. No Democratic nominee for President has won Georgia since 1992.  

Trump approval:

40% or less or disapproval over 52%
41-44% or disapproval over 50%
45-49% and negative

tie (white)

45-49% and positive
50-54%
55% or higher

[pbrower2a]

Pennsylvania at 40-56 and Georgia at 45-54? The difference suggests that the two polls are in line with the states' usual differences in orientation.

Georgia used to be polled often, and the AJC poll fits what I used to see much of. Trump cannot take Georgia for granted. It could be that Greater Atlanta is becoming the "Los Angeles of the South" in its politics. It is the growth area of Georgia, with the rest of the state not in a growth mode. (OK, I have also seen Dallas described as "LA without the beach"...when I lived there.

Can anyone fail to recognize that any effort to re-elect Donald Trump will be like trying to put out dozens of scattered brush fires?     

[pbrower2a]

Pennsylvania at 40-56 and Georgia at 45-54? The difference suggests that the two polls are in line with the states' usual differences in orientation.

Georgia used to be polled often, and the AJC poll fits what I used to see much of. Trump cannot take Georgia for granted. It could be that Greater Atlanta is becoming the "Los Angeles of the South" in its politics. It is the growth area of Georgia, with the rest of the state not in a growth mode. (OK, I have also seen Dallas described as "LA without the beach"...when I lived there.

Can anyone fail to recognize that any effort to re-elect Donald Trump will be like trying to put out dozens of scattered brush fires?    

If y'all really believe Trump will underperform McCain in Pennsylvania and ignore the obvious weighting errors in both polls (like the PA poll having just 10% independents and a +7 D registration advantage), then sorry, I can't help you

Obama won Pennsylvania by double digits in 2008. Yes, I see a Trump collapse imminent even should his Presidency survive impeachment. So I can easily see Trump losing Pennsylvania by 8%, which would still outperform Obama '08 in Pennsylvania.

At such a point, he is losing Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, North Carolina, and Ohio by small margins. with Texas a bare win for him. Note well: Obama suddenly had an economic meltdown working for his election in what looked like a close election as late as September.

Speaking of a genuine war hero as opposed to someone whose lack of personal discipline and needful humility for the highest elected official manifests itself in disgraceful foreign policy and the worst relations between civilian leadership and the military (not to mention the diplomatic corps and federal law enforcement -- and those three are similar in ideology and world-view): it is unfortunate that there is no "McCain wing" in the Republican Party. The Republican Party is basically the TEA Party, and it found an idol in Donald Trump. McCain may have been as reactionary as the TEA Party on taxes, welfare, and labor-management relations as Trump, but I cannot imagine him being impressed by "beautiful letters" by the young gangster Emperor-in-all-but-name in North Korea or seeing Vladimir Putin as a kindred spirit... let alone selling out the Kurds in Syria. To say that Obama would never do such things is simply to recognize that liberalism opposes Trump; what remains of the old center-right is surely opposed.

I cannot say how much of the American electorate is "center right", but disapproval numbers in the middle fifties indicate that Trump has begun to lose it. Maybe it has lost its economic base of small farmers, mom-and-pop business owners, and junior executives who have a class interest not only in a vibrant economy that also protects their assets from inflation. Such people recognize that they need customers to stay afloat if they are farmers or mom-and-pop entrepreneurs or recognize that their subordinates need a stake in the system if they are not to become apathetic or even hostile to capitalism. Those are the people who have insurance policies and modest savings accounts... the American populace is becoming polarized between people living hand-to-mouth and people who live like sultans. If you ask about the parts of the middle class who make what look like high incomes -- they are often spending huge parts of their incomes paying landlords for living in the few places in which certain high-paying jobs are available.

A functioning democracy can hardly survive without a center-right. OK, we have many people calling themselves "Eisenhower Republicans" who considered Obama acceptable. Maybe such people are finding a home in the Democratic Party. Such people have little use for the cronyism, superstition, and corruption of Donald Trump and the TEA Party.         

[pbrower2a]

A couple of Fox News state polls:


North Carolina: Nov. 10-13, 1504 RV

Approve 47
Disapprove 50

Strongly approve 30
Strongly approve 42

Impeach and remove Trump? Yes 42, No 50


Nevada: Nov. 10-13, 1506 RV

Approve 45
Disapprove 52

Strongly approve 30
Strongly disapprove 43

Impeach and remove Trump? Yes 43, No 50

Trump approval:

40% or less or disapproval over 52%
41-44% or disapproval over  or over 50%
45-49% and negative

tie (white)

45-49% and positive
50-54%
55% or higher

[pbrower2a]

A couple of Fox News state polls:


North Carolina: Nov. 10-13, 1504 RV

Approve 47
Disapprove 50

Strongly approve 30
Strongly approve 42

Impeach and remove Trump? Yes 42, No 50


Nevada: Nov. 10-13, 1506 RV

Approve 45
Disapprove 52

Strongly approve 30
Strongly disapprove 43

Impeach and remove Trump? Yes 43, No 50

(map)

When 42% of registered voters in a large EV prize that's several states short of your tipping point think you should be removed from office for high crimes and misdemeanors, things aren't good.

Ruling out the possibility that North Carolina has become the tipping-point state (possible but unlikely, and in such a case, Trump isn't winning Wisconsin either), you have it right. There was no mainstream  effort to impeach Barack Obama. Disapproval could be close to 50%, but none of it was over any perception of corruption, dirty-dealing, or personal cruelty. People could still vote against him because they disagree with his agenda.

I did not come to support for impeachment and removal until a day before the disclosure of the extortion of the President of Ukraine -- and that was over Trump getting Air Force planes to stop at an airport to be refueled, an airport associated with one of his resorts. Congressional investigation was necessary, and on something like that, such an investigation is literal impeachment. I though impeachment futile and partisan, but unnecessary. After that I thought that it might still be futile and partisan in effect, but from then, necessary.

Blackmail of foreign leaders has been for things far more objectionable. Even if the gain were not his, the President should not extort resources or territory from another country. Tribute is obsolete, and diplomatic bulling is for gangster leaders like  Hitler and Stalin. Maybe we would be in a good position if the topic were the suppression of such crimes as piracy, banditry, slavery, or drug trafficking... but suppression of such monstrous acts usually implies the enhancement of local sovereignty of the country in question.

[pbrower2a]

University of Texas at Tyler:

47-49 on impeachment

Trump approve 43%, disapprove 49%

Trump still leads all Democrats  in early binary choices -- but even in his strongest position (against Kamala Harris) he barely cracks 46%

No change in the map, so I have no new map.




67% of all people expect a foreign country to attempt to create confusion in the election or otherwise interfere in the electoral process.



https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/20191118_TX.pdf

[pbrower2a]

St. Anselm's College, New Hampshire:

Trump approval 45%, disapproval 53%. No change on the map.

https://www.anselm.edu/sites/default/files/Documents/NHIOP/Polls/1119%20Topline%20Summary.pdf

[pbrower2a]

Maybe some people think -- as if such is the operative word -- that House Democrats are subjecting their beloved President to a witch hunt.

 

[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.

[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.

[pbrower2a]

Ernst is very popular like Reynolds in Iowa, Trump is gonna win Iowa and Ohio again.

Much the same was said of Blanche Lincoln in late 2009. Just saying.

[pbrower2a]

Ernst is very popular like Reynolds in Iowa, Trump is gonna win Iowa and Ohio again.

Much the same was said of Blanche Lincoln in late 2009. Just saying.

Iowa did not just trend 19 points to the left.

The Presidential vote of 2016 and the aggregate vote for the US House in 2018 may be apples and oranges...

Iowa (2018). aggregate vote for US House of Representatives

Democrats: 656,986 (50.4%)
Republicans: 607,827 (46.6%)

US House of Representatives, two House seats flipping from R to D

Iowa (2016), President of the United States

Donald J. Trump      Republican           800,983   51.15%   
Hillary Clinton      Democratic   653,669   41.74%   



A 9.33% R margin for President became about a 3.8% D margin in the House Democrats in the House in 2018, and midterm elections are usually better for Republicans than for Democrats.Iowaq   

Iowa (2014), US Senate
   
Joni Ernst           Republican           588,575   52.10%
Bruce Braley   Democratic   494,370   43.76%

Ernst won Iowa in 2014 by almost the same margin (8.34%) by which Trump won Iowa in 2016.

The House vote is the most effective way of showing contempt for the personality and policies of you-who. Governors? They are more about statewide issues such as the budgetary process, maintenance of roads, and K-12 education.

At this point if I were to make a prediction for Iowa in the Presidency I would put the strongest weight on the 2018 election... fully aware that young new voters are about 25% more D than the older voters who 'retire' from voting due to death and debility (about 1.5% per year), I could easily see Iowa being 'close to being close'... to the benefit of a Democratic nominee. 

[pbrower2a]

KANSAS:

The Docking Institute of Public Affairs at Fort Hays State University conducted the 2019
Kansas Speaks fall survey from August 26 to October 14, 2019. A random sample of 352 adult
residents of Kansas age 18 and older were surveyed by telephone to assess their attitudes and
opinions regarding various issues of interest to Kansas citizens. The survey finds:

• 53.7% of respondents indicated Kansas was a “very good” or “excellent” place to live.
1.5% said Kansas was a “poor” or “very poor” place to live.

• 79.3% of respondents “strongly support” or “somewhat support” increasing taxes on
cigarettes and cigars.

• 68% of respondents “strongly support” or “somewhat support” increasing taxes on
alcohol.

• 61.3% of respondents “strongly support” or “somewhat support” legalizing recreational
marijuana for individuals 21 and older to allow taxation by the State of Kansas. 25.8% of
respondents “somewhat oppose” or “strongly oppose.”

• 52.7% of respondents were satisfied with the performance of Governor Laura Kelly (D), and
26.4% were dissatisfied.

• 44.1% of respondents were satisfied with President Trump, and 44.3% were dissatisfied.

https://www.fhsu.edu/docking/Kansas-Speaks/kansas-speaks-report_fall-2019-final

Except in the LBJ blowout of 1964, LBJ sweeping the northern and western parts of the US (except for Goldwater's home state of Arizona), the last time that a Democratic nominee for President won Kansas was the 46-state near-sweep by FDR in 1936.

Trump approval:

40% or less or disapproval over 52%
41-44% or disapproval over  or over 50%
45-49% and negative

tie (white)

45-49% and positive
50-54%
55% or higher

[pbrower2a]

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.

Despite getting only 0.27% more of the popular vote in 2016 than Mike Dukakis got in 1988, Donald Trump got almost 200 more electoral votes. To be sure, third-party and independent nominees played little role in 2016... Talk about an anomaly!

Donald Trump has been shaking everything up, and it looks so far that should he be the one-term President that Democrats largely expect, then his sole achievements will be in cutting taxes for the Master Class and pushing reactionaries into the federal courts. Maybe, for a liberal Democrat, it is a blessing that President Trump has been unusually ineffective as President.

The next 100 days will probably establish whether he gets some idea of how to be President. To achieve the reactionary dreams of much of his social class he will need to push popular legislation whose attraction is in both Parties. His chance to privatize the Interstate Highway System to monopolistic gougers is gone, and there will be no effective anti-union legislation. There will be no further tax cuts unless those involve a rescission of his insane and destructive tariffs. He will continue to push reactionary federal judges as long as he is President, and Republican stooges as obedient as those in the Reichstag between 1933 and 1945 will endorse everyone of them. The only reason for him to not appoint his doggie to a federal bench is that he has no pooch as a pet. 

He has been shaking things up -- but so does an earthquake and so does an amusement-park ride that spins one around. You know that ride -- you get to feel what a 0.25% BAC feels like with a genuine BAC of 0.00%

President Trump must get his approval ratings into the middle-to-high 40's to have a meaningful chance of getting re-elected even if he has the advantage of the structure of the American population working to the favor of Republicans. In theory he can win the Presidency with even a lower percentage of the popular vote than Mike Dukakis got in 1988.

Those who voted for him thinking that he wouldn't be that bad have often found that he is even worse than expected.  He may have thrown away one single-issue constituency usually an easy win for Republicans -- those concerned primarily about national security.

He still does not understand the Presidency, and he seems not to be learning. He is not an attorney, which is ordinarily the best career preparation for high public office. Sure, there are other smart people such as physicians, engineers, accountants, architects, research scientists, creative people, and college professors, but all of those career groups tend to have their faults. Unlike attorneys, those people have narrow specializations largely irrelevant to the office. Running a business? Harry Truman had poor results as a businessman and went over to elective politics that better suited his talents. Next-best might be a military officer who understands the state-within-a-state as a political reality and potential model. Trump lacks all experience in elective or appointed office and makes mistake that would get one a low grade on a high-school civics test.

Strange things can happen, but at this point it is a race between his potential to learn (which rarely increases at his age and any possible organic deterioration of his mind. Is he media savvy? He certainly is not Ronald Reagan   

[pbrower2a]

https://firehousestrategies.com/analysis/december_2019_battleground_survey/

Michigan

Trump : 46% (41% in September)
Biden : 41% (42% in September)

Trump : 47% (42% in September)
Warren : 38% (41% in September)

Trump : 48% (43% in Sept)
Sanders : 42% (40% in Sept)

Trump : 48%
Buttigieg : 37%


Pennsylvania

Trump : 46% (41% in Sept)
Biden : 41% ((45% in Sept)

Trump : 47% (41% in Sept)
Warren : 40% (43% in Sept)

Trump : 48% (42% in Sept)
Sanders : 38% (44% in Sept)

Wisconsin

Trump : 48% (42% in Sept)
Biden : 39% ((44% in Sept)

Trump : 50% (42% in Sept)
Warren : 37% (43% in Sept)

Trump : 51% (43% in Sept)
Sanders : 38% (49% in Sept)

Trump : 49%
Buttigieg : 38%

"Likely voters", whatever that means.Maybe for a 2014 electorate?

Arizona: OH Predictive Insights, Dec. 3-4, 628 LV

Trump 46, Biden 44
Trump 45, Buttigieg 43
Trump 47, Warren 41
Trump 47, Bloomberg 40
Trump 47, Sanders 34

Only 25% of those polled are under 45...that looks again like an electorate of 2014.

[pbrower2a]

One of the supreme ironies is that wicked people often consider themselves paragons of goodness. As an example, the discredited NAMBLA offered pederasty as the best thing that could ever happen to a boy. Slave owners of the antebellum South often asserted that slavery was the most reliable means of bringing Christianity and civilization to Africans. The Khmer Rouge,mostly brought up in a religion that assumed reincarnation of the dead, could trivialize the deaths in their Killing Fields. The Inquisitors who had backsliding converts burned at the stake claimed a humane purpose in preparing the damned for the eternal flames of Hell. It is arguable that Hitler thought the Holocaust a great service to Humanity as a whole for eliminating 'racial' evil, including a Jewish conspiracy to exploit, humiliate, and dominate gentiles. Sure it all seems absurd, but evil people are as capable of vindictive judgment as good people.

Self-righteous people can be evil, too. Some people have the capacity to do horrible deeds and still think themselves good.  

[pbrower2a]

Morning Consult/Politico, Dec. 6-8, 1994 RV (2-week change)

Approve 39 (-1)
Disapprove 58 (+2)

Strongly approve 22 (-2)
Strongly disapprove 46 (+1)

Support impeachment inquiry? Yes 49 (+1), No 42 (-1)

Impeach? Yes 50 (nc), No 41 (nc)

Remove? Yes 50 (nc), No 41 (-1)

Slight slight uptick but no groundbreaking revolts from either side.  Looks about right. 

If Trump is going to be reelected in a typical fashion, we will start to see him "growing" on people over the course of the winter to the point where is either controversial (barely underwater) to moderately popular (a clear plurality for Trump). I really don't expect Trump to get above 50.

I can see his numbers between now and February getting to how he initially polled at the very start of his presidency if he on track for the Democrat only getting 48% of the vote.

It is easy to see what President Trump would have to do to get re-elected. He needs support around 40% at the start of the campaign season to get a 50% share of the binary vote, or (in view of he Democrats' tendency to run up vote percentages in a few super-Blue [Atlas Red] states) about 48.5% of the binary vote. He is not there, and he really isn't close. Second, he must get his disapproval numbers out of the mid-50's nationwide. It is hard to recover a win in any state in which one has 52% or higher disapproval.

It is also easy to see signs of failure in state results. Trump has been near-even in Texas, a state usually straddling 400 electoral votes for a Democratic nominee winning the Presidential election.  OK, Texas may be inching closer to the national average in its demographics, but it should be neatly in the GOP column. It isn't. So if it straddles 360 or even 320 electoral votes for a Democrat this time -- then President Trump will be cooked like a bird sucked into a jet engine. Also, the states that Trump most barely lost seem to be spiraling away from contention.     

[pbrower2a]

Iowa, Emerson:

Donald Trump’s job approval has improved slightly among Iowans over the course of the year. The Emerson poll back in March showed a 42% approval and 51% disapproval. In October, 44% of Iowans approved of the job Trump was doing as president and 47% disapproved. In the latest Emerson Poll, 45% approve and 46% disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as president. There is a huge disparity in Trump’s approval by gender. Among men, 54% approve of the job he is doing and 36% disapprove. Among women, 36% approve and 55% disapprove.

https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/iowa-2020-warren-s-support-drops-while-sanders-rises

Because Trump leads everyone, I call this a tie. It could be that impeachment is causing Trump supporters to circle the wagons... but Trump won the state by high single-digits in 2016.  

Trump approval:

40% or less or disapproval over 52%
41-44% or disapproval over  or over 50%
45-49% and negative

tie (white)

45-49% and positive
50-54%
55% or higher

[pbrower2a]

https://twitter.com/skoczela/status/1205089426881351681?s=20

It fills some gaps in the polling map. No surprises, but 45 electoral votes is nothing to sneeze at.

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)

Trump approval:

40% or less or disapproval over 52%
41-44% or disapproval over  or over 50%
45-49% and negative

tie (white)

45-49% and positive
50-54%
55% or higher