Donald Trump: polls of approval and favorability

[pbrower2a]

Defeating Republicans in the House may be the only reliable way to constrain a President from his radical and inhuman agenda. If voters really hate President Trump, then such is all that will be available until at least 2020.

[Bob Butler 54]

(04-24-2017, 11:27 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Ultimately, it will be the saner sub population of Republicans who will band together with Democrats to put a straight jacket on Drumpf. I still think the GOP is headed for extinction. Too early to tell about the Dems.

This would be nice.  Ideally, Trump might give the Reagan unraveling memes a bad name (trickle down, borrow and spend, spend less domestically, spend more on the military).  The hard part is that a lot of folks see anything not Reagan as establishment, see things as bad, and thus want to travel more in the unraveling-Reagan direction.  Ironically, we've been taking the country towards Reagan so hard and so long that the Reagan memes are no longer the solution...  they are the problem.

Of course, a lot of blue folk will say this has always been the case.

[Eric the Green]

Yup; they have always been a problem, says this blue folk. But, as less extreme than his version, as part of normal liberal Western-influenced society, aspects of free-market Reaganism (libertarian economics) have their valid place.

Reagan, Ayn Rand, Mises and Hayek, Milton Friedman, Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich; these folks need to be put on the shelf after their hard, long run.

They are the regressive, distorted version of the Uranus meme. In other words, phony liberty and individualism. As we regress through the Chiron centaur meme, slipping below Neptune all the way down to Mars, we have reached a stage of psychological immaturity under Drump.

[Bob Butler 54]

(04-25-2017, 04:29 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yup; they have always been a problem, says this blue folk. But, as less extreme than his version, as part of normal liberal Western-influenced society, aspects of free-market Reaganism (libertarian economics) have their valid place.

Reagan, Ayn Rand, Mises and Hayek, Milton Friedman, Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich; these folks need to be put on the shelf after their hard, long run.

Gee?  How did you ever guess I was thinking of you when I typed the bold phrase above?  

CNN has Elizabeth Warren pushing the Warren - Sanders progressive wing of the Democrats.  Their angle is not new and not surprising, but might be understood as standing opposite the Tea Party's rejection of the establishment.  I've been talking about 3 parties, with the Republicans and Tea Party in open conflict.  The Warren - Sanders wing hasn't reached that level yet.

But we might see a four party system for a while.  Both the Tea Party and the Warren - Sanders people want a major break from the unraveling pattern.  The establishment Democrats and Republicans alike are quite unpopular, viewed as being servants of the capitalist elite class.  If we are to break the unraveling pattern, it seems that the Warren - Sanders faction has to end up dominant.  While the Tea Party is angry at the establishment, they don't see the Reagan pattern as being the unraveling establishment.

Sanders and Warren are trying, but they haven't the clout in Congress yet.  I don't see that they are moving in the country in the direction of regeneracy yet.  Thus far, it is the other three factions that are becoming more unpopular.  The Warren - Sanders faction is there, but they aren't yet beginning to resemble the steamroller required for a regeneracy.

[pbrower2a]

Donald Trump has successfully united the Corporate wing of the Republican Party and what H. L. Mencken called the "booboisie". The gullible fell for Donald Trump. With the usual con only a few (the immediate victim and loved ones who must rescue him) get hurt. With the Trump scam practically all of us get hurt.

But if that is 40% of the American people, that is what matters most -- nearly 90% of the wealth and practically the whole power of the executive elite -- America's nomenklatura. It is hardly surprising that the most rapacious, many of whom have sociopathic tendencies, align with a kindred spirit. Will America's elites allow a free and fair election that they believe that they could lose?

Ease and indulgence for economic elites and fear and hardship for everyone else is not good for political stability or even holding a nation together under a foreign threat. But that is some time off. Maybe there will be rifts in the elites. Maybe some people will insist upon fairness in the electoral process.

[Bob Butler 54]

Switching to another form of poll, it seems MSNBC's Rachel Maddow is starting to beat Fox News in the cable news pundit battles.  Her format is partisan pundit.  Apparently, she's been pushing the progressive viewpoint for years, but the audience in Trump's era is more ready to listen.  The other factor is some of her conservative competition has been scandalized out of Fox.

I am not thrilled by the partisan pundit format.  They push propaganda rather than truth and balance.  This development does not speak well towards reuniting the country.  However, it could well be an indication of the country's mood.  It's nice to know that the blue perspective isn't coming out entirely on late night comedy TV.

[Eric the Green]

(04-25-2017, 05:56 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(04-25-2017, 04:29 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yup; they have always been a problem, says this blue folk. But, as less extreme than his version, as part of normal liberal Western-influenced society, aspects of free-market Reaganism (libertarian economics) have their valid place.

Reagan, Ayn Rand, Mises and Hayek, Milton Friedman, Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich; these folks need to be put on the shelf after their hard, long run.

Gee?  How did you ever guess I was thinking of you when I typed the bold phrase above?  

CNN has Elizabeth Warren pushing the Warren - Sanders progressive wing of the Democrats.  Their angle is not new and not surprising, but might be understood as standing opposite the Tea Party's rejection of the establishment.  I've been talking about 3 parties, with the Republicans and Tea Party in open conflict.  The Warren - Sanders wing hasn't reached that level yet.

But we might see a four party system for a while.  Both the Tea Party and the Warren - Sanders people want a major break from the unraveling pattern.  The establishment Democrats and Republicans alike are quite unpopular, viewed as being servants of the capitalist elite class.  If we are to break the unraveling pattern, it seems that the Warren - Sanders faction has to end up dominant.  While the Tea Party is angry at the establishment, they don't see the Reagan pattern as being the unraveling establishment.

Sanders and Warren are trying, but they haven't the clout in Congress yet.  I don't see that they are moving in the country in the direction of regeneracy yet.  Thus far, it is the other three factions that are becoming more unpopular.  The Warren - Sanders faction is there, but they aren't yet beginning to resemble the steamroller required for a regeneracy.

Well, a steamroller effect occurred in the previous saeculum that resembles ours, in 1860, when the opposition to Lincoln split three ways and allowed him to win.

Of course, according to my horoscope scoring method, Lincoln had a 16-3 score, which means an innate appeal to what America votes for. Sanders is pretty good, 14-7, but may not beat Trump's 9-4. The regeneracy will depend on a candidate from the left side who can win. I thought Hillary had a chance, but it was always just a chance. My revised score for her is 9-11, although her likely Jupiter rising may have made it closer to Trump's score. Nevertheless, in all 58 USA presidential elections, only 3 candidates with barely-negative scores have ever won (regardless of the Jupiter factor, which helped TR, 12-15; the other two were Garfield, 8-9, and John Adams, 6-7).

The bottom line is that our potential regeneracy still depends on a good presidential candidate. Hillary wasn't a good enough candidate to win. Warren (8-7) is not going to cut it either, when push comes to shove in electoral politics. She doesn't have a wide enough appeal, and it's mostly a matter of personality rather than substance. 

So not only does a candidate have to appeal to a big enough slice of the mainstream, (s)he has to have that basic compatibility with Americans, who vote more on emotion and personality than on substance. When a candidate has both, that makes a good president who can get elected.

My carefully-researched horoscope scoring method indicates Terry McAuliffe 11-2+ has the best chance to be that candidate. It may not matter if he's not far enough left. I have seen him speak, and take stands for what he advocates, and he makes himself and his causes believable. Sherrod Brown 19-8 would be great, but I worry about his voice. 

The quality of the candidate, and how great a speaker he or she is, matters the most in determining whether we enter a valid regeneracy.

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

[David Horn]

(04-25-2017, 12:55 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Switching to another form of poll, it seems MSNBC's Rachel Maddow is starting to beat Fox News in the cable news pundit battles.  Her format is partisan pundit.  Apparently, she's been pushing the progressive viewpoint for years, but the audience in Trump's era is more ready to listen.  The other factor is some of her conservative competition has been scandalized out of Fox.

I am not thrilled by the partisan pundit format.  They push propaganda rather than truth and balance.  This development does not speak well towards reuniting the country.  However, it could well be an indication of the country's mood.  It's nice to know that the blue perspective isn't coming out entirely on late night comedy TV.

I'm not a Maddow fan, but I've watched a few times.  On those occasions, she stayed with real facts.  Her analysis was certainly partisan, but within bounds.  So she's not a liberal version of Ann Coulter, or any of the Fox-heads.  She's pretty tame in comparison.

[pbrower2a]

If one checks the facts, then what she says checks out.

[pbrower2a]

FoX News, which does good polls despite the editorial policies of the network , has Donald Trump nearly even in approval and disapproval. But contrast Obama after 100 days to Trump after 100 days:

41. If the 2020 presidential election were held today, would you:

Vote to re-elect ---------Donald Trump---------
Vote for
---------someone else--------- (Too soon to say)
(Would not vote)
(Don’t know)
TOTAL Definitely Probably TOTAL Probably Definitely 23-25 Apr 17 36% 21 15 55 8 47 5 * 3

Vote to re-elect ---------Barack Obama---------
Vote for
---------someone else--------- (Too soon to say)
(Would not vote)
(Don’t know)
TOTAL Definitely Probably TOTAL Probably Definitely 22-23 Apr 09 52% 37 15 31 8 23 14 1 1 Barack Obama at 100 days for reference: If the 2012 presidential election were held today…

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/slidesho...-days.html

It was 52-31 for Obama, who would eventually get 51% of the popular vote in 2012.
For President Trump it is now 36-55.

President Trump obviously has his work cut out for him. I'm not saying that he will end up with 35% of the popular vote... the two last big failures as first-term Presidents (Hoover and Carter) did better than that. But both Hoover and Carter were very popular 100 days into their Presidencies; Trump isn't. First impressions may not redeem subsequent failures, but it is hard to see what successes President Trump can have that won't be tainted.

[Eric the Green]

Another one term president failure was George Bush the first.

Gerald Ford also lost, although he was completing a term.

[pbrower2a]

(04-27-2017, 11:47 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(04-27-2017, 02:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: FoX News, which does good polls despite the editorial policies of the network , has Donald Trump nearly even in approval and disapproval. But contrast Obama after 100 days to Trump after 100 days:

41. If the 2020 presidential election were held today, would you:

Vote to re-elect ---------Donald Trump---------
Vote for
---------someone else--------- (Too soon to say)
(Would not vote)
(Don’t know)
 TOTAL Definitely Probably TOTAL Probably Definitely 23-25 Apr 17 36% 21 15 55 8 47 5 * 3

Vote to re-elect ---------Barack Obama---------
Vote for
---------someone else--------- (Too soon to say)
(Would not vote)
(Don’t know)
TOTAL Definitely Probably TOTAL Probably Definitely 22-23 Apr 09  52% 37 15 31  8 23 14  1  1 Barack Obama at 100 days for reference: If the 2012 presidential election were held today…

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/slidesho...-days.html

It was 52-31 for Obama, who would eventually get 51% of the popular vote in 2012.
For President Trump it is now 36-55.

President Trump obviously has his work cut out for him. I'm not saying that he will end up with 35% of the popular vote... the two last big failures as first-term Presidents (Hoover and Carter) did better than that. But both Hoover and Carter were very popular 100 days into their Presidencies; Trump isn't.  First impressions may not redeem subsequent failures, but it is hard to see what successes President Trump can have that won't be tainted.

I expect Trump's scores to improve a bit due to the fact he's triangulated more mainstream (to the chagrin of the Duginist assholes). However ... this Flynn thing ... it's really flaring up again. We'll see what happens ....

He may triangulate some, but he will not quite gain trust. His hazards as a leader (shallowness, recklessness, and an easily-imaged self-esteem) bode ill. He has yet to show that he would deal effectively with a serious military threat, a natural disaster, or an economic meltdown. Those happen, especially in a Crisis Era. Obama spoiled us some as a cautious, humane, and centered individual who didn't create any problems.  Donald Trump figuratively collects oily rags in a storeroom with no sprinklers, so to speak.

He is likely to taunt the nutty leadership of North Korea. a risky way to deal with a leader effectively a juvenile delinquent. If there is a natural disaster, then you can expect his related businesses will profiteer. His idea of how to deal with an economic meltdown? God help us should we have to find out.

He may do things a little differently -- but he will remain cruel, reckless, and amoral. Should he yield on anything he will be seen as weak -- a LOSER.

[pbrower2a]

(04-27-2017, 12:20 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Another one term president failure was George Bush the first.

Gerald Ford also lost, although he was completing a term.

Dubya at least had some success in foreign policy. Big success. He just could never offer a credible Second Act.

Ford simply was an inept campaigner for President. He had never run for statewide office, and it showed.

[Bob Butler 54]

(04-27-2017, 10:36 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(04-27-2017, 12:20 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Another one term president failure was George Bush the first.

Gerald Ford also lost, although he was completing a term.

Dubya at least had some success in foreign policy. Big success. He just could never offer a credible Second Act.

Ford simply was an inept campaigner for President. He had never run for statewide office, and it showed.

Did I lose something here?  George Bush the first would be 41?  Dubya would be 43?

[pbrower2a]

(04-28-2017, 12:33 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(04-27-2017, 10:36 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(04-27-2017, 12:20 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Another one term president failure was George Bush the first.

Gerald Ford also lost, although he was completing a term.

Dubya at least had some success in foreign policy. Big success. He just could never offer a credible Second Act.

Ford simply was an inept campaigner for President. He had never run for statewide office, and it showed.

Did I lose something here?  George Bush the first would be 41?  Dubya would be 43?

My goof. Senior moment.

[pbrower2a]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_fEBtXXgAEBNqe.jpg:small

When "disapprove strongly" is above 50%, any politician has a terrible 'credibility gap.

Take not: this polling is from before the firing of Comey.

[pbrower2a]

Just when I am ready to ditch favorability polls, one comes out about a State that rarely gets polled.

Oklahoma. This is a favorability poll, and not as approval  poll. 57.4-35.5.  Decimals -- yuck!

http://soonerpoll.com/after-first-100-da...ike-trump/

Oklahoma is probably the difference between 530 and 537 electoral votes for the Democrat in 2020.


Favorability:



*approval poll from mid-March supplanted by a poll the next week by the same pollster. Shown as a data point that I wish I had gotten at an opportune time.  


Still useful for some states -- but not likely for any states from hereon added to the map. Favorability is 'hope'; approval is 'achievement'. President Trump has quickly developed a clear record of achievements and failures.  


Approval:




Even -- white



Blue, positive and 40-43%  20% saturation
............................ 44-47%  40%  
............................ 48-50%  50%
............................ 51-55%  70%
............................ 56%+     90%

Red, negative and  48-50%  20% (raw approval or favorability)
..........................  44-47%  30%
..........................  40-43%  50%
..........................  35-39%  70%
.......................under  35%  90%

White - tie.

Colors chosen for partisan affiliation

[pbrower2a]

A wealth of political detail today from PPP:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2..._51617.pdf

Health Care Puts House in Play
Raleigh, N.C. –


PPP's new national poll finds that Republicans are facing significant backlash over the health care bill that's having the effect of firing up Democrats and putting them in position to make major gains in the House next year.

Democrats now have a 49-38 lead overall on the generic Congressional ballot, up from 47-41 a month ago. Even more notable though is that among voters who say they're 'very excited' to turn out in the 2018 election, the Democratic lead balloons to 27 points at 61-34. The outcome of lower turnout midterm elections often hinges on which side is more engaged, and Democrats have the clear advantage at this point on that front- 63% of their voters say they're 'very excited' about voting in next year's election, compared to only 52% of Republicans who say the same.

The American Health Care Act has been a complete disaster politically for Republicans. Only 25% of voters support it, to 52% who are opposed. Even among Republican voters there's only 49% support for the measure, while Democrats (76%) are considerably more unified in their opposition to it. Voters say by a 20 point margin that they're less likely to vote for a member of Congress who supported the AHCA- just 27% say they're more likely to vote for a pro-AHCA candidate, compared to 47% who are less likely to vote for one.

“House Republicans passed a health care bill that doesn’t even have majority support within their own party,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “The main thing the bill seems to have done is get Democrats even more fired up for 2018 than they were already.”

The health care debate has left Congress with a 15% approval rating and 68% of voters disapproving of it. Paul Ryan (25/59 approval) and Mitch McConnell (21/55 approval) are both very unpopular individually as well. The current health care debate is also stoking new found respect for the Affordable Care Act. By a 53/27 spread, voters say they prefer the current ACA to the new AHCA. And just 29% of voters say they want to repeal the Affordable Care Act at this point, to 64% who would prefer to keep it and make fixes as necessary.

And this is before anyone discusses the firing of James Coney. ... Read on in the link.

[pbrower2a]

There were things that Republicans could have done. They could have raised taxes on unhealthy habits like tobacco and liquor. They could have amended the tort law. They could have allowed government to bid down prices. Because many crippling situations result from vehicle crashes they could have raised the tax on motor fuels. They could have allowed obesity and habitual drunkenness to raise premiums.

These are conservative approaches. "Abuser pays" is one of the wisest policies possible. We accept that lead-footed drivers who get lots of speeding tickets pay higher premiums for car insurance.

[pbrower2a]

The thread changed at Leip's Election Atlas. I'm changing my model some, too. I expect few favorability polls hereon, but for states that get polled rarely I might show them if they create few problems.

I am not using favorability polls unless the rating is uncontroversial and there is no approval poll.

The letter F shall signify a favorability poll, as the only polls that I have for Massachusetts and Oklahoma



....To be filled in with some backtracking. Go ahead and Please do not comment on this map; until I say that I am complete in filling it in. I am dropping the Ohio approval poll as it is a composite.

Backtracking, from latest to earliest:

Utah 45-55 (Dan Jones)
Virginia 36-60 Washington Post, George Mason University, third-degree burn
Oklahoma 57-36 Sooner Poll (Oklahoma could be Trump's best state
Pennsylvania, 36-62 Franklin & Marshall College -- huge drop from 2016
New Hampshire, 43-47 U-New Hampshire
Wisconsin 39-59 St. Norbert's College
Colorado, 47-49, Magellan (usual votes in a primary in a midterm
Minnesota, 40-51 Star-Tribune
Ohio, favorability poll by Gravis (not using favorability polls in swing states)
North Carolina, 42-51, Elon
Washington, 40-56. Elway
Texas 42-55, Texas Lyceum (not that I really trust any poll of Texas)
Arkansas 53-39. Hendrix College, Talk Business
Montana 50-42, Gravis
New Jersey 28-61 Fairleigh-Dickinson University
New York 29-67. Quinnnipiac
California, 31-61. PPIC
West Virginia, 58-37 Orion Stategies
Florida, 44-51 University of North Florida
Maryland, 29- 64 Baltimore Sun
Tennessee 51-32 Middle Tennessee State University
South Carolina, 44-47, Winthrop University
Iowa. Selzer 42-47
Michigan. EPIC/MRI 40-54
Arizona 39-49 Data Orbital (favorability) --possibly obsolete
Massachusetts, a composite on several issues, all but one of which has favorable expectations of less than 32%, WBUR

Even -- white



Blue, positive and 40-43% 20% saturation
............................ 44-47% 40%
............................ 48-50% 50%
............................ 51-55% 70%
............................ 56%+ 90%

Red, negative and 48-50% 20% (raw approval or favorability)
.......................... 44-47% 30%
.......................... 40-43% 50%
.......................... 35-39% 70%
.......................under 35% 90%

White - tie.

Colors chosen for partisan affiliation.