Donald Trump: polls of approval and favorability

[pbrower2a]

The states seem stratified in their partisan orientations. Trump has had consistently awful polling results in all states that he lost by significant margins except Virginia (which could reflect a large number of government employees scared to admit to a pollster that they hold Trump in contempt). Trump is doing badly in three states (Maine, Minnesota and New Hampshire) that he barely lost in 2016. Nevada? Some polls have Trump doing sort-of-OK, but only in landline-only polls. Younger, poorer, and largely-Latino populations in Greater Las Vegas tend to rely exclusively upon cell phones.

It is clear that a Democrat must reasonably win Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to win anything else that Trump won in 2016. Such is enough to get the Democrat to 278 electoral votes. Iowa is a bit more R than Wisconsin, so the only way in which those two states end up on opposite sides is as in 2004, when Dubya won Iowa and lost Wisconsin  by razor-thin margins. Arizona now follows. Note that the McCain family has had enough with Donald Trump, and that could have some strange results. For a Democrat, Wisconsin is meat, Iowa (284) does not matter because there is no combination of states that can make it matter, and Arizona (295) is gravy.

Beyond that, it is hard to distinguish Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Ohio based on polling. Trump polls badly in those states,  but if he is losing one of them he might as well be losing them all. Between these states and a couple of districts that have voted contrary to their state majorities are 80 electoral votes. This is an unstable area in Presidential politics, as anyone who sees himself in the zone of losing 310-360  electoral votes starts making desperate gambles that neglect some states that he must win. The election gets close, or it collapses for the eventual loser.

Those four states and two occasionally-wayward districts are the difference between 295 and 375 electoral votes for the Democrat. Next comes Texas, the difference between  375 and 413 electoral votes. 375? Bill Clinton did that in the 1990s, roughly, and Obama came close to that in 2008. 400 or more? The last two Democratic nominees for President to win 400 or more electoral votes were LBJ in 1964








  and FDR. Is Trump that bad?

[Eric the Green]

As a president, Trump is that bad. As a candidate, no he's not. Remember the difference. It matters when we're talking about largely un-informed, un-intellectual American voters.

[pbrower2a]

https://civiqs.com/results/approve_presi...e&map=true

Caveats:

1. It is over three months. Most statewide polls are over much-shorter times, so I can't relate these results to statewide polls over a weekend -- which is most of what I have, or even the month-long polling of Morning Consult.

2. Two national polls already show Trump support undergoing significant drops following the release of the  Mueller report. See below. Although there were apparently no statewide polls taken in the weekend following the release of the redacted report, there will be such reports. Even the three polling results that I have for the three narrowest Trump wins of 2016 (and these come from an internal poll for the Bernie Sanders campaign), the last three that I have gotten, are from before the Mueller Report exposing the ethical cesspool of the Trump campaign of 2016.

3. We can expect some systematic faults of sampling by any pollster on populations  that will distort results. The question about such remains: who has the faults, and which ones are significant?

We can go with the argument "but this pollster got this election right to an extent that someone else did not get so right". Such implies a difference in modeling of any election. Trump obviously wins re-election with an electorate like those of 2010 or 2014, and obviously loses with an electorate of 2006, 2008, 2012, or 2018. 2016? Which way is the wind blowing? Who can say what sort of electorate we will have?  

Concurrences:

1. This is the same pollster in all fifty states. It is apples to apples, oranges to oranges.

2. Trump polling has been remarkably stable, at least until the release of the Mueller Report.

3. We get to see results from states that don't get polled often.

4. This could be a contrast to what we see in the last week of April and from early May. I am not predicting polling results as the result of events, even if the Mueller Report is a huge event.

From this collection of data exclusively (except that I am guessing that Trump has no chance to win Dee Cee):



Trump, net approval positive -- raw approval

55% and higher 65
50-54% 116
under 50% 0

tie (white) 3

Trump, net negative approval -- raw approval

43-49% with disapproval under 51% if approval 45% or higher 56
40-42%, or under 45% if disapproval is over 51% 87
under 40% 201

(The District of Columbia is not shown in the polling, but we can all assume that it will go about 90-10 for just about any Democrat).

Note that I am changing my format here. I cannot see the President winning any state in which his disapproval is over 51%. If Obama could not win in 2012 in any state in which is disapproval rating ever got above 51%, then how could Trump barring some huge positive event? Obama is as slick and competent a campaigner and political strategist as we have seen in decades, and to get re-elected he had to be that slick and competent. At this I in practice give Trump much leeway. I must -- you know my bias. I thoroughly loathe him, and I thought Obama a fine President.

But this said, any state in maroon is practically certain to give Trump a double-digit loss, and any state in red has a high likelihood of giving him at the least a high-double-digit loss. States in pink or the one in white will be the ones to watch. Nothing is in light blue, so there is no state in which he is up 49-47 or so, but it is worth noting that Trump approval is at 50% in Ohio, South Carolina, and Texas... and at a mere 51% in Indiana.

So what about Indiana? Since the 1920s, no Republican nominee for President has won nationwide without winning Indiana by a double-digit margin. Even in the two elections in which the Republican won the electoral college without winning a plurality of the vote, the winning Republican (Dubya in 2000 and Trump in 2016) the Republican won the state by a double-digit margin. The disapproval number is just too high and the approval number is just too low  to offer the state as a ten-point win for Trump in 2020.  Indiana does not seem to be drifting Democratic, and it is not as if Indiana will be making voting easier to the benefit of Hoosier Democrats (mail-in or early voting). If you are a Democrat and hear at 7 PM that Trump has a 53-46 win in Indiana, you can consider that a very good sign.

How good do I think Obama was? Basically, the next effective conservative President will behave much more like Obama than like Trump and will also be a chilly rationalist with similar acumen. Someone with the political skills of Reagan and the temperament of Eisenhower is a good President. Conservatives who want tax cuts, regulatory relief that outlasts the president, and an economic order that puts more responsibility on the common man to create wealth instead of blowing it will be better off with a conservative version of Barack Obama than with another Donald Trump Add to this -- contrast Obama to Trump on foreign policy, and Obama is the conservative with a mailed fist under the velvet glove, which is the right way for dealing with ISIS, North Korea, and perhaps Iran.  

[pbrower2a]

Average presidential approval ratings through this point in term via ABC/Post and Gallup polling:

Kennedy 73%
W Bush 71%
HW Bush 70%
Johnson 69%
Eisenhower 67%
Nixon 58%
Truman 56%
Obama 55%
Reagan 55%
Carter 52%
Clinton 51%
Ford 47%
Trump 38%

Telling comparison or contrast.

[Eric the Green]

If Biden can pull out a win in Iowa, (and get all of Maine), then he can lose Wisconsin, Arizona, NC, GA and FL and still beat Trump, who would only have 263 electoral votes.

I suspect Sanders has more of an advantage in Wisconsin, and would have to win it, and would lose Iowa and those other states. Sanders would only have 269 if he wins all the other Democratic states and all of Maine, but loses Wisconsin, Iowa, AZ, NC, GA and FL.

In that case, the electoral vote would be tied. The House would be Republican today if the electoral college is tied 269-269 and they get the decision, because it votes by state, and delegations now are 26-23 Republican with one tie. So 269-269 would be a Trump victory, unless the electoral college remains deadlocked until after Jan.3 and the Democrats gain a couple of state delegations in the Nov. 2020 election, or in special elections earlier.

[David Horn]

(05-01-2019, 07:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If Biden can pull out a win in Iowa, (and get all of Maine), then he can lose Wisconsin, Arizona, NC, GA and FL and still beat Trump, who would only have 263 electoral votes.

I suspect Sanders has more of an advantage in Wisconsin, and would have to win it, and would lose Iowa and those other states. Sanders would only have 269 if he wins all the other Democratic states and all of Maine, but loses Wisconsin, Iowa, AZ, NC, GA and FL.

In that case, the electoral vote would be tied. The House would be Republican today if the electoral college is tied 269-269 and they get the decision, because it votes by state, and delegations now are 26-23 Republican with one tie. So 269-269 would be a Trump victory, unless the electoral college remains deadlocked until after Jan.3 and the Democrats gain a couple of state delegations in the Nov. 2020 election, or in special elections earlier.

Biden's strength is his warmth and everyman persona.  I suspect he would do well in all the Rust Belt states, but I'm less certain about the West.  Bernie seems to be melting down, though that may be temporary.  The rest are, well, the rest.  

The Dems need to whittle their prospective list to four or five very quickly.  If they don't, their messages will become so muddled that it will be hard to remember who favors what.  That leaves them open to be defined by the Orange One.

[pbrower2a]

Obama reputedly picked Joe Biden for Vice-President because he was the poorest member of the Senate. He was living off his Senate salary, which is considerable. He was not making easy money in making speeches on behalf of special interests or even relying upon inherited sources of income.

The large number of people with 5% or less primary support will probably get cut down quickly, as such is the norm.

We can all count on the Orange One trying to define his opponent and finding some derogatory name. Most of us have long outgrown the schoolyard taunt; Donald Trump is emotionally underdeveloped enough that he still does the schoolyard taunt, as in "Crooked Hillary". Many Americans, themselves low in emotional development, relate to such. Maybe they want life to seem as certain now as it did for them as children, and they relate to something childish that most of us outgrow.

Childhood innocence and curiosity? Wonderful! Such is great for a physicist... but Trump has a pornographic set of values in human relationships and complete smugness on ideas.

Trump has all the warmth of a tarantula. At least a tarantula has an excuse.

[Eric the Green]

(05-02-2019, 01:18 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-01-2019, 07:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If Biden can pull out a win in Iowa, (and get all of Maine), then he can lose Wisconsin, Arizona, NC, GA and FL and still beat Trump, who would only have 263 electoral votes.

I suspect Sanders has more of an advantage in Wisconsin, and would have to win it, and would lose Iowa and those other states. Sanders would only have 269 if he wins all the other Democratic states and all of Maine, but loses Wisconsin, Iowa, AZ, NC, GA and FL.

In that case, the electoral vote would be tied. The House would be Republican today if the electoral college is tied 269-269 and they get the decision, because it votes by state, and delegations now are 26-23 Republican with one tie. So 269-269 would be a Trump victory, unless the electoral college remains deadlocked until after Jan.3 and the Democrats gain a couple of state delegations in the Nov. 2020 election, or in special elections earlier.

Biden's strength is his warmth and everyman persona.  I suspect he would do well in all the Rust Belt states, but I'm less certain about the West.  Bernie seems to be melting down, though that may be temporary.  The rest are, well, the rest.  

The Dems need to whittle their prospective list to four or five very quickly.  If they don't, their messages will become so muddled that it will be hard to remember who favors what.  That leaves them open to be defined by the Orange One.

I could be wrong, but I think CO, NV and NM have gone blue for keeps now. A large part of that is demographics. Trump has practically declared war on Latin Americans, which are well represented in those states, and the people there are getting younger too. Environmentalism is big in Colorado too. I think the stronger Democrats, Biden and Sanders, can keep those states blue. Arizona is slipping from the red grasp, and so is Texas, but for now I think Trump has the advantage there.

That's right; the Democrats' message could get muddled with all these nobodies in the race. I don't know why so many have entered this year. Democrats underestimate Trump and think they can beat him. That opinion burned us last time; we'd better choose a candidate who at least has a chance, and then go all out to support him.

[pbrower2a]

YouGov/The Economist (May 5-7):

Adults:


Approve -- strongly  23%  somewhat 19%
Disapprove -- strongly  37%  somewhat 11%

Registered voters 45-52

Did Russia interfere in the 2016 election?

Definitely -- 33%, probably 30%, probably not 31% definitely not 16%... numbers for definitely are as high as 43% for the oldest voters -- and higher for Clinton voters of 2016, liberals, and people with high incomes

Is the Mueller investigation legitimate? 46% a witch-hunt? 38% not certain 17% (adds to 101 due to rounding)

Is the Mueller report mostly true? Yes -- 48% about half true and half false -- 19%  mostly false -- 9%  not sure -- 24%. I notice that these values are much the same in all regions.  

Was there coordination with Russia? Yes, 38%... no 40%  

Obstruction by the Presidential staff -- yes, 43%, no 48%

Much more data at the PDF source!


Ipsos/Reuters:



https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/r...2019-05-08

[David Horn]

(05-03-2019, 01:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: That's right; the Democrats' message could get muddled with all these nobodies in the race. I don't know why so many have entered this year. Democrats underestimate Trump and think they can beat him. That opinion burned us last time; we'd better choose a candidate who at least has a chance, and then go all out to support him.

Running for President is mostly self-advertising for <insert the next thing -- YMMV>. The biggest worry is the drain on potential Senate candidates, unless "the next thing" was the Senate all a long. I am a bit afraid that "the next thing" is a shot at an MSNBC slot.

[Eric the Green]

(05-14-2019, 09:51 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-03-2019, 01:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: That's right; the Democrats' message could get muddled with all these nobodies in the race. I don't know why so many have entered this year. Democrats underestimate Trump and think they can beat him. That opinion burned us last time; we'd better choose a candidate who at least has a chance, and then go all out to support him.

Running for President is mostly self-advertising for <insert the next thing -- YMMV>.  The biggest worry is the drain on potential Senate candidates, unless "the next thing" was the Senate all a long.  I am a bit afraid that "the next thing" is a shot at an MSNBC slot.

lol  I agree; those must be the motives for most of the candidates. 

I hear about that senate situation. I think some interesting races are shaping up though. In Arizona, former astronaut Kelly, husband of the lady in congress who was shot (Gabby Giffords), is pulling even in an open race with the Republican who lost in 2018's senate race there. Cory Gardner is vulnerable in a CO race that's attracting some good candidates, described here: https://www.denverpost.com/2019/04/29/co...allengers/

There was some concern about Stacey Abrams not running for senate in Georgia, and she may jump into the presidential race instead. She doesn't score higher than Trump, only 13-7 at best, but she has some skills as a candidate, and probably is more fit for a role where she can be more of an inspiring speaker than a parliamentarian. I hope O'Rourke fades in his hopeless presidential race (score 11-26!) fast enough that he can jump into the senate race in TX against Cornyn.

[Eric the Green]

Tuesday, May 14
Race/Topic (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Emerson Biden 54, Trump 46 Biden +8
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders Emerson Sanders 54, Trump 46 Sanders +8
General Election: Trump vs. Warren Emerson Warren 52, Trump 49 Warren +3
General Election: Trump vs. Harris Emerson Harris 51, Trump 49 Harris +2
General Election: Trump vs. Buttigieg Emerson Buttigieg 50, Trump 50 Tie
General Election: Trump vs. O'Rourke Emerson O'Rourke 52, Trump 48 O'Rourke +4

[pbrower2a]

A poll in line with what Americans seem to believe on most issues, but mostly on issues that usually help Republicans win:

---

Hart Research for National Security Action (D), April 23-27, 1205 LV

Approve 44
Disapprove 56

Lots of questions on national security and foreign policy.

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

Ironically, Democrats so far hold the edge on foreign policy and national security, topics that that Republicans have usually owned since Reagan, if not Nixon. Public attitudes seem not to have changed from the Obama era... not that Obama really shook things up. Democrats never really repudiated Reagan-Bush foreign policy, but Trump has.

About the only credit that Trump gets is on the overall economy (but with huge reservations on the cost of living) or on deterring terrorism (strange thing on the latter... I would say that whacking Osama bin Laden in a supposed safe haven could put "aquilophobia" into the mind of any anti-American terrorist), and border security. 

On foreign affairs, Trump is OK with 'traditional allies' (comment: I think that political leaders in countries like Britain, Germany, France, and Japan are simply waiting Trump out) and close to his approval and disapproval numbers on China, Venezuela, the Middle East, and even North Korea (but still negative). With Russia

18% strongly approve
24% somewhat approve
19% somewhat disapprove
39% strongly disapprove

This probably relates to liberal-to-moderate-conservative concerns about the involvement in American politics in 2016.
Unfortunately for moderate conservatives they have no obvious home in American politics today. The prospect of Democrats winning the Presidency and making small gains in the Senate in 2020 and 2022 to partially undo the wave elections of 2014 and 2010 will likely make moderate conservatives welcome as constraints on ultra-liberal policies. 

Quote:We asked voters to rate Trump on two dimensions: policy and temperament/judgment. Only 29% say he is good on both, while 47% say he is bad on both and 24% are mixed.

Democrats look to have the potential to exploit such concerns in the 2020 election.

[pbrower2a]

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-det...aseID=2622

Quinnipiac University, 1,078 RV, MAY 16-20.

approval 38 (-3)
disapproval 57 (+2)

Quote:The nation's economy is "excellent," 22 percent of American voters say in a Quinnipiac University National Poll today, the highest "excellent" rating for the economy. Another 49 percent of voters say the economy is "good." The total 71 percent for "excellent" and "good" is the highest total number for American voter attitudes on the economy in almost 18 years.

Some 52 percent of American voters say they are better off financially today than they were in 2016, while 21 percent say they are worse off and 23 percent say they are the same.

But American voters give President Donald Trump a negative 38 - 57 percent approval rating, compared to a negative 41 - 55 percent approval in a May 2 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University National Poll.

American voters give Trump mixed grades for his handling of the economy as 48 percent approve and 45 percent disapprove. He gets negative grades for handling other issues:
37 - 58 percent for handling foreign policy;
39 - 53 percent for handling trade;
40 - 50 percent for handling the nation's policy toward China;
37 - 47 percent for handling the nation's policy toward Iran.
Voters say 48 - 40 percent the president's trade policies are bad for the U.S. economy, and say 44 - 36 percent that these policies are bad for their personal financial situation.

Also:

In the 2020 general election for president, if Donald Trump is the Republican
candidate, would you definitely vote for him, consider voting for him, or would you
definitely not vote for him?

Definitely yes 31 (-2)
Consider 12 (-1)
Definitely no 54 (+2)

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

As I suggested in the previous post, Republicans have usually owned foreign policy since the 1980s; a Democrat who does OK on it (like Clinton or Obama) invariably has diverged little from the GOP orthodoxy. Trump is not conservative; he is reckless!

The tariffs are already quite unpopular. Just take a look a the "definitely will not vote for him" number. Anything more than 54% of the public voting against him (assuming that the liberal-leaning vote does not split) suggests a Democratic landslide.

[pbrower2a]

Polls from three states: Michigan, which Trump might barely get away with losing

Glengariff poll, Michigan, for WDIV-TV (NBC-4, Detroit) and the Detroit News. Likely voters:





Every Democrat leads Trump in a binary choice in Michigan, but especially Biden and Sanders:



Impeachment?



Not yet.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/p...331256001/

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

Amash is far better known in parts of Michigan, as he is from the Grand Rapids area. I see Michigan going to Biden about as it did for Obama in 2008 if one does not consider conservative or libertarian alternatives as choices in Michigan, or like it did for Reagan against Carter in 1980 with such a conservative or libertarian alternative. Obama in 2008 was much more impressive than Reagan in 1980 in Michigan.

Although matchups between Trump and Democrats other than Biden and Sanders give wider disparities than do those with lesser-known opponents, this may reflect name recognition better than anything else. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination for President will have  name recognition -- fast.

...and a state that President Trump absolutely must win if he is to be re-elected (North Carolina, which has gone for the Democratic nominee for President only once since 1976 -- in 2008):  

Quote:North Carolina: Emerson, May 31-June 3, 932 RV

Approve 41
Disapprove 52

Trump also has terrible head-to-head results in this poll.  I'm somewhat skeptical about the sample, which seems too highly educated (54% with a college degree).

It doesn't change the map. That said, there are other points worthy of consideration:Republican Senator Thom Tillis appears to be in a vulnerable position facing re-election against potential Democratic opponent, State Senator Erica Smith, who leads Tillis 46% to 39%, with 15% of voters undecided. Neither does the polling from Michigan (see above).

Quote:In the Governor’s race, the incumbent Democrat Roy Cooper leads his potential Republican opponent Lt. Governor Dan Forest, 52% to 38%, with 10% undecided.

(common noun decapitalized)

Ouch, if you are a Republican.

Issues:

Quote:When asked about recent abortion legislation in the states of Alabama, Georgia and Missouri, a majority of voters (56%) oppose North Carolina passing similar restrictions, with 32% supporting such legislation. 12% of voters are unsure on the subject. Republicans buck the trend with 56% in support of similar legislation, while 29% of Independents and 14% of Democrats support similar legislation. There is no difference based on gender.

On international relations, a majority of voters (51%) oppose sending troops to Iran, with 17% supporting sending troops, and 32% unsure on this issue. There is little support for troop intervention at the present time, with Democrats and Independents opposing sending troops by  6 to 1. Republicans are split, with 30% in support and 27% opposed, 42% are undecided on sending the troops to Iran question.

Texas: Quinnipiac.

Quote:President Donald Trump is locked in too-close-to-call races with any one of seven top Democratic challengers in the 2020 presidential race in Texas, where former Vice President Joseph Biden has 48 percent to President Trump with 44 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Other matchups by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll show:

    President Trump at 46 percent to Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 45 percent;
    Trump at 47 percent to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders at 44 percent;
    Trump at 48 percent to former U.S. Rep. Beto O'Rourke with 45 percent;
    Trump with 46 percent to South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg's 44 percent;
    Trump at 47 percent to California Sen. Kamala Harris at 43 percent;
    Trump with 46 percent and former San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro at 43 percent.

https://poll.qu.edu/texas/release-detail?ReleaseID=2625

...When one is basically tied in a state that has typically straddled 400 electoral votes for a Democratic nominee for about thirty years, one is in deep trouble as a Republican.  I wouldn't make much of the color change, as the poll for Texas before this one was by a margin of 1 the other way. What matters is that Texas is iffy







Trump, net approval positive -- raw approval

55% and higher
50-54%
under 50%

tie (white)

Trump, net negative approval -- raw approval

43-49% with disapproval under 51% if approval 45% or higher
40-42%, or under 45% if disapproval is over 51%
under 40%

...Michigan must be close if Trump is to win nationwide. Should he lose Michigan by double digits, then he is behind by double digits in states holding at least 250 electoral votes. He can win without Michigan, but that is dicey. North Carolina has gone for a Democratic nominee since 1976 only once, and it is a mist-win state for any Democratic nominee. Texas has not gone for the Democratic nominee since 1976, when Jimmy Carter won every ex-Confederate state except Virginia but lost a raft of states that Democrats now seem to take for granted.

[beechnut79]

Grand Rapids already had one President, Gerald Ford. Perhaps the last moderate Republican.

[pbrower2a]

Morning Consult/Politico, June 7-9, 1991 RV (1-week change)

Approve 41 (-2)
Disapprove 56 (+2)

Strongly approve 22 (-1)
Strongly disapprove 44 (+2)

This isn't their full weekly tracker; it just has a few questions about the Hyde Amendment and Biden's support of it. Note that "strong disapproval" is again higher than total approval.

Global Strategy Group,

May 31-June 3, 1113 registered voters (1-month change)

Approve 41 (nc)
Disapprove 56 (+1)

Strongly approve 21 (+2)
Strongly disapprove 45 (+1)


Trump is fit/unfit to serve as President:

Fit 41 (-3) - feel strongly 26 (-4)
Unfit 59 (+3) -  feel strongly 47 (+5)


A question that I haven't seen before --

Which do you agree with more:  As president, Donald Trump has been better/worse than I expected when he got elected

Better 42 (strongly 22)
Worse 58 (strongly 40)

[pbrower2a]

According to the New York Times, the internal pollster for President Trump (Fabrizio) polled seventeen states and got results that do not look good. Those results have not been released, and I would hardly be surprised if they ever are released.

Seventeen states were decided by 10% or less, and it is my guess that those are the states polled:

AZ CO FL GA IA
ME MI MN NC NH
NV NM OH PA TX
VA WI

Quote:WASHINGTON — Late at night, using his old personal cellphone number, President Trump has been calling former advisers who have not heard from him in years, eager to discuss his standing in the polls against the top Democrats in the field — specifically Joseph R. Biden Jr., whom he describes in those conversations as “too old” and “not as popular as people think.”

After being briefed on a devastating 17-state poll conducted by his campaign pollster, Tony Fabrizio, Mr. Trump told aides to deny that his internal polling showed him trailing Mr. Biden in many of the states he needs to win, even though he is also trailing in public polls from key states like Texas, Michigan and Pennsylvania. And when top-line details of the polling leaked, including numbers showing the president lagging in a cluster of critical Rust Belt states, Mr. Trump instructed aides to say publicly that other data showed him doing well.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/10/us/po...-iowa.html

Draw your own conclusion.

[pbrower2a]

Quote:In a first look at head-to-head 2020 presidential matchups nationwide, several Democratic
challengers lead President Donald Trump, with former Vice President Joseph Biden ahead 53 –
40 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today.
In other matchups, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University National
Poll finds:

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders over President Trump 51 – 42 percent;
• California Sen. Kamala Harris ahead of Trump 49 – 41 percent;
• Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren tops Trump 49 – 42 percent;
• South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg edges Trump 47 – 42 percent;
• New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker by a nose over Trump 47 – 42 percent.

https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us...ox721.pdf/

The key fact is that President Trump is unable to crack 42% against anyone. He is as well known as is possible, but he is not convincing people that he is the right choice in 2020 who did not vote for him in 2016.

[pbrower2a]

NBC has received more of the internal poll by the Trump administration and shown the results on Meet the Press. To be sure, these are from March, but approval and disapproval of the President has been extremely stable.

Quote:The internal polling paints a picture of an incumbent president with serious ground to gain across the country as his re-election campaign kicks into higher gear.

While the campaign tested other Democratic presidential candidates against Trump, Biden polled the best of the group, according the source.

In Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan — three states where Trump edged Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton by narrow margins that proved decisive in his victory — Trump trails Biden by double-digits. In three of those states — Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida — Biden’s leads sit outside the poll’s margin of error.

Trump is also behind the former vice president in Iowa by 7 points, in North Carolina by 8 points, in Virginia by 17 points, in Ohio by 1 point, in Georgia by 6 points, in Minnesota by 14 points, and in Maine by 15 points.

In Texas, where a Democratic presidential nominee hasn’t won since President Jimmy Carter in 1976, Trump leads by just 2 points.

A video is included.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-th...d-n1017991
Internal polling can be quite credible if it operates by the same rules as do neutral pollsters.