Donald Trump: polls of approval and favorability

[pbrower2a]

KEY POINTS

• Vegas oddsmakers, shrugging off the House Democrats’ midterm election triumph, favor President Trump to win a second term in 2020. So do Wall Street insiders.
  
• It’s easy to understand why they would consider 2018 a temporary setback. Republican routs in 1994 and 2010 didn’t keep Bill Clinton and Barack Obama from getting subsequently winning reelection.
  
• But a closer look at those lopsided midterms suggests a different conclusion. For three overlapping reasons, 2018 sent a stronger-than-usual signal about the upcoming White House contest.
  

Vegas oddsmakers, shrugging off the House Democrats’ midterm election triumph, favor President Trump to win a second term in 2020. So do Wall Street insiders.

It’s easy to understand why they would consider 2018 a temporary setback. Republican routs in 1994 and 2010 didn’t keep Bill Clinton and Barack Obama from getting subsequently winning reelection.

But a closer look at those lopsided midterms suggests a different conclusion. For three overlapping reasons, 2018 sent a stronger-than-usual signal about the upcoming White House contest.

Looking forward, not back

In 1994, House Republicans amassed much of their 54-seat gain on conservative ground. It deepened a political realignment that had already occurred at the presidential level, most dramatically among white Southerners.

The 2010 elections reflected a similar dynamic, wiping out conservative remnants within the Democratic caucus. The 63-seat House Republican gain included 51 rural districts that Democrats had snatched amid the Wall Street crisis and unpopular Iraq War in 2008.

That made both midterms trailing presidential indicators. Last November looks different.

In 2016, Trump edged Hillary Clinton among suburban voters, just as Mitt Romney had edged Obama four years earlier. Republicans approached 2018 confident that favorable district boundaries and strong economic conditions would safeguard their majority.

Instead, Democrats smashed through those barriers for a 40-seat gain propelled by suburban voters, especially women. Overcoming traditional weakness in midterm turnout by their disproportionately young, non-white coalition, they captured 21 seats Trump won in 2016.

“A big achievement – they managed to overcome their structural disadvantages,” observes congressional elections scholar Gary Jacobson of the University of California-San Diego. “The same factors that inspired that turnout apply now.”

Trump’s consistent unpopularity
Jacobson was alluding to Trump’s polarizing presence, which has repelled young, female, non-white and college-educated voters. His inability to inspire higher support distinguishes him from modern predecessors.

Both Clinton and Obama began their presidencies with Gallup job approval well above 50%. They dipped below that level before their first midterms, but moved above 50% again approaching their reelections.

Public regard for Trump has not been nearly so fluid. He remains the only president in the polling era never to reach 50% approval.

“The inelasticity of people’s views on Trump is important,” notes Ruy Teixeira of the Century Foundation.

Approaching last year’s midterms, Trump languished underwater by a double-digit margin: 40% approve, 54% disapprove. His Gallup standing today: 39% approve, 57% disapprove.

A slowing economy

In 1992, Clinton rode economic discontent to the White House. The 1980s Reagan boom had given way to recession under President George H.W. Bush.

Unfortunately for congressional Democrats, it remained unclear by fall 1994 how much things were improving. Fortunately for Clinton, the takeoff toward the late-1990s boom was clearer two years later.

Obama took office during the Wall Street crisis and Great Recession. By Nov. 2010, unemployment still hovered near its 10% peak.

That fueled the signature Republican attack line: “Where are the jobs?” But by fall 2012, unemployment had fallen below 8% and the economy resumed steady growth.

Trump faces a different economic trajectory. In 2018, stimulus from higher spending and lower taxes fueled strong 2.9% growth, though even that wasn’t enough to forestall GOP defeat.

Now, the stimulus has all but run out while Trump’s trade war disrupts business supply chains and shrouds new investment in uncertainty. Even if the president backs off, independent economist Mark Zandi expects 2020 growth to slow to 1.6%.

If he doesn’t, Zandi sees growth slowing to 0.9% with a recession beginning in mid-2020. The last president to suffer an election-year recession was Jimmy Carter, who lost badly.

At least part of that equation is within Trump’s control. GOP strategists consider continued growth vital for his chances.

“Can Trump regain the narrative about the economy?” asks David Winston, a pollster for congressional Republicans. “That’s the way he could win.”

As 2016 proved, Trump could win with well under 50% of the vote. Since many voters Trump has turned off live in states whose electoral votes won’t be in doubt, analyst David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report says he could garner a second term while losing the popular vote by even more in 2020.

One massive unknown is the identity of the Democratic nominee with whom Trump can draw a contrast. Wasserman still considers the incumbent an even-money bet to win.

Wasserman’s boss does not, reflecting divisions on the question inside and outside the political parties.

“President Trump is facing a very, very difficult reelection challenge,” says Charlie Cook, editor and publisher of the Cook Political Report. “If this thing is a referendum on Donald Trump, he’s going to lose.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/09/these-ar...n-bid.html

[pbrower2a]

Greenberg Quinlan Rosner/Democracy Corps (D), Sep. 7-11, 800 RV including 775 LV

RV:

Biden 50
Trump 41
Amash 4

Warren 48
Trump 41
Amash 5

Sanders 48
Trump 43
Amash 4

The only difference with LV is that Sanders gets 47 instead of 48.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index....rdseen#new

...relating a possible libertarian challenge to big-government right-winger Donald Trump.

[pbrower2a]

A new Public Policy Polling survey finds that health care is a key issue for the majority
(69%) of voters in 2020 battleground states (AZ, FL, PA, MI, WI & TX) and that President
Trump’s health care record is a major liability for him with voters, including independents
and even Republicans.

● President Trump’s lawsuit, which began in a Texas court, to strike down the
Affordable Care Act is unpopular with battleground voters, including Texans, by a
21-point margin. The majority of voters (55%) oppose the lawsuit’s goal of striking
down the Affordable Care Act, while only 34% think it should be struck down.

● By a 19-point margin, voters think that President Trump and the Department of
Justice should drop their support for the lawsuit (54-35). This includes a majority
of independents (52%), and even 30% of Republicans.

Beyond the implications of the Texas lawsuit for President Trump, battleground voters are
overwhelmingly opposed to other elements of his agenda as well:

● An overwhelming majority (84%) support ending the ban on Medicare negotiating
with drug companies to get lower prices for prescription drugs, which Republicans
in the Senate Finance Committee recently voted against. This is an issue voters
agree on across party lines, with 82% of Republicans, 86% of independents, and
85% of Democrats in support of ending the ban.

● A large majority of battleground voters (70%) also oppose a proposal from the
Trump administration which allows health insurance companies to sell junk health
insurance plans that don’t cover prescription drug costs or protect people with pre-
existing conditions. A majority of Republicans (58%), independents (62%), and
Democrats (86%) oppose this proposal.

● Protecting Medicare is important to voters, with a majority (57%) saying that they
would not consider voting for a candidate for President who proposed a new budget
including $845-billion in cuts to Medicare, including majorities of Democrats
(67%), independents (52%) and a plurality of Republicans (49%). Only 20% say
they would consider voting for such a candidate.

● A clear majority of voters (68%) say that twenty million people completely losing
their health insurance coverage as a result of the ACA being struck down is a major
concern, including a majority of independents (65%) and a plurality of Republicans
(48%).

The bottom line: President Trump’s actions on health care are extremely unpopular with
voters in key November 2020 battleground states, including independents and
Republicans. Indeed, if framed around the issue of health care, voters say they would even
vote for Attila the Hun over President Trump (45-41), if Attila the Hun would maintain
and improve the health care law including protections for people with pre-existing
conditions.

PPP surveyed 733 battleground state voters in Arizona, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan,
Wisconsin and Texas from September 4-5, 2019. The margin of error is +/- 3.6%. The
survey was conducted by telephone on behalf of Protect Our Care.

https://www.protectourcare.org/wp-conten...0-Memo.pdf

Trump approval in these states: 46% approve, 52% disapprove.

vote for Trump: 46%
vote against 51%

If it is fairly even across these states, then Trump loses them all. If Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin overwhelmingly reject Trump and the rest don't, then Donald Trump is doomed to defeat for those states alone.

Note that Georgia, Iowa, North Carolina, and Ohio are not mentioned in this poll.

[pbrower2a]

I may be slow in posting nationwide polls. They have gotten repetitive in content, and few have yet to show what support for Trump is once the news about shady deals with foreign leaders (even if they fail) get to sink in -- and "stink in". This poll is commissioned by environmentalists, and the environment has lately gone into the background of political debate.

What is new? This pollster asks about Mike Pence as a possible Republican nominee in the event that something happens to the Trump Presidency.  

Quote:A new Public Policy Polling survey finds that a majority of national voters (55%)
disapprove of President Donald Trump’s job performance, while only 40% approve. A
further 52% of voters say they would vote for President Trump’s Democratic opponent in
the 2020 election, with only 41% of voters saying they would vote for Trump. Vice
President Mike Pence is performing better than President Trump on approval, but a
plurality of voters (46%) disapprove of his job performance while only 43% approve.
Meanwhile, only 40% of voters say they would vote for Pence, if he led the ticket in the
next election, with 49% of voters supporting a Democratic opponent.

When informed about Pence’s record on climate change denial and support of policies that
endanger the environment and public health, 45% of voters say they are less likely to vote
for him (were he at the top of the ticket). This includes 19% of voters who supported
President Trump in 2016, and 1-in-4 Republicans (26%). Nearly half (47%) of
independents are also less likely to support him. Only 23% of voters say they are more
likely to support him.

Voters are concerned about the Trump administration’s environmental policies. A majority
(60%) think that Congress should investigate the appointment of corporate lobbyists to
senior government positions, including the Environmental Protection Agency. This
includes 68% of Democrats, 61% of independents, and 51% of Republicans.
A majority (57%) also say that the Trump administration’s appointment of lobbyists for
coal and chemical companies to run the EPA is concerning, including 63% of
independents, while only 34% are not concerned.

https://www.edfaction.org/sites/edaction...e-poll.pdf

[pbrower2a]

Ohio: Emerson, Sep. 29-Oct. 2, 837 RV

Trump approval: 43/51

Impeachment support: 47/43

Biden 53, Trump 47
Sanders 53, Trump 47
Warren 52, Trump 48

Biden 54, Pence 46
Warren 51, Pence 49
Sanders 51, Pence 49


This is the first statewide poll that I have seen taken fully after the disclosure of the President's attempt to have another country dig up or fabricate derogatory material on a family member of a likely rival. And take a look at impeachment support... Notice also that matchups are beginning to appear with Democrats against VP Mike Pence. Pence does not do significantly better than Trump in the event that... you know.

The character of polling is changing.

Not since at least 1988 has a Republican nominee been in position in which to win the Presidency without winning Ohio... Ohio could have been the difference between Gore and Dubya or Kerry and Dubya, and Trump was not going to win any one of Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin without also winning Ohio.

That Republicans got the majority of the House vote in Ohio in 2018 may now be irrelevant. Unless something changes drastically, Trump will lose Ohio in 2020. The map does not change.





Trump approval:

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


Note: these are colored green to the same shade if I believe that an independent or third-party nominee has a chance to win the state, but a Democrat has no meaningful chance. That is Utah for now.

tie (white)
45-49% and positive
50-54%
55% or higher

[Eric the Green]

He might lose PA and MI this time, but if he keeps WI and the other states he won in 2016, that's all he needs. He is not beaten yet.

Impeachment that results in conviction and replacement by Pence is certainly a valuable political outcome. His horoscope score is 8-7; same as Warren. She could beat him. Trump's score is 9-4, the best of all candidates now running.

[pbrower2a]

Somebody fills the state polling data. There are no huge surprises here except for Alaska and Kansas.

Quote:

Quote:

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

The Civiqs tracking poll seems way more realistic than Morning Consult. Some key states (updated Oct 5):

Quote:Nevada: 38/59
Arizona: 45/52
Colorado: 39/58
Texas: 48/48
Kansas: 48/48
Iowa: 44/53
Minnesota: 40/58
Wisconsin: 45/52
Michigan: 44/53
Ohio: 48/48
Florida: 47/50
Georgia: 46/51
North Carolina: 45/52
Virginia: 40/57
Pennsylvania: 42/54
New Hampshire: 38/59
Maine: 41/56

Nationally, Trump's approval is 42/55.

I have seen relatively few recent statewide polls (VA, WI, OH) newer than these. It's good for some fill-ins and updates 

Others to fill in 
AL  57-40
AS  47-50
AR 62-35
CA 28-70
CT 34-62
DE 40-57
DC (don't be stupid, probably 15-83 at best for Trump)
HI 25-72
ID 59-38
IL 34-64
IN 52-45
KY 61-35
LA 53-44
MD 28-68
MA 24-73
MS 53-44
MO 52-44
MT 51-45
NJ 36-61
NM 40-56
ND 65-32
NE 54-43
OK 62-34
OR 33-64
RI 33-64
SC 49-47
SD 58-39 
TN 55-42
UT 49-45
VT 26-71
WA 32-65
WV 67-30
WY 65-31






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

Can anybody suggest to me why Trump can win if his disapproval numbers are 50% or higher in so many states barring miracles, fraud, or force?

[tg63]

(10-07-2019, 04:56 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Somebody fills the state polling data. There are no huge surprises here except for Alaska and Kansas.

Quote:

Quote:

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

The Civiqs tracking poll seems way more realistic than Morning Consult. Some key states (updated Oct 5):

Quote:Nevada: 38/59
Arizona: 45/52
Colorado: 39/58
Texas: 48/48
Kansas: 48/48
Iowa: 44/53
Minnesota: 40/58
Wisconsin: 45/52
Michigan: 44/53
Ohio: 48/48
Florida: 47/50
Georgia: 46/51
North Carolina: 45/52
Virginia: 40/57
Pennsylvania: 42/54
New Hampshire: 38/59
Maine: 41/56

Nationally, Trump's approval is 42/55.

I have seen relatively few recent statewide polls (VA, WI, OH) newer than these. It's good for some fill-ins and updates 

Others to fill in 
AL  57-40
AS  47-50
AR 62-35
CA 28-70
CT 34-62
DE 40-57
DC (don't be stupid, probably 15-83 at best for Trump)
HI 25-72
ID 59-38
IL 34-64
IN 52-45
KY 61-35
LA 53-44
MD 28-68
MA 24-73
MS 53-44
MO 52-44
MT 51-45
NJ 36-61
NM 40-56
ND 65-32
NE 54-43
OK 62-34
OR 33-64
RI 33-64
SC 49-47
SD 58-39 
TN 55-42
UT 49-45
VT 26-71
WA 32-65
WV 67-30
WY 65-31






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

Can anybody suggest to me why Trump can win if his disapproval numbers are 50% or higher in so many states barring miracles, fraud, or force?

Sure ...  a few reasons ... mathematically speaking, if the margin of error takes him below 50% in several of these, well, that would matter. Also, there are >12 months to go ... lots can change between now & then. Also, the challenger hasn't been finalized, people polled may have a different position when it goes from a theoretical question to a practical one. This is just off the top of my head.

[pbrower2a]

I see Donald Trump as a failed President, and as I recall Carter's people were delighted that "unelectible extremist" Ronald Reagan was the Republican nominee. We know how that turned out. Reagan was ready to do what it took to deal with stagflation, which was to get people to work more for less and create more productivity. Reagan successfully broke the expectations of young workers who got the signal that if they thought that they were not paid enough on their miserable low-paying jobs that they ought to get another miserable low-paying job to supplement their meager wages. Think of the 1980's -- never was there a better time to be a shopper or a diner when there were so many well-educated people working as waiters and store clerks.

I cannot see a vindication of this President. The impeachment process will continue and will be surprisingly swift. Democrats will impeach him in the House, and the Senate will try him. Democrats will find the High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Senate Republicans will have the marginal decision of removing or keeping him.

Four lines are possible. One is that the Senate will decide that he must be removed for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, in which case all the polling of approval and disapproval of President Trump becomes simply a statistical chronicle. This thread goes into the "dead thread" category and a new one such as "President Pence: polls of approval and disapproval" emerges. Related to this is that Donald Trump finds some non-judgmental cause for resignation such as "reasons of health". Maybe he has those. Problems of blood circulation? Syphilis or cocaine in the past, as both tend to make people cruel over time?

The other two involve acquittal. One is that the President comes out appearing innocent. Heck, serial killers such as Ted Bundy and John Gacy thought that they might walk out of the courtroom as free men instead of being hauled off to Death Row. I cannot see Trump acquitted on grounds of either complete innocence or the triviality of his offenses. Another is that Republicans let him get away with serious breaches of law and ethics. In such a case, the public will know what has happened and will blame elected Republicans for enabling some bad behavior by the President -- bad behavior that rips the checks and balances and holds statutory law in contempt. In that case I can imagine Trump losing the Presidency in 2020 much as Hoover did in 1932 or Carter did in 1980, with many of his Senate enablers going down to defeat with him.

Americans consistently loathe corruption and malfeasance and frequently vote against politicians who do gross misbehavior. They can defeat a crooked pol even in a wave election for his Party in an ultra-safe bailiwick. Example: the only incumbent Democratic Representative to go down to defeat in the 2008 Obama landslide was William "Cold Cash" Jefferson, a Democrat from Louisiana's Fourth Congressional District. The state notwithstanding, his district (mostly in greater New Orleans) is safe for just about any Democratic incumbent. Not if there is bribe money in the freezer as exposed by law enforcement.

[Eric the Green]

Real Clear Politics
President Trump Job Approval
Approve 42.1
Disapprove 54.0
Disapprove +11.9

[Anthony '58]

I've been saying this for literally decades, going back to the original T4T forum of which I was a member: The problem with disapproval ratings is that they don't tell you if the disapprovers of a conservative candidate do so because s/he is not conservative enough to suit them, or if the disapprovers of a liberal candidate do so because s/he is not liberal enough.

[pbrower2a]

(11-09-2019, 05:38 PM)Anthony Wrote: I've been saying this for literally decades, going back to the original T4T forum of which I was a member: The problem with disapproval ratings is that they don't tell you if the disapprovers of a conservative candidate do so because s/he is not conservative enough to suit them, or if the disapprovers of a liberal candidate do so because s/he is not liberal enough.

Donald Trump is no more reactionary than Reagan or either Bush. He is more abrasive and less competent.His corruption makes Warren G. Harding seem like Carter in integrity.

Even without an economic meltdown or a debacle of foreign policy, Trump has severe disapproval ratings. He can be hit from the Right on foreign policy, which is precisely what I see Schiff, Pelosi, et al doing. Trump makes Obama look by contrast like a practitioner of foreign policy that one best describes as a velvet glove over a mailed fist. (At the least, Obama recognized when such was necessary and appropriate.

Reagan may have been a nasty piece of work at times, but nobody ever questioned what country he stood for!

...When strong disapproval is around 50%, the usual techniques of electioneering, such as canvassing, do not work.

At this point eight years ago I saw Obama likely to win re-election. He would need a spirited and competent campaign to transform support around 45% into about 52% of the popular vote against the usual challenger. Mitt Romney was slightly better than the usual challenger to an incumbent who had solved more problems than he created. The Trump Presidency is infamous for chaos and corruption.

[Anthony '58]

(11-14-2019, 05:46 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-09-2019, 05:38 PM)Anthony Wrote: I've been saying this for literally decades, going back to the original T4T forum of which I was a member: The problem with disapproval ratings is that they don't tell you if the disapprovers of a conservative candidate do so because s/he is not conservative enough to suit them, or if the disapprovers of a liberal candidate do so because s/he is not liberal enough.

Donald Trump is no more reactionary than Reagan or either Bush. He is more abrasive and less competent.His corruption makes Warren G. Harding seem like Carter in integrity.

Even without an economic meltdown or a debacle of foreign policy, Trump has severe disapproval ratings. He can be hit from the Right on foreign policy, which is precisely what I see Schiff, Pelosi, et al doing. Trump makes Obama look by contrast like a practitioner of foreign policy that one best describes as a velvet glove over a mailed fist. (At the least, Obama recognized when such was necessary and appropriate.

Reagan may have been a nasty piece of work at times, but nobody ever questioned what country he stood for!

...When strong disapproval is around 50%, the usual techniques of electioneering, such as canvassing, do not work.

At this point eight years ago I saw Obama likely to win re-election. He would need a spirited and competent campaign to transform support around 45% into about 52% of the popular vote against the usual challenger. Mitt Romney was slightly better than the usual challenger to an incumbent who had solved more problems than he created. The Trump Presidency is infamous for chaos and corruption.

How soon some of us forget the 2016 Republican primary, when Marco Rubio and especially Ted Cruz campaigned to the right of Trump, at least on economic issues anyway - so I'd say that a lot of people, particularly in the country-club set, disapprove of Trump because he is not Social Darwinist enough.

And today's foreign affairs scene lacks the Cold War's stone-cold simplicity, and is far more like World War II, when we had to hold our noses and support Stalin to defeat Hitler - and I think we can all agree that Putin is a Cub Scout compared to Stalin (and, like Stalin, Putin is the enemy of our enemy - the global jihadist conspiracy - and therefore our friend, whether we like it or not.  Even China satisfies the same criterion).

[Eric the Green]

(11-18-2019, 07:08 PM)Anthony Wrote:

(11-14-2019, 05:46 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-09-2019, 05:38 PM)Anthony Wrote: I've been saying this for literally decades, going back to the original T4T forum of which I was a member: The problem with disapproval ratings is that they don't tell you if the disapprovers of a conservative candidate do so because s/he is not conservative enough to suit them, or if the disapprovers of a liberal candidate do so because s/he is not liberal enough.

Donald Trump is no more reactionary than Reagan or either Bush. He is more abrasive and less competent.His corruption makes Warren G. Harding seem like Carter in integrity.

Even without an economic meltdown or a debacle of foreign policy, Trump has severe disapproval ratings. He can be hit from the Right on foreign policy, which is precisely what I see Schiff, Pelosi, et al doing. Trump makes Obama look by contrast like a practitioner of foreign policy that one best describes as a velvet glove over a mailed fist. (At the least, Obama recognized when such was necessary and appropriate.

Reagan may have been a nasty piece of work at times, but nobody ever questioned what country he stood for!

...When strong disapproval is around 50%, the usual techniques of electioneering, such as canvassing, do not work.

At this point eight years ago I saw Obama likely to win re-election. He would need a spirited and competent campaign to transform support around 45% into about 52% of the popular vote against the usual challenger. Mitt Romney was slightly better than the usual challenger to an incumbent who had solved more problems than he created. The Trump Presidency is infamous for chaos and corruption.

How soon some of us forget the 2016 Republican primary, when Marco Rubio and especially Ted Cruz campaigned to the right of Trump, at least on economic issues anyway - so I'd say that a lot of people, particularly in the country-club set, disapprove of Trump because he is not Social Darwinist enough.

And today's foreign affairs scene lacks the Cold War's stone-cold simplicity, and is far more like World War II, when we had to hold our noses and support Stalin to defeat Hitler - and I think we can all agree that Putin is a Cub Scout compared to Stalin (and, like Stalin, Putin is the enemy of our enemy - the global jihadist conspiracy - and therefore our friend, whether we like it or not.  Even China satisfies the same criterion).

I wouldn't say that; Trump could lie and confuse people about his political views, but he has turned out to be as social darwinist as they come, and I would not say that Rubio and Cruz were to his right on that.

China and Russia under their current dictators may be better than Stalin, but that's not saying anything. These creepy dictators Putin and Xi Jin Ping are not our friends, but we don't need to go to war with them at the moment. 

Putin is not a good enemy of the jihadist conspiracy; given the chance to fight the IS, he bombs freedom fighters who are rising against Assad and innocent citizens instead. He protects the Turks in their assault on our allies against the IS. Putin is just a war criminal, which he proves in Ukraine as well.

But of course Trump likes these creeps just fine; especially Putin. Which only shows that he is in their company.

[Eric the Green]

(10-08-2019, 11:24 AM)tg63 Wrote:

(10-07-2019, 04:56 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Somebody fills the state polling data. There are no huge surprises here except for Alaska and Kansas.

Quote:

Quote:

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

The Civiqs tracking poll seems way more realistic than Morning Consult. Some key states (updated Oct 5):

Nationally, Trump's approval is 42/55.

I have seen relatively few recent statewide polls (VA, WI, OH) newer than these. It's good for some fill-ins and updates 

Others to fill in 
AL  57-40
AS  47-50
AR 62-35
CA 28-70
CT 34-62
DE 40-57
DC (don't be stupid, probably 15-83 at best for Trump)
HI 25-72
ID 59-38
IL 34-64
IN 52-45
KY 61-35
LA 53-44
MD 28-68
MA 24-73
MS 53-44
MO 52-44
MT 51-45
NJ 36-61
NM 40-56
ND 65-32
NE 54-43
OK 62-34
OR 33-64
RI 33-64
SC 49-47
SD 58-39 
TN 55-42
UT 49-45
VT 26-71
WA 32-65
WV 67-30
WY 65-31






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

Can anybody suggest to me why Trump can win if his disapproval numbers are 50% or higher in so many states barring miracles, fraud, or force?

Sure ...  a few reasons ... mathematically speaking, if the margin of error takes him below 50% in several of these, well, that would matter. Also, there are >12 months to go ... lots can change between now & then. Also, the challenger hasn't been finalized, people polled may have a different position when it goes from a theoretical question to a practical one. This is just off the top of my head.

These reasons are true, but the major factors are the electoral college and voter suppression. Many voters were taken off the rolls or had barriers erected against them in 2016 in swing states. And these states are close, while the margin against Trump is greater in the populous blue states than the margin favoring Trump is in the smaller red states. Plus a third party candidate can take a small percentage, and foreigners can do their best to interfere by posting fake news. All this means that Trump can win with 46% of the vote.

[Teejay]

Depending on who gets chosen as the Democratic nominee, Trump could win the 2020 election. However, it is likely Trump would lose the popular vote while winning a majority in the electoral college. Also, there will be along with voter suppression in some states, actual vote rigging through hacking of voting machines.

By the way, I have no doubt that vote-rigging occurred back in 2016. Because Trump was accusing the Democrats of rigging the election. Therefore; I am assuming if Trump lost in 2016, then Trump would have blamed his loss on vote-rigging by the Democrats, an allegation that I seriously believe that Trump will use if he gets defeated in 2020.

I wonder what will happen if Trump wins in 2020 despite losing the popular vote. Leading to many people realize that the election was rigged so that Trump could win?

[pbrower2a]

(11-19-2019, 12:13 AM)Teejay Wrote: Depending on who gets chosen as the Democratic nominee, Trump could win the 2020 election. However, it is likely Trump would lose the popular vote while winning a majority in the electoral college. Also, there will be along with voter suppression in some states, actual vote rigging through hacking of voting machines.

By the way, I have no doubt that vote-rigging occurred back in 2016. Because Trump was accusing the Democrats of rigging the election. Therefore; I am assuming if Trump lost in 2016, then Trump would have blamed his loss on vote-rigging by the Democrats, an allegation that I seriously believe that Trump will use if he gets defeated in 2020.

I wonder what will happen if Trump wins in 2020 despite losing the popular vote. Leading to many people realize that the election was rigged so that Trump could win?

The last three Presidents (Clinton, Dubya, and Obama) got re-elected much as they were elected the first time. Five states switched between 1992 and 1996, Clinton dropping Colorado, Georgia, and Montana while picking up Arkansas and Florida. Three states flipped from 2000 to 2004, Dubya dropping New Hampshire but picking up Iowa and New Mexico. Two states (Indiana and North Carolina)  and NE-02 flipped, all away from Obama between 2008 and 2012.  If President Trump were in as strong position in which to get re-elected in 2020 as in 2016, then maybe Trump would lose two of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, while picking up some states that he barely lost (Maine at-large? Minnesota? New Hampshire?) and win the electoral vote while losing the popular vote. 

Patterns exist for good reason, but they also break for good reason. Extrapolation of a trend is one of the riskiest predictions for the minuscule benefit.  

Yes, Clinton would be impeached, but for something that most people came to think a triviality. So he lied about consensual sex. Big f---ing deal! Dubya had an administration with problems that would snowball into a disaster while a speculative boom ended in a financial panic -- but not until after he was re-elected.  Obama offered more of the same in 2012 as in 2008 as an administrator... and a Presidency that didn't create new problems. Maybe some people found that Obama solved their problems for them and sought to go on with someone else. (Example: Obama presided to an end of a monetary crunch, a financial meltdown, and a spike in energy prices that threatened the recreational vehicle (RV) industry important to the Indiana economy. RV's are obviously big-ticket items that people can often put off buying; a credit crunch makes buying one on credit much more difficult; and RV's devour gasoline about like a large dog devours meat if given the chance. That is an odd way for Indiana voters to thank Obama, but Indiana voters could revert to old patterns with impunity starting in 2010. 

On the other side, every President is unique. Trump has the most distinctive curriculum vitae that any President has ever had, having no experience in elected office of any kind, having never been a member of any federal Cabinet position, and not being a war hero. He got elected on his reputation of getting things done as an entrepreneur. 

President Trump has done little to win people over to him between 2016 and 2020 except to give huge tax cuts to a few. His behavior is erratic in the extreme, and he has done nothing to mitigate his tendency to insult people not in his coalition. He is monstrously corrupt, dishonest, and cruel. 

Blackmailing a foreign head of state solely for his political advantage is a horrific crime. To be sure, the President might need to lay down the law -- but if laying down that law means suppressing slavery, piracy, drug-trafficking, banditry, or terrorism, the demand can come with promises to strengthen the sovereignty of the national leader elsewhere. 

I know of corrupt politicians who went down to electoral defeat due to scandals even though everything seemed to go right for their Party that year. Of course, that has never involved the President before; it has involved Governors, Senators, and State Representatives.

Trump is not going to win back many people who voted against him. He has done nothing to undo the dread that many had of him. His behavior is not going to become more conciliatory. He has not achieved any workable compromises. 

Add to that, he has failed miserably at the promises that he made. Imagine that you are an iron miner in Minnesota, and you heard Trump promise improvements in infrastructure. That means a huge increase in investments in public projects. Concrete highways  and iron bridges devour huge amounts of iron and thus iron ore. Skyscrapers are practically steel-and-glass crates... That means that iron workers get more hours on the job and might get relatives to get well-paid jobs as iron miners instead of doing low-paying jobs.  People not fit to work in the iron mines find that the better-paid and new iron workers spend more money at the casual-dining restaurant and give bigger tips. So if you are a waitress at the local Applebee's you get some more money for Christmas presents, at the least.

Trump's solution was to add exorbitant tolls that go to his cronies, which means that fewer people use the roads... and there might be no reason to raise their carrying capacity.  Make something more costly to use, and fewer people will use it. Such was not going to require a huge expenditure on rebars and the iron ore that foundries churn out of iron ore. So good politics is making deals. Nobody quite gets everything that he wants, and nobody gets shut out. Trump's deals are one-sided in the extreme: those who fail to support him get only the shaft. Trump is about as bad at that as LBJ was good at that. 

There is no magic in three successive two-term Presidencies.

[pbrower2a]

The active military disapproves of the President.

Quote:President Donald Trump received a loud ovation when he participated in the coin toss ahead of Saturday’s Army-Navy football rivalry game in Philadelphia. But troops’ actual feelings about the commander in chief appear much more ambivalent in the latest Military Times survey.

Half of active-duty military personnel contacted in the poll held an unfavorable view of President Trump, showing a continued decline in his approval rating since he was elected in 2016.

Trump’s 42 percent approval in the latest poll, conducted from Oct. 23 to Dec. 2, sets his lowest mark in the survey since being elected president. Some 50 percent of troops said they had an unfavorable view of him. By comparison, just a few weeks after his electoral victory in November 2016, 46 percent of troops surveyed had a positive view of the businessman-turned-politician, and 37 percent had a negative opinion.

But the latest numbers still leave Trump with a higher approval rating than former President Barack Obama when he left office in January 2017.

The numbers also show that Trump remains slightly more popular in the military community than among the American public as a whole. The latest Gallup poll had the president’s disapproval rating among the public at 54 percent, and his approval at 43 percent.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/penta...oll-shows/

[David Horn]

(11-19-2019, 12:13 AM)Teejay Wrote: Depending on who gets chosen as the Democratic nominee, Trump could win the 2020 election. However, it is likely Trump would lose the popular vote while winning a majority in the electoral college. Also, there will be along with voter suppression in some states, actual vote rigging through hacking of voting machines.

By the way, I have no doubt that vote-rigging occurred back in 2016. Because Trump was accusing the Democrats of rigging the election. Therefore; I am assuming if Trump lost in 2016, then Trump would have blamed his loss on vote-rigging by the Democrats, an allegation that I seriously believe that Trump will use if he gets defeated in 2020.

I wonder what will happen if Trump wins in 2020 despite losing the popular vote. Leading to many people realize that the election was rigged so that Trump could win?

This is a good question.  trump is OK winning on any level, so nothing from that side.  If voting irregularities seem to have tilted it toward Trump, let's hope that the House and/or the Senate are in the hands of Democrats, or the next four years will be hell.  

Then, there is the other possibility.  What if Trump loses by something less than a wide margin in the Electoral College.  Will he go quietly?

[pbrower2a]

One of the last polls that I expect to see from 2019 due to the impending Holidays. I apologize for posting it in three different threads, but it is germane to impeachment, the 2020 election, and polling:

:Morning Consult/Politico, Dec. 19-20, 1387 RV (prior poll Dec. 14-15)

This poll was conducted entirely after the House impeachment vote.

Approve 41 (nc)
Disapprove 56 (+1)

Strongly approve 27 (+3)
Strongly disapprove 46 (+2)

Do you approve or disapprove of the House of Representatives impeaching President Trump? (Previous wording: would you approve of...)

Approve 52 (+2)
Disapprove 43 (nc)

And would you approve or disapprove of the Senate removing President Trump from office?

Approve 51 (+1)
Disapprove 42 (-1)