Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Generational Dynamics World View
I post frequently on a Forum on elections, and one thing I track is polling data for its relevance in predicting the next Presidential election. Here is approval of the President. I give highest priority to the most recent poll, as such may reflect a news item. Polls have been relatively stable for the President for about a year. The President has been remarkably effective at ensuring that he keeps offending the same people and not offending new ones.

I do not have favorability polls here. They appeared early and reelated whether people liked the President. Approval is about achievement and result.

The color scheme is opposite of what you might expect, as this scheme comes from an entity that uses red for Democrats and blue for Republicans in accordance with pre-1980 practice. It deals in the history of elections. I have no desire to make waves on that site.


[Image: genusmap.php?year=2012&ev_c=1&pv_p=1&ev_...NE3=2;55;7]

55% or higher dark blue
50-54% medium blue
less than 50% but above disapproval pale blue
even white
46% to 50% but below disapproval pale red
42% to 45% medium red
under 42% deep red

States and districts hard to see:

CT 39
DC 17
DE 39
HI 33
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 45
NE-02 38
NE-03 55
NH 39
RI 30
VT 32

Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.

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

Now I consider a measure that suggests a ceiling for the Trump (but not conservative!) vote. People who disapprove of the President are not going to vote for him. I am not going to say that they will vote for the Democrat -- but they may

(1) not vote for the President, but vote for Republicans for other offices
(2) vote for an independent or third-party, likely conservative nominee.
(3) vote for the Democrat.

OK -- what about the undecided?  Because the polling in all states is at a level at which the undecided are on the Right side of the political spectrum, at least in each state. Trump should thus do better with the undecided than the Democrat can do. But with those who disapprove, persuasion will be very difficult. People who disapprove of the President don;t want to hear how great President Trump is. Canvassers can talk to the undecided, and often get the chance. 5those who have decided will turn away a canvasser if the canvasser does not get the message.

100-disapproval is a reasonable ceiling for the possible Trump vote. At this I say that if President Trump is behind in approval and disapproval 46-49 he has a chance of getting 51% of the vote, and in this model I am giving the benefit of the doubt to Trump.

100-Disapproval


[Image: genusmap.php?year=2012&ev_c=1&pv_p=1&ev_...NE3=2;66;7]

55% or higher dark blue
50% to 54% or higher but not tied medium blue
50% or higher but positive pale blue

ties white

45% or higher and negative pale red
40% to 44% medium red
under 40% deep red

States and districts hard to see:

CT 41
DC 20
DE 43
HI 36
NH 49
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 55
NE-02 46
NE-03 66
RI 30
VT 36


Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.

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

There is an even better question on whether people will vote for or against the incumbent President. I have this for only six states, but I can hardly think of six states more relevant to whether Donald Trump will be re-elected. Those six states are Minnesota (which he barely lost); Florida, Michigan, and Wisconsin, which he barely won; Arizona, which he won by less than 4% (margin of error), and Ohio, which he won by 8%. He projects to lose all six states by decisive margins. He can afford to lose two of those states, but not all six. With the result for Ohio, I can't imagine him winning Pennsylvania. With the result for Arizona I can't imagine him losing Nevada 

*With the explicit question of whether the President should or should not be re-elected, or 100-DIS if such is all that is available:


Re-elect/do not re-elect if known; 100-DIS otherwise


[Image: 58;7&OK=2;62;7&OR=1;41;5&PA=1;45;5&RI=1;...NE3=2;66;7]

100-DIS

55% or higher dark blue
50% to 54% or higher but not tied medium blue
50% or higher but positive pale blue

ties white

45% or higher and negative pale red (or 55% do-not-reelect or higher)
40% to 44% medium red (or 50 to 54% do-not-reelect or higher)
under 40% deep red (or 50% or less do-not-reelect if do-not re-elect if do-not-reelect is higher than reelect)
Ties for elect and re-elect are also in white.

States and districts hard to see:

CT 41
DC 20
DE 43
FL 37-54*
HI 36
MI 28-62*
NH 49
NJ 37
RI 30
NE-01 55
NE-02 46
NE-03 66
RI 30
VT 36


Nebraska districts are shown as 1, 2, and 3 from left to right on the map, even if they are geographically 3, 1, and 2 from west to east.


Nothing from before November 2017. Polls from Alabama and New Jersey are exit polls from 2017 elections. 

......

One need not be very far to the Left to hate Donald Trump. Indeed, I can make conservative arguments against Donald Trump.  Yes, there are people who think that Donald Trump is a wonderful President and will be distraught when he goes down to defeat. At this point he is going to need either miracles or a rigged election to get re-elected.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by radind - 05-14-2016, 03:21 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by radind - 05-23-2016, 10:31 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by radind - 08-11-2016, 08:59 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by SomeGuy - 01-18-2017, 09:23 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by tg63 - 02-04-2017, 10:08 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 03-13-2017, 03:33 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by SomeGuy - 03-15-2017, 02:56 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by SomeGuy - 03-15-2017, 03:13 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 05-30-2017, 01:04 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 07-08-2017, 01:34 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by tg63 - 08-09-2017, 11:07 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by tg63 - 08-10-2017, 02:38 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 10-25-2017, 03:07 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by rds - 10-31-2017, 03:35 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by rds - 10-31-2017, 06:33 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by noway2 - 11-20-2017, 04:31 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 12-28-2017, 11:00 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 12-31-2017, 11:14 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 06-22-2018, 02:54 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 07-11-2018, 01:42 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 07-11-2018, 01:54 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 07-19-2018, 12:43 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 07-25-2018, 02:18 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 07-11-2018, 01:58 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by pbrower2a - 08-12-2018, 07:48 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 08-18-2018, 03:42 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Galen - 08-19-2018, 04:39 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by tg63 - 09-25-2019, 11:12 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 03-09-2020, 02:11 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Camz - 03-10-2020, 10:10 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by tg63 - 03-12-2020, 11:11 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by JDG 66 - 03-16-2020, 03:21 PM
RE: 58 year rule - by Tim Randal Walker - 04-01-2020, 11:17 AM
RE: 58 year rule - by John J. Xenakis - 04-02-2020, 12:25 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by Isoko - 05-04-2020, 02:51 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by tg63 - 01-04-2021, 12:13 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by CH86 - 01-05-2021, 11:17 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by mamabug - 01-10-2021, 06:16 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by mamabug - 01-11-2021, 09:06 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by mamabug - 01-12-2021, 02:53 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by mamabug - 01-13-2021, 03:58 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by mamabug - 01-13-2021, 04:16 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by mamabug - 01-15-2021, 03:36 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by galaxy - 08-19-2021, 03:03 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by galaxy - 08-21-2021, 01:41 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by galaxy - 02-27-2022, 06:06 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by galaxy - 02-27-2022, 10:42 PM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by galaxy - 02-28-2022, 12:26 AM
RE: Generational Dynamics World View - by galaxy - 02-28-2022, 04:08 PM

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Why the social dynamics viewpoint to the Strauss-Howe generational theory is wrong Ldr 5 4,825 06-05-2020, 10:55 PM
Last Post: pbrower2a
  Theory: cyclical generational hormone levels behind the four turnings and archetypes Ldr 2 3,408 03-16-2020, 06:17 AM
Last Post: Ldr
  The Fall of Cities of the Ancient World (42 Years) The Sacred Name of God 42 Letters Mark40 5 4,692 01-08-2020, 08:37 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green
  Generational cycle research Mikebert 15 16,281 02-08-2018, 10:06 AM
Last Post: pbrower2a
Video Styxhexenhammer666 and his view of historical cycles. Kinser79 0 3,340 08-27-2017, 06:31 PM
Last Post: Kinser79

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 10 Guest(s)