Donald Trump: polls of approval and favorability

[pbrower2a]

[size=10pt]Gallup Trump approvals in all 50 states[/size]

Cautionary note: this data was gathered throughout the whole of 2018, so take it with a grain of salt.  But it's a lot better than no data.  Summary:

Quote:Although much can change between now and Election Day 2020, a job approval rating of 50% or higher would presumably put Trump in good position to win a state in the presidential election. The 17 states with 50%+ approval ratings account for a combined total of 102 electoral votes. In contrast, the states in which Trump has an approval rating below 40% account for 201 electoral votes.

In order to get to the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency, Trump would have to win all but one or two of the states in which his 2018 approval rating was between 41% and 49%. Some of the more challenging states to win from among this group, based on that approval rating, would be Texas (41%); Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan (all at 42%); and Arizona and Florida (43%).

OK. Out with the crayons on the map. This is not to be confused with my display of the most recent credible polls siince the 2018 midterm electionl Every state that Trump lost in 2016 in which his approval rating is at 40%  or less is in maroon. There is no polling data on the District of Columbia, but we don't have to be stupid. Every state in which Trump approval is at 55% or higher is in navy blue.

Gallup 2018 data only.



Based on approval ratings, every one of these states should be double-digit wins for the Democrat or for Trump. The amazing facet of this map is that every state that Trump lost even by a small margin in 2016 is seemingly out of reach for him. His barest loss was New Hampshire, where the approval number for him is 35-58. The shakiest of these states against him is Nevada, at 40-55. 55% disapproval means that 55% of the voters will not vote for one. 55% approval seals a double-digit win.

Trump
approval 55% or higher
lost in 2016, approval 40% or lower, disapproval 55% or higher, and the majority of the statewide House vote going to Democrats
losses in 2016, approval 40% or lower

(OK, let's cut the verbiage for the likely electoral disaster for the President:

approval 55% or higher
Trump loss in 2016, approval numbers 40%A 55%D or worse, total US House races majority D

If you think that the vote of 2016 is irrelevant to 2020 -- then you are right. But note that every state in deep red has shown that

(1)Trump lost in 2016
(2) Trump approval is 40% or lower with disapproval over 55%
(3) in all of these states (DC is disqualified on this point because it does not elect a delegate to Congress), Democrats won the overall majority of the vote for Congressional seats, but we don't have any cause to believe that Trump would win the District of Columbia.

If Trump were doing something to keep some of the marginal  constituencies that he won in 2016 and cut into marginal constituencies that chose to vote against him, there would not be so large a collection of states that I already see by every possible criterion for at least one year going against him gives him only 40% approval and a full 55% disapproval (the state is Nevada), he must do freakishly well elsewhere.  Sure, Obama picked up nothing in 2016 from 2012, but he did not end up losing Georgia or Arizona by double-digit margins. His Party was clobbered in all of these states in the Congressional elections of 2018.

There's not much wiggle room for some incumbent who states in the face of 230 or more electoral votes in which one reasonably projects to lose by double-digit margins that one lost in the previous election. Sure, Trump can win by winning everything outside the zone of states that he lost in 2016, but when the 'best' state for him that he lost in the previous election. Trump's barest losses in 2016 illustrate that he has not been gaining good will in states that must reasonably closer than this if he has to have a chance in 2020:


Colorado 39-56
Maine 37-61
Minnesota 39-57
New Hampshire 35-58
Nevada 40-55
Virginia 40-56


(OK -- Ronald Reagan's GOP did badly in the 1982 Congressional election and won a landslide in 1984. Like Trump, Reagan inflicted some pain, but anyone who sees Trump as a new Reagan misses some important points. Ronald Reagan followed the script that others gave him, and he was effective in expressing why it was necessary for Americans to reduce their economic expectations to beat stagflation. Stagflation, which practically no American liked, was gone in 1984. Reagan and people who could say "no" to him achieved something. A President surrounded by yes-men, Trump is simply offending people in the political center. Add to this, the sobriquet "Great Communicator" applied to someone who honed his skills in appealing to the public in the best school for such possible in America -- the film industry in the Golden Age of cinema. Maybe he wasn't quite in the league with such stars as H. Bogart, J. Cagney, C. Gable, G. Cooper, H. Fonda, J. Wayne, J. Stewart, B. Lancaster, G. Peck, L. Nielson, or P. Newman -- but  he was good. One needed a smooth delivery to work in Hollywood back in those days.   Trump is a sick joke as a performer in his Apprentice.

Now in medium shades of red (states that Trump won in 2016, Trump approval is at 45A-51D or worse, and the Democrats won the majority of the House vote:





approval 55% or higher
approval 50%  to 54%
white -- Trump approval under 50% but tied or positive in net
Trump approval 45% or lower and net negative
Trump approval numbers 45%A 51%D or lower, Democrats won the majority of the House seats
Trump loss in 2016, approval numbers 40%A 55%D or worse, total US House races majority D

Note well that President Trump won everything not in maroon (deep red) in 2016, and he is not going to get any of it. If you are not going to pick up any loss from the prior election and you want to get re-elected, then you had better have started with at least 325 electoral votes to avoid losing, which means that you had better be at least as good as Obama in stopping losses. (Obama went from 365 to 332, and he came close to losing Florida, which would have made a close election in the Electoral College).   Of course, Obama lost the two states that he won with less than 50% of the popular vote in 2008, the two states in which he should have been most vulnerable -- and the wayward NE-02.

Trump is not winning people over, and when someone gets elected with the level of initial support that he got, he will have to win some people over. His House majority vanished, which I see especially relevant (states in medium red) in those states in which the statewide vote went against the President's Party in Congress. As an example, Iowa went to Trump by 9% in 2016, but Iowa voters certainly took it out on the Republican delegation to Congress. Demographics may be hurting Trump in Arizona, which was close in 2016. Trump's barest losses in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin have hideous approval numbers for him.

The thrill is gone, baby!

It gets worse. States in pink are  all must-win states for the President, and Gallup polling (and 2019 polling) are awful for him.

In theory anything is possible. The President can reshape the political climate with FDR-style leadership... if he is FDR and America is ready for it. The big reality for now is that Donald Trump won everything not in maroon on the map, because that makes him President and gives him the theoretical ability to lead America into a new age in which they trust big landowners, shysters, urban landlords, religious hucksters, and business executives more than they trust people who  fail to believe in the wonders of a pure plutocracy because of global warming, multiculturalism, Marxism, or godlessness. In 2020 people will be judging whether he has "made America great again" -- for themselves.

Trump is closer to a Berzelius Windrip (from Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here) than to any President that anyone can have admired in the past. Heck, Warren Gamaliel Harding would be an improvement!

But I show my bias here. In theory the Chicago White Sox (no, I do not confuse them with the Cubbies!) could win the World Series this year. All that the White Sox need do is to find the new Ted Williams, Ernie Banks, Warren Spahn, Catfish Hunter, and Lefty Grove all at once. I'm picking the Yankees -- they are really good, and it is their turn. I am not a Yankees fan. I live in Michigan, which should explain much. "My" Tigers somehow avoided losing 100 games last year, and I predict them to be that bad next year. I try to be neutral in my predictions.