Donald Trump: polls of approval and favorability

[pbrower2a]

Say what you want about FoX Propaganda Channel, but at least it does good polling.

December 9-11

Approve: 46% (strongly 27%)
Disapprove 52% (strongly 42%)

But how do people think they will be voting? 




This is worse, and likely more accurate and relevant , than my cautious measure of 100-DISapproval as a predictor of a re-election bid for an incumbent if I dislike the President (or other incumbent).

This is how people see the 2020 Presidential election shaping up:



This is consistent with polls of six state polls of a few months back by Marist polling that a majority of voters in Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin in which a majority wanted someone other than Donald Trump to be elected President in 2020. Trump lost only one of those states (barely), won four of them by margins less than 4%, and won two by 8% or more. I shall try to recover that information. I took that data as overpowering evidence that President Trump would lose a re-election bid.

That is not to say that some other Republican would lose as the Republican nominee as President.Thus if he were to cease being President due to resignation, death, or incapacitation such data would become completely irrelevant.  This also does not say that the Democrat would get 55%, let alone 61%, of the popular vote; if only 39% of the electorate chooses to vote for Donald Trump, then such implies that a conservative alternative is getting at least 6% of the popular vote.

If I am to use Jimmy Carter as a model of an electoral failure in a re-election bid (and I cannot see Trump doing much worse), then it is possible that the vote splits 51 (about what Obama did in 2008) - 41 Trump - 6 for someone who offers  a more traditional sort of conservatism. Anyone 45 or older is familiar with such an election. That is how Reagan did in 1980, winning all but 49 electoral votes.

Let me make this abundantly clear: Jimmy Carter is a man of integrity and decency; he is about as good a person as Donald Trump isn't.  But know this well: we have never had a President with such pervasive and systematic corruption as Donald Trump. I could have as easily spoken of Herbert Hoover, whose re-election bid is so far back that one would be almost as old as Jimmy Carter to remember. Hoover managed to get about 40% of the popular vote and 59 electoral votes in 1932 after bungling the response to the worst economic meltdown in eighty years -- before or after. But Hoover was at least a man of integrity and personal decency.

I can think of scenarios in which either Mike Pence or even Paul Ryan becomes President and runs for re-election in 2020; in either case everything that I say about a Trump bid for re-election becomes irrelevant.

[pbrower2a]

Here is some old polling data asking the question in three states:



This is from July, so this data is already obsolete.

Marist polls asking the question of "elect or not re-elect" went

Arizona 35-57
Florida 37-54
Ohio 34-58

in June.

All in all I suspect that those last three states are more Republican than the US as a whole, so the old Marist polls might now overstate current opinion on whether to elect or not re-elect the President. Arizona and Florida have shown themselves close to the national average, and the 8% margin that Trump won Ohio by will not hold up. I am guessing that the FoX News numbers show America with 6% more proclivity to vote for President Trump than Marist polls showed in June and July. So adding 6% to 're-elect' and take 4% from 'elect someone else', and one gets

AZ 41-51
FL 43-48
MI 34-56
MN 36-54
OH 40-52
WI 37-57

(Regrettably I have no numbers on any other states except for a poll in New Hampshire that I must reject for comparison due to some ambiguity as an analogue. Trump was doing badly there).

The variance from the national average with an assumption that the Marist polls are off by 6% from current reality (they may have been accurate in the summer, but that is past) are

AZ R+2
FL R+4
MI D+5
MN D+3
OH R+1
WI D+2

I would love to see results for some other states: Georgia, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. On the other hand, we may see a Presidency imploding in the wake of prison terms for some Trump associates.

[pbrower2a]

Marist, Dec 4 release, somehow missed. Highlights:

adults 44-52
Northeast 42-53
Midwest 42-54
South 49-47
West 40-57

college grad 42-55
not college grad 46-49
white 51-45
black 21-77
Latino 35-64

white college grad 43-56
white non-college 60-38

18-29 27-71
30-44 42-53
45-59 52-45
60+ 55-42

Men 52-45
Women 37-58
white evangelical Christian 72-23

big city 31-68
small city 43-53
suburban 38-57
small town 54-40
rural 61-35

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/...pdf#page=3

[pbrower2a]

Morning Consult/Politico, Dec. 14-16, 1994 RV (1-week change)

Approve 41 (-2)
Disapprove 55 (+4)

Strongly approve 22 (nc)
Strongly disapprove 42 (+4)

(Morning Call for Politico)

This is one of the most unflattering polls ever of the Trump Administration from this pollster.

Two critical questions:

POL13
Do you think President Trump’s campaign worked with Russia to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election?

Yes, I think President Trump’s campaign worked with Russia to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. 806 (45%)

No, I don’t think President Trump’s campaign worked
with Russia to influence the outcome of the 2016
presidential election. 709 (36%)

Don’t know / No opinion 389 (20%)

POL14

And do you think President Trump has tried to impede or obstruct the investigation
into whether his campaign had ties to Russia?

Yes, I think President Trump has tried to impede or obstruct the investigation into whether his campaign had ties to Russia. 966 (48%)

No, I don’t think President Trump has tried to impede or obstruct the investigation into whether his campaign had ties to Russia. 652 (33%)

Don’t know / No opinion 375 (19%)

Nearly half of the people polled believe that the President has committed a crime of some kind either to get elected or to thwart an investigation of his real or imagined connection to Russian figures trying to get him elected.

...When the President says "No collusion!" he calls attention to what nearly half the American people believe to be true. As people implicated in the dirty dealings of the Trump campaign start telling their stories in federal courts, things will get really bad. Robert Mueller has offered much leniency in return for what sounds like damning testimony.

I have found that people genuinely innocent do not proclaim their innocence at every turn. They have other things to do.

I try to avoid getting ahead of the news; I claim no prophetic powers, and I prefer to let people in better position to tell what happened tell their stories. Their specifics are far more useful than my generalities.

[pbrower2a]

Quote:An analysis of VoteCast, a nationwide poll of more than 115,000 midterm voters conducted for The Associated Press by NORC at the University of Chicago, highlights the fractures.

Compared with the 27% of voters who describe themselves as strong Trump supporters, the "somewhat" Trump voters are much more likely to disapprove of Trump on key issues such as immigration and health care, and to express divergent opinions on a need for a border wall, gun control and climate change. They are much more likely to question his trustworthiness and temperament.

They are less likely to call themselves conservative, less likely to be evangelical Christians and more likely to have voted for Democrats in 2018. They are more educated, somewhat more likely to be women, and more likely to live in suburbs.

https://www.businessinsider.com/poll-sho...=buffer-bi

[Classic-Xer]

(11-29-2018, 01:53 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: You ought to see the word cloud about Trump in Massachusetts. "Great" figures large, but somehow 33% of the state's registered voters believe in him (which must be one of the lowest levels.

The second-largest word is "liar", with other words including "incompetent", "evil", "idiot", "despicable", "disgusting", "disaster", "stupid", "corrupt", and the two charmers "asshole" and "fascist".

What about fuckhead? Do you hear any mention or see any sign of the term fuckhead being used yet?

[Ragnarök_62]

(12-27-2018, 08:10 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-29-2018, 01:53 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: You ought to see the word cloud about Trump in Massachusetts. "Great" figures large, but somehow 33% of the state's registered voters believe in him (which must be one of the lowest levels.

The second-largest word is "liar", with other words including "incompetent", "evil", "idiot", "despicable", "disgusting", "disaster", "stupid", "corrupt", and the two charmers "asshole" and "fascist".

What about fuckhead? Do you hear  any mention or see any sign  of the term fuckhead being used yet?

Yes, and lots of other stuff.  https://thehardtimes.net/opinion/opinion...hes-doing/

[Classic-Xer]

(12-27-2018, 09:05 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(12-27-2018, 08:10 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-29-2018, 01:53 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: You ought to see the word cloud about Trump in Massachusetts. "Great" figures large, but somehow 33% of the state's registered voters believe in him (which must be one of the lowest levels.

The second-largest word is "liar", with other words including "incompetent", "evil", "idiot", "despicable", "disgusting", "disaster", "stupid", "corrupt", and the two charmers "asshole" and "fascist".

What about fuckhead? Do you hear any mention or see any sign  of the term fuckhead being used yet?

Yes, and lots of other stuff.  https://thehardtimes.net/opinion/opinion...hes-doing/

Funny, he shares my views and he speaks my language too.

[pbrower2a]

(12-27-2018, 08:10 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-29-2018, 01:53 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: You ought to see the word cloud about Trump in Massachusetts. "Great" figures large, but somehow 33% of the state's registered voters believe in him (which must be one of the lowest levels nationwide).

The second-largest word is "liar", with other words including "incompetent", "evil", "idiot", "despicable", "disgusting", "disaster", "stupid", "corrupt", and the two charmers "asshole" and "fascist".

What about f***head? Do you hear  any mention or see any sign  of the term fuckhead being used yet?

Except for "asshole", which I have modified into "pass-hole" to describe people in a hurry to pass others on the highway, liberals generally are stronger in word fluency and can cut others up with words without using blatant curse words or ethnic slurs.

I'm guessing that the word cloud did not include variants and derivations of the f-bomb.

I would have used "dictatorial" and "despotic".

[pbrower2a]

I had an approval poll for only one state  (Massachusetts)  after the 2018 election (no surprise -- Massachusetts voters despise him, but what could you expect of the state which had been the first of the Colonies to turn against George III). I now have seven more. The real surprise is Alaska,
a state that has gone for a Democratic nominee for President only once in its 60-year history (Alaska turns 60 as a state this year).

Alaska is tough to poll because despite its small population it has sharp regional and ethnic divides.  The large sample size for a state with only three electoral votes.  Except for Texas, no US state has more regional diversity.

Of these seven states, five voted for Trump in 2016,  and the two that didn't (Colorado and Maine project as double-digit losses for Trump in 2020 because disapproval is over 55%; besides, a favorability poll in Colorado showed that only 36% of Colorado voters want Trump re-elected). Trump would have to be as effective a campaigner as Obama in 2020 to hold onto any state in which his disapproval is now at 50% or higher, and I don't see that. Bad polling numbers for Trump in Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, and North Carolina are nothing new.

Of the four states that look like potential swing states in 2020, how I see them lining up in 2020 with others:

(one of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin -- Trump loses if he loses all three) 272
Iowa 278
Nevada 284
Arizona 295
North Carolina 310
Second Congressional District of Nebraska (NE-02) 311
Second Congressional District of Maine (ME-02) 312
Florida 341
Ohio 359
Georgia 375
Texas 413

Until I see something else, the Alaska poll could be an outlier. Even if it is not an outlier, maybe such states as Indiana, Kansas, and Montana go D before Alaska. On the other hand, the incumbent Senator from Alaska up for re-election has a low approval number, and that may be far more important in 2020 than three electoral votes.

A bunch of PPP state polls from Jan. 7-8:

Alaska (N=898): 47/50

Arizona (N=741): 46/51

Colorado (N=706): 40/56

Georgia (N=943): 46/51

Iowa (N=1031): 45/52

Maine (N=1082): 40/56

North Carolina (N=949): 46/50

How these states 'fall' for Democrats, except for Maine (two districts that cast individual electoral votes and get very different results), and Alaska, for which I have very little polling data



Trump approval:



With cumulative electoral vote totals in each category.

55% and higher
50-54%
49% or less and positive
tie (white) 1
44-49% and negative 20
40-43% 12
under 40%  37

An asterisk will be applied to any state in which the President's approval rating is above 43% but under 50% for which the disapproval rating is 50% or higher. 50% disapproval or higher indicates severe danger of that state not going for the President in the next election.


42 more states, and 468 electoral votes to go!

[pbrower2a]

National polling data:

With the 2020 presidential election already underway, 57 percent of registered voters said they would definitely vote against President Donald Trump, according to the latest poll from the PBS NewsHour, NPR and Marist.
Another 30 percent of voters said they would cast their ballot to support Trump, and an additional 13 percent said they had no idea who would get their vote.

Although the election is still nearly two years away, the large number of voters who oppose Trump as well as his low approval ratings suggest the president faces a “steep, steep incline” in winning re-election, said Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion.

“The president has had his base and not much else,” Miringoff added.


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/57...mp-in-2020

[pbrower2a]

Not since 1984 have we had a Presidential election have we had a Presidential nominee face a 57-43 defeat or worse (Mondale) in a binary election. Not since 1980 have we had a Presidential incumbent get less than 43% of the popular vote.

[Bill the Piper]

How about that?

In 2008 Obama was the anti-war candidate, and he won.
In 2016 Trump was the anti-war candidate, and he won. Hillary Clinton was seen by many as the warmonger, the neo-con.

If the Democratic candidate in 2020 is seen as more pro-war than Trump, he will loose.

[pbrower2a]

(01-23-2019, 11:34 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: How about that?

In 2008 Obama was the anti-war candidate, and he won.
In 2016 Trump was the anti-war candidate, and he won. Hillary Clinton was seen by many as the warmonger, the neo-con.

If the Democratic candidate in 2020 is seen as more pro-war than Trump, he will lose.

People are anti-war, but they distrust defeatists and appeasers. I see Trump having made a bad deal with North Korea, and Americans see reports that the deal that President Trump made served his vanity more than it served any of America's friends in the region (South Korea, Japan) or frenemies (China and Russia).  

The defeatist is the person against a strong and effective defense because he wants the sort of government that could never win a free election. Think of the Russian Hard left going into 1914 or the French Hard Right in the late 1930s. Such people are simply traitors -- often known eponymously as 'quislings'.

The appeaser is the sort of person who thinks that he can save his life by sacrificing his friends to the crocodiles. The crocodiles are delighted.

Trump is simply a useful idiot for Vladimir Putin.

[pbrower2a]

New York State only: Quinnipiac, Jan. 16-21, 929 RV (change from July)

Approve 29 (-7)
Disapprove 67 (+10)
[/quote]

This is New York State, where Donald Trump is better known than anywhere else, and for all that, one state in which he has been least successful in winning voters over. I suspect that Q is calibrating itself for other statewide polls, as of Florida, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and even Texas.

I doubt that anyone ever expected President Trump to get a flattering poll from New York. To put it as bluntly as possible, Donald Trump is the New Yorker that one loves to hate, and I don't mean Yankees fans at Fenway Park. I thought that approval polls of Trump in New York State were horrid last summer, but this is certifiably worse... much worse. A loss of 7% approval in New York State is the difference between losing New York 67-29 and losing the state 59-36, which will not make a difference in the Electoral College in 2020.

To give some idea of how bad a 7% loss in support in New York State is, consider the most recent binary blowouts by a Democrat of a Republican in Presidential elections:


LBJ 68, Goldwater 31
Obama 63, McCain 36

If you are wondering about FDR, he defeated Landon 'only' 59-40 in 1936 in New York State.

It may be a harsh judgment upon his supporters, but the only demographics that I can see supporting Donald Trump in the end are the gullible and unfeeling. There are people who identify with such fictional villains as Darth Vader, J R Ewing, the Wicked Witch of the West, and the shark from Jaws or real-life villains like mobsters and tyrants.

Trump approval:



With cumulative electoral vote totals in each category.

55% and higher
50-54%
49% or less and positive
tie (white) 1
44-49% and negative 20
40-43% 11
under 40% 67

An asterisk will be applied to any state in which the President's approval rating is above 43% for which the disapproval rating is 50% or higher.



41 more states, and 437 electoral votes to go!

[Eric the Green]

(01-23-2019, 11:34 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: How about that?

In 2008 Obama was the anti-war candidate, and he won.
In 2016 Trump was the anti-war candidate, and he won. Hillary Clinton was seen by many as the warmonger, the neo-con.

If the Democratic candidate in 2020 is seen as more pro-war than Trump, he will lose.

The "neo-con" pro-war factor was not as strong a factor in 2016 as some people think.

And the brutal fact remains, that George W Bush actually started a deadly unnecessary war in 2003, and was re-elected in 2004, casting a stain on the American voter that may never be expunged. But George W. Bush had the skills as a candidate to win, as indicated by his horoscope score, and Kerry did not, as indicated by his.

Trump was the war-criminal candidate. He said the way to defeat terrorists was to take out their families. He said we would win so much that we would get tired of winning. He has bloated the military budget, as promised. He threatened North Korea with fire and fury, and broke off a good treaty with Iran that restrained their nuclear program. Anti-war candidate?

Hillary Clinton was a good diplomat and negotiator, with good common sense. She made some war-like mistakes in her career, but she was right on Syria, contrary to many supposed "anti-war" people like Tulsi Gabbard. Her efforts to strengthen sanctions on Iran and her negotiations prepared the way for the Iran treaty. She was willing to cut the defense budget. Hillary was much better at foreign policy than Trump is. But Trump was a more skilled candidate than Hillary, and that's why he won. Not because he was supposedly anti-war.

The candidate who will lose to Trump if nominated is the candidate with the lower horoscope score than Trump. Kirsten Gillibrand, Beto O'Rourke, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Julian Castro would all lose to Trump. They are not skilled candidates. Only skilled candidates ever win the US presidency, regardless of approval ratings or any issues.

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

[beechnut79]

(01-23-2019, 03:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-23-2019, 11:34 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: How about that?

In 2008 Obama was the anti-war candidate, and he won.
In 2016 Trump was the anti-war candidate, and he won. Hillary Clinton was seen by many as the warmonger, the neo-con.

If the Democratic candidate in 2020 is seen as more pro-war than Trump, he will lose.

The "neo-con" pro-war factor was not as strong a factor in 2016 as some people think.

And the brutal fact remains, that George W Bush actually started a deadly unnecessary war in 2003, and was re-elected in 2004, casting a stain on the American voter that may never be expunged. But George W. Bush had the skills as a candidate to win, as indicated by his horoscope score, and Kerry did not, as indicated by his.

Trump was the war-criminal candidate. He said the way to defeat terrorists was to take out their families. He said we would win so much that we would get tired of winning. He has bloated the military budget, as promised. He threatened North Korea with fire and fury, and broke off a good treaty with Iran that restrained their nuclear program. Anti-war candidate?

Hillary Clinton was a good diplomat and negotiator, with good common sense. She made some war-like mistakes in her career, but she was right on Syria, contrary to many supposed "anti-war" people like Tulsi Gabbard. Her efforts to strengthen sanctions on Iran and her negotiations prepared the way for the Iran treaty. She was willing to cut the defense budget. Hillary was much better at foreign policy than Trump is. But Trump was a more skilled candidate than Hillary, and that's why he won. Not because he was supposedly anti-war.

The candidate who will lose to Trump if nominated is the candidate with the lower horoscope score than Trump. Kirsten Gillibrand, Beto O'Rourke, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Julian Castro would all lose to Trump. They are not skilled candidates. Only skilled candidates ever win the US presidency, regardless of approval ratings or any issues.

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

How about one big fish you left out, Bernie Sanders? Could he get the job done, advanced age notwithstanding?

[Eric the Green]

(01-23-2019, 08:03 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(01-23-2019, 03:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-23-2019, 11:34 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: How about that?

In 2008 Obama was the anti-war candidate, and he won.
In 2016 Trump was the anti-war candidate, and he won. Hillary Clinton was seen by many as the warmonger, the neo-con.

If the Democratic candidate in 2020 is seen as more pro-war than Trump, he will lose.

The "neo-con" pro-war factor was not as strong a factor in 2016 as some people think.

And the brutal fact remains, that George W Bush actually started a deadly unnecessary war in 2003, and was re-elected in 2004, casting a stain on the American voter that may never be expunged. But George W. Bush had the skills as a candidate to win, as indicated by his horoscope score, and Kerry did not, as indicated by his.

Trump was the war-criminal candidate. He said the way to defeat terrorists was to take out their families. He said we would win so much that we would get tired of winning. He has bloated the military budget, as promised. He threatened North Korea with fire and fury, and broke off a good treaty with Iran that restrained their nuclear program. Anti-war candidate?

Hillary Clinton was a good diplomat and negotiator, with good common sense. She made some war-like mistakes in her career, but she was right on Syria, contrary to many supposed "anti-war" people like Tulsi Gabbard. Her efforts to strengthen sanctions on Iran and her negotiations prepared the way for the Iran treaty. She was willing to cut the defense budget. Hillary was much better at foreign policy than Trump is. But Trump was a more skilled candidate than Hillary, and that's why he won. Not because he was supposedly anti-war.

The candidate who will lose to Trump if nominated is the candidate with the lower horoscope score than Trump. Kirsten Gillibrand, Beto O'Rourke, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Julian Castro would all lose to Trump. They are not skilled candidates. Only skilled candidates ever win the US presidency, regardless of approval ratings or any issues.

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

How about one big fish you left out, Bernie Sanders? Could he get the job done, advanced age notwithstanding?

Bernie is a skilled candidate, but whether he's skilled enough to beat the master demagogue is a crap shoot. He probably could get the job done, but I wouldn't bet on it. Biden is in a similar vein; not as progressive, which could be a plus or a minus; but probably just as skilled and electable as Bernie. And just as old. He didn't do well before, though. He gave up too soon, perhaps, and didn't have the recognition then.

[Bill the Piper]

(01-23-2019, 03:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: And the brutal fact remains, that George W Bush actually started a deadly unnecessary war in 2003, and was re-elected in 2004, casting a stain on the American voter that may never be expunged.

American voters seem to have been divided between hawks and peaceniks, perhaps since Vietnam. Intervention in Yugoslavia was backed by the democrats. It was a war against White Christian nationalists, so it looked somehow like WW2. Afghanistan was quite popular as well. The US was attacked, in a way not unlike Pearl Harbor. Bush approval rates went up to 90%. Even in 2003, not only neo-cons supported the war. Kerry did so as well, remember? The Iraq war started getting really unpopular in 2006, due to the civil war between al-Qaeda and Shia militias.

Quote:Trump was the war-criminal candidate. He said the way to defeat terrorists was to take out their families. He said we would win so much that we would get tired of winning. He has bloated the military budget, as promised. He threatened North Korea with fire and fury, and broke off a good treaty with Iran that restrained their nuclear program. Anti-war candidate?

He didn't go for regime change in Syria. I think Hillary would. Also, Trump is talking to the planet's most vicious dictator, Kim Jong Uhn. His threats are never followed by action, so I see them as schoolboy bragging. "My penis (nuclear button) is bigger than yours".

[pbrower2a]

Two states  -- Florida and Wisconsin.

Florida could well matter in 2020, one that Trump really must win. On the other hand the Democratic nominee could lose Florida and still win.

Mason-Dixon: 47-50 approval vs. disapproval.

Re-elect 45%. Replace 46%. Not sure 9%.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000168-...ff7b080001


Another key state:

Wisconsin: Marquette U., Jan. 16-20, 800 RV (change from Oct.)

Approve 44 (-3)
Disapprove 52 (+2)

Vote to re-elect Trump or vote for someone else?

Definitely Trump 27
Probably Trump 12
Probably someone else 8
Definitely someone else 49

Net: Trump 39, someone else 57

Results



Wisconsin has seemed like the tipping point for 2020 since Election Night 2016, and if only 39% of the people now intend to vote for Trump with just over 21 months to go... there's a better chance of a World Series between the Detroit Kittens and the Miami Minnows in 2020 than that Trump wins re-election in 2020.

A Colorado poll had only 36% of state voters admitting that they would vote for Trump.  I may want to create a map suggesting how willing people are to vote for Trump. I have had 100-DIS  as a Trump ceiling in the event that he should be an effective fund-raiser and campaigner and have a good electoral machine behind him. He would have to be as good at such as "Mister Unmentionable" at such to get re-elected.

Yes, we are accustomed to seeing Presidents re-elected, but it now looks as if Obama will be the last such President to be re-elected until at least 2024.

I have a huge span in pink coloration because in theory anyone who has at least 43% approval in a state has a chance of winning that state. I now have 90 of 138 electoral votes already in that category. Trump will win if he picks up everything in pink, but he must really pick up everything. I thought that the asterisk would separate states with something like 46-48  from a state with 44-52 like Wisconsin, "46-48" suggesting that if most things go right for Trump, he wins the state.  Ignoring Iowa, which is going to vote with Wisconsin, and Alaska as too small to matter and a seeming outlier, I see five coin tosses. If it comes down to five simple coin tosses as 50% chances (which is probably an overestimation of Trump chances), then Trump has one chance in winning re-election if you hand him everything that he won by more than 3% that is not yet on this map, then he has one chance in 32 of winning re-election.  And that is an exaggeration of his chances... on the high side!        

Trump approval:



With cumulative electoral vote totals in each category.

55% and higher
50-54%
49% or less and positive
tie (white)
44-49% and negative 90
40-43% 13
under 40%  43

An asterisk will be applied to any state in which the President's approval rating is above 43% for which the disapproval rating is 50% or higher.

No segregation of districts in Maine and Nebraska -- yet.
39 more states, and 399 electoral votes to go!