Approval/Disapproval Polls

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 478
  • Views: 11K
  • Politics 
Valid points. I will just say it never hurts to put the shine on the Democratic Brand. A swamp creature like Trump will always take advantage of a weak brand.
 
Yeah. I'm not worried about Dem poll numbers. Midterm elections are about the incumbent anyway. Here's my current thinking.

Probability of Dems retaking House in 2026: >95%. There would have to be a miracle for the GOP to lose fewer than 10 seats.
Probability of Dems retaking Senate in 2026: ~50%. If we hadn't lost PA last year, it would be much closer to 80%.

Think 2014. Dems lost a lot of Senate seats that year in states that didn't seem ex ante to be that close. But the national trends swamped all. Dems stayed home; high propensity voters turned out for Pubs; and the Pubs won seats that they hadn't thought were in play. I have my eyes on Ohio -- would love for Tim Ryan or Sherrod Brown to run for JD's Senate seat. I think that will be a winnable race in 26. Iowa too. I would have said Florida but I can't remember seeing such a catastrophic loss of support for a state political party pretty much anywhere. I hate to mention Texas because it's been such a stupid tease for us, but eventually a Dem will win there and 26 could be the year -- especially if Pubs end up with Paxton on the ticket.
 
BlueSmoke said:
With all this negative Trump polling, there was something I just saw briefly on the TV screen that could be relevant. It seems the country still supports Trump by 7 points over House Democrats. (could have been trust Trump more)

The question is: so being 100 days in the Trump mess, is it really true that Democrats can't outpoll Trump? If that is true, then that tells us something I would think about Democrats.
Click to expand...
Be a more apt comparison to compare him to individual Democrats. It's a lot easier to be against a generic outgroup than a specific individual. That's totally discounting any other circumstances. It might not come out much differently but it would be more meaningful.
 
finesse said:
Be a more apt comparison to compare him to individual Democrats. It's a lot easier to be against a generic outgroup than a specific individual. That's totally discounting any other circumstances. It might not come out much differently but it would be more meaningful.
Click to expand...
Usually "generic [other party]" outpolls everyone. In the 90s, by far the most successful candidates in political polls were "unnamed Republican" and "unnamed Democrat." They were probably undefeated. I think pollsters eventually stopped asking that question because it was so uninformative. I haven't seen a poll like that in a while.

That said, I really don't care about Dem approval rating right now. All politics in America is negative partisanship anyway. We'd do better if it wasn't, but that's what 2026 is going to be about. Dems could run on a one sentence platform: "we are the opposite of Trump" and probably win big.
 
altmin said:
Trump drove turnout to the right. Kamala didn't draw turnout from the left to counter it. The campaign banked on never-Trumpers and moderates and there just aren't enough to overcome Trump's populism.

Next candidate should have an easier task of drawing moderates and not facing a right wing populist cult, assuming there is an election and Trump doesn't flip off the Constitution and run again.
Click to expand...
Yeah if this country still holds on to some form of racism then wouldn't you expect there to be some form of sexism that still remain. Put a white male on the ballot and it would be different outcome. We have thought we have come a long way but we haven't.
 
tonman said:
Yeah if this country still holds on to some form of racism then wouldn't you expect there to be some form of sexism that still remain. Put a white male on the ballot and it would be different outcome. We have thought we have come a long way but we haven't.
Click to expand...
I think for presidents the gender is more important than the race, especially for a Dem. Lot of older blue collar workers (and some white collar ones too) can be relatively liberal on policies like unionization, tax progressiveness, etc. -- but in their personal lives still view themselves as "wearing the pants in this family." And thus do they see Kamala as a threat.

I think that's why the Pubs seized on her "shrill" laugh. I find it heartwarming and inspirational. I guess MAGAs hear it as nagging from their wives or moms? Either that, or it reminds them of their experiences stripping naked in front of a woman.
 
superrific said:
Dems could run on a one sentence platform: "we are the opposite of Trump" and probably win big.
Click to expand...

Local State races aside, do you define that winning big means in the House? Saw a stat somewhere, that in the last three elections Trump won 25 States in all three elections. Therefore, those Senate seats would be expected to say Republican.
 
BlueSmoke said:
Local State races aside, do you define that winning big means in the House? Saw a stat somewhere, that in the last three elections Trump won 25 States in all three elections. Therefore, those Senate seats would be expected to say Republican.
Click to expand...
For that example about a one-sentence platform, yes.

We'd probably need a little more for the Senate, but not that much more. When the country is in shambles, saying "stop the madness" is a good political message. Worked for Dems in 06 and the madness was considerably less.

Trump has maybe two months, I would say, before the negative views of his administration harden and the GOP's position will be unrecoverable before 2026. And he's going to spend a good chunk of that time passing an extremely unpopular bill to give tax breaks to the billionaires while cutting health care and social safety net programs. We'll see how that goes for them when the unemployment rate shoots up and people can't get insurance because Medicaid has a work requirement. LOL.
 
BlueSmoke said:
With all this negative Trump polling, there was something I just saw briefly on the TV screen that could be relevant. It seems the country still supports Trump by 7 points over House Democrats. (could have been trust Trump more)

The question is: so being 100 days in the Trump mess, is it really true that Democrats can't outpoll Trump? If that is true, then that tells us something I would think about Democrats.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t say too many good things about the American public. That’s for sure.
 
nycfan said:
IMG_6742.jpegIMG_6743.jpeg
Click to expand...
Trump seems to be assuming everyone in these polls who report they did not vote in 2024 or who voted but refused to say for whom, all would have voted against him to get to the numbers he claims.

NYT

IMG_6746.jpeg
IMG_6747.jpeg

WaPo/ABC

IMG_6748.jpeg

Every poll taken across the political spectrum showed a similar significant decrease in support for Trump since Inauguration, especially since “Liberation Day”. I read speculation by polling experts leading into this weekend that it could be a bad series of polls for Trump because multiple pollsters across the spectrum were chattering about daily decreases in support they were seeing as they collected data. Usually daily data bounces somewhat randomly depending on who you successfully contact on any given day, and there is data not reported in the final polling as they try to adjust the respondents included to match recent election turnout or other patterns.

It is not unreasonable to assume a D+x or R+x bias by a pollster based on prior results, especially involving Trump. So let’s say the Times and Post are overly negative to Trump. Regardless, the trend of virtually all credible polls are all going in the same direction.

That can change, though a reversal of bad polling trends usually takes longer than a reversal of good polling. People are fickle and cynical and since 2020 remain in a particularly sour mood about politics and the economy, it seems.

My guess is that Trump blew a chance to solidify some free goodwill he had from the squishy middle and we are more or less seeing a reset to his 2017 baselines.
 
CFordUNC said:
Click to expand...

In fairness, I think a much better stock chart comparison is from election day to 100 days after inauguration. The stock market looks to the future and prices in certain assumptions after an election and the new president should get the benefit of that pre-inauguration bump -- at least for comparison purposes.
 
superrific said:
I think for presidents the gender is more important than the race, especially for a Dem. Lot of older blue collar workers (and some white collar ones too) can be relatively liberal on policies like unionization, tax progressiveness, etc. -- but in their personal lives still view themselves as "wearing the pants in this family." And thus do they see Kamala as a threat.

I think that's why the Pubs seized on her "shrill" laugh. I find it heartwarming and inspirational. I guess MAGAs hear it as nagging from their wives or moms? Either that, or it reminds them of their experiences stripping naked in front of a woman.
Click to expand...
I would happily take the nagging over the bombastic lying. Because in the end your wife or mom was right you just didn't want to accept that they were right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top