Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The big worry for Trump is that his disapproval ratings remain
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The big worry for Trump is that his disapproval ratings remain above 50%
The chart shows the Real Clear Politics average for the President’s approval ratings which over the decades have been a good pointer to electoral outcomes.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quds_Force
But actually, I’m not sure that NATO were informed about the attack on Bin Laden and I’m 99% sure Blair was not told about the capture of Saddam until it had happened. So maybe it’s not that unusual.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50982743
(What a bunch)
He's not just unpopular on the coasts, but also in Iowa, the rust belt and Arizona.
Michigan -14%
Iowa -13%
He remains (relatively) popular in Florida (+1%) and Ohio (-5%).
If you take -10% as the point at which Trump loses a state (and +0% at the point at which he gains one), then he loses three states above, and wins by the narrowest of margins in 2020... Trump gets 272.
No President in modern times has ever had lower net approval ratings at this stage in their Presidency. See: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
That doesn't, of course, mean that Trump won't win. But it does mean that the augers from history aren't that great.
Oh no wait, I got myself confused there for a moment.
Actually, I remember being on a skiing holiday during the 04 campaign, where a friend of mine - who had fully assumed he wanted John Kerry to win was appalled to see him on the telly for the first time. "Is that him?" he asked, incredulously. "He looks... rickety". Still moee to recommend him than any of the current lot though. And as has been previously nited, Americans don't seem to mind rickety politicians.
If Michael Bloomberg is a third party candidate, then 45.1% is a landslide for Trump.
I don't see a significant Left Wing spoiler vote this time (not even if Buttigieg or Biden is the candidate), but let's be pessimistic for the Dems and assume there is exactly the same third party votes as last time. That would mean that ADem would be on 1% more than last time, and Trump would be on 1% less.
That swing would be enough to hand much of the rust belt back to ADem.
But, of course, we don't know what will happen between now and November. All we really know is that it's likely to be verrrrrrry close.
The US pollsters likely to vote screening questions are brutal. If you didn't vote at the last presidential election then many pollsters stop the call right there and then.
This means if you were an Obama 2008 and 2012 voter but couldn't stomach voting for Clinton then you won't appear in 2020 polling.
Given what happened in the rust belt (GOP vote increased a tiny bit, Dem vote cratered) this is important.
Worth remembering that in 2004, Kerry was nowhere in the Democratic polling at this point. He was at 9% in Iowa.
That gets him 272 electoral college votes after losing Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2004_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
As for North Korea, it would have been defeated without Chinese intervention. With Chinese intervention, both sides fought themselves to a stalemate. Could the US have won? Yes. Was it worth the costs and risks involved? Truman, quite correctly, judged not.
https://twitter.com/JohnnyMercerUK/status/1212842380061265921?s=20
In the next few days I'm sure we'll get a new Iowa poll. It may well show Sanders surging, and Buttigieg sinking like a stone. Or it may show that Klobuchar is in double digits. Or it may show that Biden's "No Malarkey" tour is working and he's leading in Iowa as much as nationally. All these things are possible.
I'm not advocating colonialism. I'm just wondering why when powers do attempt to control foreign countries they are so unsuccessful at it.
I think it's entirely winnable for him, but, interestingly he could very well also crash and burn and win hardly any states at all.
This is only six people, mind! But they are not, to look at, the sort of peoole you would expect to be favouring Kier or Emily.
Although weirdly I remember her being in the race more than Burnham, who came second.
I remember people in here being shocked at how big of a swing it saw to Con. With many saying it was down to the Con candidate being Asian and the Lab candidate being white, but now I think it is more to do with the high Leave vote.
Are there any other Leave seats where it looks like the British Asian population voted Leave?
And the US couldn’t control Iran, let alone China.
Edit: Apologies, I appear to have replied to the wrong conversation. I'm sure there was a comment somewhere about Liz Kendall being more memorable than Andy Burnham. But I can't find it now.
Here is the state polling average of Trump's lead vs the Top 3 Democrats:
Texas +6
Iowa +5
Florida +2
Michigan +2
Wisconsin +1
N.Carolina 0
Arizona 0
Georgia -1
Virginia -2
Nevada -4
N.Hampshire -5
Pennsylvania -5
No polls from Ohio, but looking at Pennsylvania he probably lead by 2 points.
Only Georgia and Virginia look way out of line.
If Trump wins all the states that he is either tied or leading, plus Georgia he gets 285 Electoral Votes.
But the Biden-Ukraine and Iran War stuff is not a sign that Trump thinks he is going to win, those are acts of a campaign that is desperate.
Still, it would take some doing to try to beat Jeb Bush trying to claim to be a political outsider.
The world today has irrevocably changed and personally I think that is a good thing. What we need now is for the last of the adventurers and Empire builders to realise it.
I think there was a low turnout of BME voters in the Brexit referendum, but also Leave did target Asian communities with promises of making RoW immigration easier. Certainly some of my Philipino friends fell for that. Not quite what was promised Brexit voters in Hartlepool of course, but we shall soon find out who is disappointed.
Keith Vaz also had a large personal vote, having pork barrelled very actively over the years.
Pennsylvania looks far too good for the Democrats, while Wisconsin, where the Democratic Lesbian Senator got more votes than Trump in the midterms (which is unprecedented) looks implausibly Republican (especially given state approval ratings).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE_9MzFo2zw
Harris has Bloomberg leapfrogging Buttigieg into fourth (and into double digits).
HarrisX has Bloomberg getting just 2%.
Which, I wonder, is right.
The Wisconsin polls were very reputable, but the Georgia polls were not weighted by education.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1213224476533559297?s=20
The British Asian population might have voted Leave in Barnsley, Bassetlaw and Bolsover and other strongly Leave areas as well.
But in such places its only a small proportion of the electorate.
If we assume that the maximum Leave vote among white voters was 75% it might be possible to do rough calculations to give estimates of how non-white voters voted.
For example 95% white Basildon was 69% Leave while 86% white Thurrock was 72% Leave and 96% white Castle Point was 73% Leave.
Which suggests non-white voters in Thurrock at least voted Leave.
For me her big achievement was being referred to as the 'Blair Witch Project' by BigJohnOwls.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1212725650878017536
Trump maybe bad but for Britain he is our only ally.
As long as he doesn't blow up people in a fit he is still better than irish Joe Biden for Britain.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2020/01/16/joe-biden-designated-mourner/
Biden identifies with his fanatically anti-english aunt, which even told him bedtime stories about the Evil British.
Given Biden is a man stuck in the far past that's a big problem for Britain.
70 implies a ≈ 1.5% chance, if my maths are not wrong at this Blue Nun hour.