Poll: Disproportionately Low Job Approval for Trump Confounds

[mystery-ak]

By Cathy Burke    |   Tuesday, 16 Jan 2018 07:31 PM


President Donald Trump's job approval rating is well below what would be expected at a time when Americans' views are improving about the economy and the future of the country, Gallup reported Tuesday.

The pollster reports Trump's latest job approval is 38 percent — but should be between 47-54 percent based on the dual measures of voters' views of the economy and direction the nation is taking.

Gallup also reported Trump's average approval rating in 2017 of 39 percent lagged behind the 46 percent of Americans who say the economy is getting better, barely matched the 34 percent rating the economy as excellent or good — and was only slightly higher than the 27 percent U.S. satisfaction.

"Despite improved consumer attitudes about the economy in 2017, Trump's average first-year job approval rating was historically low," Gallup's Lydia Saad wrote.

She added "the key reason" for the president's lower-than-predicted job approval "is likely his favorability rating, which, similar to his approval rating, has been historically low since the start of 2017," along with his "subpar character ratings."

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/presidential-job-approval-approval-ratings-gallup/2018/01/16/id/837540/

[Suppressed]

She added "the key reason" for the president's lower-than-predicted job approval "is likely his favorability rating, which, similar to his approval rating, has been historically low since the start of 2017," along with his "subpar character ratings."

No...that can't be!

[Frank Cannon]

The polls had Donny low as hell going into the election......yet he won. Could it be that polls are shit?

BTW, why doesn't Gallop do Presidential polling in elections? Oh yeah. They said they don't know how to do them.

[Concerned]

The polls had Donny low as hell going into the election......yet he won. Could it be that polls are shit?

BTW, why doesn't Gallop do Presidential polling in elections? Oh yeah. They said they don't know how to do them.

Polls sample the population and as such each has a margin of error.  Looking at a variety of polling data from immediately prior to the election (below link), we see some polls had Trump up, but most had Clinton up.  She did win the popular vote 48.2% to 46.1%.  Looking at the polling data going into the election combined with the actual results and the margin of error of each poll, I was actually surprised at how accurate much of the polling was within the last few days of the election.  I suspect Trump's approval polling is probably equally accurate.

Given how much Trump won the Electoral College by, I’ll be curious to see if pollsters do anything different in 2020 relative to trying to factor in the Electoral College vote rather than just the popular vote (not easy I know).  Because the 2016 polls primarily focused on the popular vote (which Clinton won) but not the EC vote (which Trump won handily), I think there’s this misperception that the 2016 polls were all or largely wrong.

https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

[aligncare]

Trump’s numbers will continue this low as long as pollsters continue jacking up democrats as high as 38% polled and bringing republicans polled down to as low as 26%.

Most of these breathless polls bury the internals or leave them out entirely, so there’s really no way of telling how reliable they are.

[The_Reader_David]

The polls had Donny low as hell going into the election......yet he won. Could it be that polls are shit?

BTW, why doesn't Gallop do Presidential polling in elections? Oh yeah. They said they don't know how to do them.

Not necessarily.  The polls could accurately reflect people regarding him as a loud-mouthed boor of whom they thoroughly disapprove, while the electoral outcome shows that they nonetheless thought him better as a choice for President than a corrupt grifter whose policies promised to make permanent the divisive identity politics of the Obama era, threatened the Second Amendment and offered no hope at all to the down-and-out segment of the white working class.

[Jazzhead]

Trump may finally be the example that proves Carville was wrong - it isn't just "it's the economy, stupid".   Prosperity and improving fortunes can't hurt a President, but won't necessarily help if he's seen, rightly or wrongly, as a national embarrassment.  It's up to Trump to show he's a leader a majority of the nation will be proud to vote for (in 2016, he won because his opponent was affirmatively hated).   But I don't think he gives a damn - which is why I don't think he'll run for re-election.   

[cato potatoe]

Polls sample the population and as such each has a margin of error.  Looking at a variety of polling data from immediately prior to the election (below link), we see some polls had Trump up, but most had Clinton up.  She did win the popular vote 48.2% to 46.1%.  Looking at the polling data going into the election combined with the actual results and the margin of error of each poll, I was actually surprised at how accurate much of the polling was within the last few days of the election.  I suspect Trump's approval polling is probably equally accurate.

The polls had her winning the popular vote by 3, and she was favored to win the electoral college 272-266.  Instead, he overperformed by 1 point and carried several swing states by razor thin margins.  This encouraged the Trump faithful to push their "biased polling" mythology for the rest of time.

[musiclady]

Not necessarily.  The polls could accurately reflect people regarding him as a loud-mouthed boor of whom they thoroughly disapprove, while the electoral outcome shows that they nonetheless thought him better as a choice for President than a corrupt grifter whose policies promised to make permanent the divisive identity politics of the Obama era, threatened the Second Amendment and offered no hope at all to the down-and-out segment of the white working class.

I completely agree with that analysis.

The election outcome was due to the lousy candidacy and personhood of Hillary Clinton, which was even worse than his.  And the fact that there was a lot of anti-Obama going on after 8 years of his extremism and hatred for everyone other than leftist elites.

The low approval polls are due to the fact that he's still a lousy person, and hasn't been magically transformed because he got elected.