Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
vcczar

Trump Approval by State

Recommended Posts

Here's an interesting website showing Trump approval by state. There's always a month lag--so this is how he was viewed in March: https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump/

I've also included a map showing what the election result would be like if this support correlated accurately to his voting support in 2020:

As I've said frequently on this forum, Trump is his own Vietnam. It is possible a good economy won't save him. Several states that Trump must win have a net unfavorability for him. Iowa is the greatest surprise considering how much it liked him in 2016. If this translates to votes (which it won't most likely), Trump loses in a landslide. 

There are also some potential issues for Democrats. Nevada is less against Trump that would be expected. Virginia, possibly due to Democratic scandals in the state, seems more like a battleground state than it really has been for years. Pennsylvania seems like the least likely state to flip out of states that Trump won but that Democrats generally win. 

Trump has pretty much been trying to keep Florida since day one. He treats Florida like his home state since he's frequently at Mar A Lago and rarely in NYC. 

https://www.270towin.com/maps/4Xy3k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I often feel the need to play devils advocate.  I want to remind us all of two prices of info.   Disapproval of Trump does not guarantee support for his opponent.  And secondly we know how poorly similar polls pegged the ‘16 election. The infamous Maddow “South Carolina is in play” episode comes to mind.  

With that said this thread is a fun exercise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

Disapproval of Trump does not guarantee support for his opponent.

This is yet another good reason, right here, of why the U.S. system lacking a viable third choice is such a disservice to it's own citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

This is yet another good reason, right here, of why the U.S. system lacking a viable third choice is such a disservice to it's own citizens.

Certainly electing a president who’s gets less then 40% of the popular vote will solve our divisiveness. Good idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

Certainly electing a president who’s gets less then 40% of the popular vote will solve our divisiveness. Good idea. 

Whoosh! Point missed entirely!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

If this translates to votes (which it won't most likely)

@HonestAbe In regards to your first post, I think you missed this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

Are you saying if we had three candidates the approval rate would go up?

What I'm saying is, if the viable choices were not firmly locked artificially into two parties that always win, and thus if you don't like the candidate of the party you're ideologically attuned to and find the other party's candidate to be completely unacceptable to you, you either have to swallow BAD political poison and have a hand in voting for a horrid candidate, sit at home, or vote for a Third Party/Independent candidate as a protest in a system that means your vote is thrown away. THAT is part of the real problem. 2016 was glaring example, where both Trump and Clinton were God-awful monsters, and there should have been a viable third choice there with a robust platform who showed actual competence. But the electoral system failed the people there - and it may well again in 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HonestAbe said:

That doesn’t solve the low approval rate issue.  More options doesn’t give a better sense of consensus. 

I don't believe such a consensus is possible in the modern U.S. Frankly, someone who is TRULY, by HONEST, GENUINE mandate, and just Constitutional fiat, to be considered as a REAL head-of-state of a nation, representative of that nation to the world, and guiding hand of policy in that nation SHOULD, ideally, have significantly more that just over or just under 50% percent support in an election. But these are not the days of FDR and Reagan. Such a true mandate does not exist anymore, nor is likely realistic in the near future. The fundamental socio-political divide is too sharp, and too close to even in numbers. That is a sad fact of the modern American zeitgeist, and something that would be much more worthwhile for Americans to devote time and effort to productively and peacefully heal than any other issues bandied about in U.S. politics today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HonestAbe said:

Certainly electing a president who’s gets less then 40% of the popular vote will solve our divisiveness. Good idea. 

Image result for 1860 election

Certainly worked in this instance 😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Reagan04 said:

Image result for 1860 election

Certainly worked in this instance 😛

Always hard online to tell, but I hope you’re being sarcastic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

Always hard online to tell, but I hope you’re being sarcastic. 

The guy with his tongue out should have tipped you off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't read any of the responses so sorry if i'm echoing this but the -5 net in Ohio is extremely unbelievable to me. IMO Ohio is a Republican stronghold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, HonestAbe said:

Maybe we are overthinking all this, as Ohio goes so goes the nation. :)

They used to say that of Maine. Then in 1936, "As Maine goes, so goes Vermont." 

I think Trump keeps OH, but I think Trump loses the election. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, vcczar said:

They used to say that of Maine. Then in 1936, "As Maine goes, so goes Vermont." 

I think Trump keeps OH, but I think Trump loses the election. 

Only happened once in over 120 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HonestAbe said:

Only happened once in over 120 years. 

That doesn't mean it won't happen again at some point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, vcczar said:

That doesn't mean it won't happen again at some point. 

Absolutely true.  Same can be said about a  1972 reboot too.  

All I hear on TV is how similar Trump and Nixon are anyway. 😜

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HonestAbe said:

Absolutely true.  Same can be said about a  1972 reboot too.  

All I hear on TV is how similar Trump and Nixon are anyway. 😜

So, Kennedy and Obama were often compared closely by many people to each other, but Obama didn't get shot...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×