Skip to Content

Support MinnPost

Trump's Gallup disapproval rating hits 62 percent, a new high

Although I obsess on it, I try to restrain myself from writing too often about the approval ratings of the current incumbent in the Oval Office. And the last time I did so, it was mostly to point out that President Trump's ratings had been relatively stable, within an established range, for quite a while and hadn’t made a new high or low in a couple of months. I vowed not to return to the subject unless or until Trump’s ratings broke out of that range, one way or the other.

Well, they just did. The news is not good for Trump or his admirers.

Gallup, which is the main measurement I have been following and which publishes a rolling three-day average, just published new poll results showing Trump with a disapproval rating of 62 percent, the highest of his presidency and unprecedented for any president this early in their first term.

His latest Gallup approval number, 33 percent, is likewise the worst number ever for a president at this point, and, by the inexorable logic of mathematics, the gap of 29 percentage point between his approvers and disapprovers, is likewise a record.

The other measure I check regularly, just in case Gallup is an outlier, is a blended average of all regular approval/disapproval ratings for Trump which are compiled by the Huffington Post. That average has also hit a new low in approval and a new high in disapproval across all major pollsters who attempt to measure it. The current HuffPost average as I write this (although it may have changed by the time you look at it) shows  Trump’s approval rating 20.1 percentage points under water with an average approval of 37.8 percent and disapproval of 57.9 percent.

Obviously, the Gallup numbers are worse for the president than the HuffPost average, but I am sticking with my discipline of updating them both whenever I write about either.

While we’re on the subject, Gallup also recently published a more novel poll based on asking respondents to assign a number, from zero to 100, expressing how much or how little they support the things Trump is doing as president. The results are displayed here. As you would assume, the views of Democrats, Republicans and independents vary significantly from one another, but the disapproval of Trump among Democrats is greater than is the approval among Republicans. Independents also lean against him pretty strongly. 

Get MinnPost's top stories in your inbox

Related Tags:

About the Author:

Comments (29)

Just more proof

that our electoral process is so distorted that the Russians don't have to meddle with it.

I guess the "so much winning"

I guess the "so much winning" fatigue is setting in.

Who cooda known being President is so hard?

But seriously, what has he realistically done to improve the lot of the "little guy"? The gap between rhetoric and result is growing. And who would've thought an administration could be so full of people wanting to cut a back-room deal with the Russians?

“who would've thought an

“who would've thought an administration could be so full of people wanting to cut a back-room deal with the Russians” Who do you mean?

Why is this not over?

Trump describes Papadoculis as a key member of his foreign policy team and he is seen at a Trump Tower conference table with Trump and other senior advisers. He now admits he did attempt to collude with the Russians on Clinton emails. Kirschner, Trump Jr. and Manafort meet with Russians to learn about Clinton dirt and Manafort forces the GOP to amend it's platform to be favorable to Russian interests. The leadership of the GOP has colluded with a significant global adversary and our local members: Lewis, Emmer and Paulsen remain silent. Time for a change in 2018....

“He now admits he did attempt

“He now admits he did attempt to collude with the Russians on Clinton emails.” Papadopoulos had got out of college just several years before and was pretty stupid and ambitious so he wanted to make a splash and was, of course, duped by the Russians. A very telling fact is that he believed that a Russian woman he was introduced to was Putin’s niece.

“Kirschner, Trump Jr. and Manafort meet with Russians to learn about Clinton dirt.” Do you want to say that no one was interested in Trump dirt?

Cut to the Chase, Please

I will acknowledge that Papadopolous was just a dumb kid just trying to make his political bones. How does that affect the issue of whether there was collusion?

"Do you want to say that no one was interested in Trump dirt?" Oh good Lord, again with the "both sides do it/must have done it." Yes, yes, yes, I'm sure they did. Yes. It is called opposition research, and it has been a part of American political life since the founding of the Republic. All candidates do it, and it is an expected part of running for office. So what? The Clinton campaign looked for dirt on Trump (talk about an easy job!). They did it. Yes, and again, yes, they did. What difference does it make? Did they go to foreign sources for it? Did they meet with representatives of an antagonistic power to get it?

Those are the issues. No one cares or should care if a campaign did opposition research (if they didn't, one would be justified in asking if they are truly smart enough to hold office). Did they collude with foreign powers to do it?

So everyone does opposition

So everyone does opposition research and you and I agree that it is a natural thing for all normal campaigns to do. So where is Trump’s collusion then? His people were trying to do opposition research, the same as Hillary and the DNC (except the latter actually used the company that helped Putin in the past and so ended up getting something cooked up in Kremlin and also really paid for that while Trump’s people were just trying to get to something). I actually don’t see collusion either way, just business transactions (collusion assumes a promise to do something in return).

So Where is Trump's Collusion?

First of all, the issue right now is whether his campaign colluded with the Russians.

Second, "everyone else does it" is not a defense to a crime, nor does it negate guilt.

Third, "actually us[ing] the company that helped Putin in the past and so end[ing] up getting something cooked up in Kremlin and also really paying] for that while Trump’s people were just trying to get to something" is a pretty big old nothing of a talking point. The whole affair goes way beyond that, I'm afraid.

Fourth, "I actually don’t see collusion either way, just business transactions (collusion assumes a promise to do something in return)" is wrong on so many levels. A business "transaction" necessarily involves an expectation that both parties will receive something from the deal. Doesn't that fit your definition of "collusion?" Never mind--"collusion" means cooperation in an unlawful enterprise. There is no requirement that it be for the motive of any gain (query whether political advantage is not the expectation of receiving something in return).

“the issue right now is

“the issue right now is whether his campaign colluded with the Russians” Actually, I am not sure it’s correct. I read that an issue is ANY collusion with Russia, no matter who did it.

“"everyone else does it" is not a defense to a crime, nor does it negate guilt.” Very true and my point was not that Trump is innocent if he did it just because Clinton did it, too, but that fairness requires that we look at both sides.

“is a pretty big old nothing of a talking point. The whole affair goes way beyond that, I'm afraid” Well, it is indeed just an observation and affair may indeed go well beyond that… so thorough investigation is in order.

“A business "transaction" necessarily involves an expectation that both parties will receive something from the deal” Of course, on side receives the goods and another one receives the money – that is how the world works, from Wal-Mart on… “Never mind--"collusion" means cooperation in an unlawful enterprise.” No, otherwise buying stolen goods or drugs would lead to charges of collusion which they do not.

Collusion

Collusion is an ethical matter. There is no crime of collusion. If it is shown that the Trump campaign did collude with Russia, it could be evidence of an actual crime.

Knowingly buying stolen goods or illegal drugs is a crime, as I'm sure you know.

I don’t see your point. Trump

I don’t see your point. Trump has been accused of collusion many times and that is why this term is so widely used now and why you used it as well. Now you are saying it is not even a crime… My point was that so far there is no evidence of any crime committed by Trump because opposition research is a normal part of campaigning. Of course knowingly buying stolen goods is a crime but it is a crime of knowingly buying stolen goods, not anything else.

Colluison for $1.5T

A bit of a different perspective: The tactics that "T" uses in America are right out of the KGB/Putin ... Manafort textbook. Discredit the media (truth), demonify your competitor and all opposed to your collusion agenda, provide wealth to your fellow oligarchs, discredit the scientific, educational, professional, etc. community, sacrifice the environment and the common man to increase you and your oligarchs wealth, fill your cabinet inner circle with oligarchs, continuously feed misinformation to the public, discredit all government agencies and reinforce that there is only 1 person to trust and make decisions. Campaign on fiscal mismanagement and then Pass financial obligations on to the next generation! Do your best to divide the country on religion and ideologue issues. Lie about everything that doesn't put you in a good light. Twist facts to fit ideals, etc. etc. etc. Looks like "T" and gang are following the Russian/Putin script on how to divide and discredit America to a "T"! That looks like "collusion" from this perspective.

Unfortunately (actually,

Unfortunately (actually, fortunately), there are no facts behind all your statements, on one hand, nor should Putin do much of that since his approval rating is in the 80’s and he has the power to truly rig the elections anyway…

Facts?

Its called behavior observation. These are all words, statements, actions, "T" and his swamp rats, are saying, doing etc. on a daily basis. Can't get anymore factual than that. Fully recorded "in the MSM "fake news" every day. The conclusion are easy to derive from this perspective, if one is looking. A blanket, not true, is the same as a "T" "believe me" which translates to a, I'm conning you again.

OK, my blanket “not true” is

OK, my blanket “not true” is not convincing. But then you have to provide specific cases and examples instead of throwing around blanket allegations. Saying that this what the media show is not convincing either.

Stop it

Papadopoulos is older than the NYPD cop who shot the terrorist on Tuesday, or the four soldiers killed in Niger. He's old enough -- especially if he's serving as a policy advisor on a presidential campaign -- to know better.

And if he doesn't know better, what does this say about Trump's judgment to have this guy in the room?

I have to agree with you on

I have to agree with you on Trump’s selection of some people..

"Foreign whats?"

If you get a minute you might want to take a look at what Federal Election Commission regulations (which are based on laws) have to say about some of this stuff . . . Like this, for example:

"Commission regulations prohibit foreign nationals from directing, dictating, controlling, or directly or indirectly participating in the decision-making process of any person (such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization) with regard to any election-related activities. Such activities include, the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with any federal or nonfederal elections in the United States, or decisions concerning the administration of any political committee. Foreign nationals are also prohibited from involvement in the management of a political committee, including any separate segregated fund (SSF), nonconnected committee, or the nonfederal accounts of any of these committees. See Explanation and Justification for 11 CFR 110.20 at 67 FR 69946 (November 19, 2002) [PDF]."

www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

A British foreign national, music publicist Rob Goldstone, contacted Donald Trump Jr on June 3rd to say:

"Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

"The Crown Prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father . . . "

Less than 20 minutes later that presidential campaign committee member replies (to the foreign national):

"Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?"

When they pick up the communication later, Rob Goldstone says:

"Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and The Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow for this Thursday . . . I believe you are aware of the meeting - and so wondered if 3pm or later on Thursday works for you?"

To which Donald Jr replied, "How about 3 at our offices? Thanks rob appreciate you helping set it up."

www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/11/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-email...

And they have that meeting . . . DT Jr, P Manafort, Jared K and Natalia Veselnitskaya, "The Russian government attorney," who, the three campaign committee members believe, is there to deliver "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary" that, they believe, have been offered to the campaign by the foreign national known as the "Crown prosecutor of Russia."

"Commission regulations prohibit foreign nationals from directing, dictating, controlling, or directly or indirectly participating in the decision-making process of any person with regard to any election-related activities."

Ring any bells for you? Do you see any possible violations of FEC regulations and the laws behind them? Do you see any evidence of foreign nationals offering anything of value to, or participating in the decision-making process of, any person with regard to any election-related activities?

I can't think of a single thing Trump had done

for his people or the rest of America. So much hatred, lying, irresponsibility, immature behavior, and boorishness in one person who is supposed to represent America. After winning the presidency, the President is supposed to work for all Americans, but not Trump. I have never seen a person so unqualified for a job. Any job for that matter. Trump's low approval rating is outrageously high.

Let me try, and not to defend

Let me try, and not to defend Trump but to defend the reality: economy is up, more than predicted; TPA is cancelled and NAFTA may be re-negotiated; illegal immigration is way down; the UN Security Council issued resolutions condemning North Korea and China is helpful; ISIS in Syria is practically defeated…

My turn

GDP is running ~ to expectation 2-3% (see below). When saying economy is up, one should look at more than the Stock Mkt. Consumer debt is higher than in 2008. TPA canceled meaning what? The deal maker can't strike a deal with the Asia Pacific partners? (Is that a win, if so why?) And NAFTA, again the deal maker has no deal, meaning what? Again how is this a win? Illegal immigration way down? Could you support that? Per below 2M work permits for illegal immigrants.
UN security council, has been issuing condemnations forever, and how is this a new bigger deal? ISIS, so all those folks fighting ISIS over the last 5 years did nothing? Some of us follow the news every day, the Syria situation has been active since 2012. The suggestion that because "T" walked on the scene in the 9th inning with 2 out nobody on base, and the count at 0 and 2 that he is now the beater of ISIS is ludicrous. Kind of tells the story why folks will give him near a "0" did nothing, or did everything possible to destroy the progress, or lied through his teeth about not real success, but takes all the credit for everything and anything that went right, and blames everyone else for what didn't. A sign of a leader or a weasel (we'll be polite), looks like the weasel is winning for now. . .

https://www.kiplinger.com/article/business/T019-C000-S010-gdp-growth-rat...
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/15/illegal-immigrants-get-...

“Consumer debt is higher than

“Consumer debt is higher than in 2008.” Which only means that that it kept growing through Obama’s eight years. “TPA canceled meaning what?” That American jobs will not go to Southeast Asia. Illegal immigration is down: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/us/trump-immigration-border.html and an article you referenced said that the data is from the fiscal year meaning that it started in October of 2016, under Obama who most likely gave those permits away. “UN security council, has been issuing condemnations forever, and how is this a new bigger deal?” Not that strong and China didn’t usually care much about enforcing. “so all those folks fighting ISIS over the last 5 years did nothing.” No but there is some special thing in finishing things up…

Research

For any one looking consumer debt dropped from 2008-2013. For anyone looking: a canceled "TPT" could adversely effect US farmers (exports to Asia) and technology, IP exports globally, to name a few.
Yes there is a special meaning for the end, if it really is the end, the Taliban were suppose to be defeated what 14 years ago?

“For any one looking consumer

“For any one looking consumer debt dropped from 2008-2013” Wait, in your previous post you said it went up (“Consumer debt is higher than in 2008”). And yes, canceling TPP will hurt some but help more. So in conclusion, Trump gets and A- in economics… and not from FOX https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trumps-grade-economy-ticks-back-163733792....

It's the economy ....

Take a look at the FRED GDP graph for the past few years at
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/STLENI
(they've got other graphs for different periods).
Hard to say that the economy is up.
As for illegal immigration, look up 'deporter-in-chief';
see
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deportations-deport...
Your other statements are mostly conjecture.

He is enjoying an Obama wave...

Anything he has initiated and there really is nothing that exists has not even touched the flow of capital. He has made himself a non player as much as he might thing otherwise. You just cannot inflate this tire.

The Numbers Do Not Matter

Trump retains the loyalty of the Radical Republicans. We were warned long ago the Facism would come to America wrapped in the flag and the cross. The Facists have won, America will be destroyed from within.

Inexplicable

I don't get it. How can his numbers be so bad when he's getting such high marks from everyone regarding everything he's doing and he's accomplished more than any other president in history in his first 6 or 7 months? Must be fake news is the only thing I can figure.

Seriously though...

I'm working a thing right now that takes issue with the idea that Americans are "polarized", and these survey results help inform my point. The biggest proponents of the "polarized" narrative seem to be "centrist" trying to restore or reclaim their comfort zones.

The problem is, and I think these consistent survey results reveal the problem, Americans really aren't THAT polarized. If you drill into these result for instance you'll find that an even smaller percentage of Republicans "strongly" support Trump or his fellow republicans and their initiatives. The other fact that these polls reveal is that while Trump still enjoys a lot of support among Republicans... clearly Republicans are in the minority.

What this tells us is not that American's are "Polarized" between two extremes (the definition of "polarized") but rather among a range of opinion from strong support to strong opposition, a majority of Americans do not strongly support Trump or the Republican agenda. Rather than being polarized, Americans are actually near consensus that that Trump and the Republicans are not governing well or appropriately.

The "polarized" narrative can only be maintained if one defines every position beyond narrow and largely mythical "centrist" positions as "extreme". Thus even common sense positions on health care or infrastructure can be classified as "extreme" by virtue of position on an arbitrary and illusory spectrum of compromise, rather than their own qualities. So support for a single payer health plan for instance, is defined as an: "extremist" position despite the fact that a clear majority support it; not because its actually and "extreme" policy, but because it merely falls outside the centrist comfort zone.

If we stop pretending that there is a centrist comfort zone and simply acknowledge the actual range of support, the polarization narrative collapses and we can see that clear, popular, and effective set of policy alternatives emerge.