Patterico's Pontifications

8/19/2019

President Trump Unhappy With Fox News Polling Numbers

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:53 am



[guest post by Dana]

And guess who he blames for the discouraging numbers???

Once a solid, reliable ally willing to spin just about anything to make the president look good, Fox News is not spinning its latest polling data, and the discouraging numbers are making Trump unhappy with… Fox News:

President Donald Trump on Sunday slammed his preferred news network over recent unfavorable poll results, saying: “There’s something going on at Fox [News], I’ll tell you right now. And I’m not happy with it.”

Trump’s comments to reporters in New Jersey were in response to a question about the network’s recently released survey showing the president losing head-to-head match-ups against four of the top Democratic presidential primary candidates.

Trump said he didn’t “believe” the poll that was published, adding: “Fox has changed. My worst polls have always been from Fox.”

Here is a breakdown of the head-to-head match-up numbers:

The poll found Trump with 39 percent support among registered voters in head-to-head matchups against Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). The poll found Sanders beating Trump with 48 percent, Warren winning over Trump with 45 percent and Harris winning with 46 percent support.

Former Vice President Joe Biden, meanwhile, beat Trump in the theoretical matchup with 50 percent support among those surveyed, compared to Trump’s 38 percent.

Additionally, polling also shows that Trump’s disapproval rating has increased:

President Trump’s disapproval rating has jumped to 56 percent in a Fox News survey released Wednesday…

The survey found a 5 percentage point increase in Trump’s disapproval from last month. The only time his disapproval rating was higher, according to Fox News, was when it reached 57 percent in October 2017.

Forty-three percent of respondents said they approve of Trump’s job performance, down from 46 percent last month. The record low for Trump approval in Fox News’s polling is 38 percent, also from October of 2017.

This really isn’t surprising given that the president’s median approval rating, while remaining consistent, has been the lowest of almost all of the modern presidents:

If there’s one thing that’s been consistent about President Trump’s time in office, it’s his approval rating… his average approval has hovered between 36 percent and 45 percent, a fluctuation of 9 points, over practically the entire course of his presidency… But that’s a really narrow band, especially compared to previous presidents, and it has meant that his median approval rating is low…only President Harry Truman had a lower median rating. Trump’s approval rating has the least variation of any post-World War II president. Granted, Trump hasn’t yet served a full term, but changes in his approval rating have been remarkably small.

This is an interesting analysis of how the Fox News polling numbers may be an indicator of how Trump’s current strategy for 2020 may not be enough for the very different kind of race he faces today than the one he faced in 2016. Trump will remain who he is, and won’t be making any concessions to his campaign advisers who may futilely try and encourage the president to ease up on his incessant tweeting and inflammatory rhetoric. He knows that this is what keeps his loyal base of supporters coming back for more. Nor is there any indication that he will be able to stay focused on the actual issues that might draw in not-so-much Trump supporters but Republicans and Independents who voted for the lesser of two evils in 2016 or the one that most represented their interests, in spite of their dislike for the nominee. Nor is Trump finally going to become more “presidential,” as so many predicted (and hoped) he would. In other words, Trump is not about to change who he is, and for better or worse, he is a known quantity. So with that, we can assume that he will likely stick with what worked for him in 2016. But that just may not be enough this time:

[I]t isn’t hard to see why Trump might think that his presidency can survive on base mobilization alone. Trump’s approval rating may currently sit at a meager 42 percent; but on the day he won the White House, RealClearPolitics’ poll of polls had it at 38.6. So why shouldn’t he deem his current base of support sufficiently broad? After all, last time around, he prevailed with even lower favorability rating, and without the benefits of incumbency.

As far as comforting things Donald Trump likes to tell himself go, this is reasonable enough. But the path Trump took to the White House in 2016 was an awfully narrow one. Trump’s success in winning an Electoral College majority— despite being the most unpopular major-party nominee in recorded history — was contingent on (at least) three related factors:

1) He drew a historically unpopular Democratic opponent.
2) His share of the popular vote was higher than his Election Day approval rating (46.1 percent versus 38.6 percent).
3) And he won voters who disapproved of both candidates by a double-digit margin.

[…]

But for Trump, the most alarming takeaway from Fox’s survey may be this: Even if the president does manage to turn the Democratic nominee’s favorability steeply negative, he could still lose in a rout. In 2016, Trump won voters who disapproved of both major-party candidates by 50 to 39 percent margin in national exit polls. Respondents who disliked both Biden and Trump in Fox’s poll favored the Democrat over the president by a whopping 43 to 10 percent margin.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

86 Responses to “President Trump Unhappy With Fox News Polling Numbers”

  1. The report also states that Trump declined to say whether he will debate in 2020.

    Dana (fdf131)

  2. Per the WSJ, although the Dem candidates’ favorability ratings are going down, their approval-disapproval is close to parity (within the margin of error), but they buried the lede:

    Still, registered voters in the new survey picked a generic Democratic candidate over President Trump, by a margin of 52% to 40%. Among suburban voters, there has been an 8-point decrease in support for Mr. Trump from 2016 exit polling.

    Like with FoxNews, Trump’s ceiling against Democrats is 40%.

    Paul Montagu (a2342d)

  3. What I find ironic about this… is that these polls mirrors a bit in 2016. Yet, he still won.

    Polling isn’t an exact science.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  4. All the Democrats need to do is not be crazy, but we see what an insurmountable challenge that is for them.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  5. I’m not hopeful. the American people are conformist morons. They will elect some dimwit D in 2020, and then after he/she destroys the Country they will vote in R’s in 2022 but it will be too late. They never learn.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  6. Fox News is traditionally the “pessimistic” poll with regard to the Republican candidate as is CBS with the Dem, it’s usually to scare the partisans into showing up, which seems lost on him, but his team probably know this.

    urbanleftbehind (9864c2)

  7. I’m not hopeful. the American people are conformist morons. They will elect some dimwit D in 2020, and then after he/she destroys the Country they will vote in R’s in 2022 but it will be too late. They never learn.

    They voted for Trump, well some did, I mean less than the old lady, but some.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  8. If you were going to vote for Trump, no matter whom he was running against, would you admit it?

    nk (dbc370)

  9. It would be ironic if Elizabeth Warren is elected to “fix the economy.” Except maybe in the veterinary sense.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  10. If you were going to vote for Trump, no matter whom he was running against, would you admit it?

    If you DID vote for Trump in 2020, no matter whom he ran against, would you admit it to a co-worker?

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  11. “It’s the economy, stupid!”

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  12. All the Democrats need to do is not be crazy, but we see what an insurmountable challenge that is for them.

    I fully agree with that (and for once fully agree with the Colonel!) The Democratic Party seems intent on losing. All they need to do is nominate a sane and stable candidate, an antiTrump. But the closest to that is Biden, and he’s not necessarily sane and stable

    kishnevi (496414)

  13. That’s why the Democrat propaganda organs (that would be the national media) are floating the spectre of “recession” in headlines with no evidence of any such thing.

    nk (dbc370)

  14. But the closest to that is Biden, and he’s not necessarily sane and stable

    All Trump needs to do to win is to act sane and stable. There is a great danger that he will make the Democrat craziness indiscernible.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  15. If you DID vote for Trump in 2020, no matter whom he ran against, would you admit it to a co-worker?

    I would not even admit it to my conscience. I would convince myself that it was only a bad dream or a false memory.

    nk (dbc370)

  16. That’s why the Democrat propaganda organs (that would be the national media) are floating the spectre of “recession” in headlines with no evidence of any such thing.

    I’m glad there’s no recession up in Chicago. Here in Miami the claims seem to match reality–but that’s in part because the Trump recovery never really made an impact.

    kishnevi (496414)

  17. No theyll abolish the electoral college by then,

    Narciso (50a424)

  18. You moved south kish?

    Narciso (50a424)

  19. No theyll abolish the electoral college by then,

    I used to think this was impossible, because the little states would never sign on. But the Democrat governor and legislature of my little state (NM) have signed onto the Compact. It will just take a bit more marching through the institutions, and it will be a done deal. At which point voter participation in elections in Democrat areas will take a noticeable jump.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  20. 10… oh, Hell yes. But I’m retired. It was a hope for the best vote in 2016, but here in California, I’m already living what the future holds for the rest of the US if the sub-moron Democrats win in 2020.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  21. With Texas heading Blue, Trump has an uphill climb.

    mg (8cbc69)

  22. No, I’m still in the same place. But you are probably the only person here who actually knows where Pembroke Pines is, and if I say Hollywood, people think I mean it’s that place in California.

    kishnevi (496414)

  23. All Trump needs to do to win is to act sane and stable.

    All things considered, this is a mighty big ask. Maybe even impossible.

    Dana (fdf131)

  24. I have heard the traffic is insane and hyperexpensive.

    Narciso (50a424)

  25. It would be ironic if Elizabeth Warren is elected to “fix the economy.” Except maybe in the veterinary sense.

    LOL. That was a good one.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  26. It would be ironic if Elizabeth Warren is elected to “fix the economy.”

    Would it?

    Tucker Carlson: Elizabeth Warren’s “Economic Patriotism” Plan “Sounds Like Donald Trump At His Best”

    Dave (1bb933)

  27. Shep not tucker is the public face of fox, and hes no different than any other msm newscaster, tucker and dobbs are commentators.

    Narciso (50a424)

  28. Ms. Warren wants to spay the US economy, not fix it.

    Paul Montagu (a2342d)

  29. Which 2.0 is more stark in its reversal: Lindsay Graham or Brian Kilmeade?

    urbanleftbehind (9864c2)

  30. I fully agree with that (and for once fully agree with the Colonel!) The Democratic Party seems intent on losing. All they need to do is nominate a sane and stable candidate, an antiTrump. But the closest to that is Biden, and he’s not necessarily sane and stable

    There are a few candidates who aren’t fruity, but because they haven’t drawn publicity by saying and doing crazy things, they poll at 1% and nobody pays attention to them because they poll at 1%.

    Klobuchar, Bennet, Delaney and Ryan seem pretty “sane and stable”, and while they are obviously liberals to one degree or another, they are hardly outside the political mainstream.

    But unfortunately they are nobodies as far as the nationwide Dem electorate is concerned.

    We’ve seen the same dynamic at work in both parties now: the ones who say the craziest things are the ones who get attention.

    Dave (1bb933)

  31. What’s the Kilmeade change?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  32. Polls? Those things that showed Brexit and Trump losing? That had media telling everyone 24/7, that only buffoons, rubes, and Russians thought either had a chance?

    Ahem. Since 2016, the “concealed Trump voter” has become MORE concealed: they’ve been beaten, boycotted, and chased from public places, all to the applause of the media and the silent approval of everyone who has not condemned such ations. Their signs are stolen, their hats are knocked off, and they are even doxxed by public officials.

    Even media in the parochial cities of no real consequence is on it. Take a columnist named “Danny Westneat,” for a quaint squib called the Seattle Times. He was mystified by Trump’s seemingly larger support in Seattle than in 2016. So he did what any good liberal would do. He linked to a list of small-amount Trump donors in Seattle! Here’s a list of them! Just another example of tolerant media and why polls can’t be taken as accurate.

    Trump supporters aren’t going to tell polling people a bloody thing.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e)

  33. The national polls were accurate to within better than 2% in 2016.

    Dave (1bb933)

  34. Klobuchar has been known to eat a salad with a hair comb, but your definition of insanity may vary…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  35. I don’t know how pervasive this is, but in my circles whom are Trump voters, most don’t acknowledge that they’re likely Trump voters.

    It seems like the same dynamic in 2016 is being repeated here.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  36. The polls had Reagan losing to Carter and suffered from the same problem as the 2016 polls — they focused on the popular vote instead of the electoral college. I think it’s too early to say what’s going to happen. Trump suffers in MI and PA polls; he looks ok in AZ, OH and NC. Every Dem candidate has problems. Bernie could gin up excitement but he will drive away moderates. Biden can get moderates but he is sleepy and gaffe-y. Warren has the pocohontas problem. Booker, Harris? would be eaten alive. Beto, Buttagieg? Would do better imo but they aren’t getting traction. Yang, too esoteric. It’s really too early because there are too many candidates. The Dems need a nominee.

    If I had to pick somebody I’d pick Bernie. He’s the closest thing the Dems have to fighting fire w fire. Unconventional, authentic, fired-up base, Long Island accent (brooklyn is technically on LI as is Queens). Let’s get ready to rumble.

    JRH (52aed3)

  37. Why were the 2018 congressional polls accurate to within about 2% then, HFM?

    Dave (1bb933)

  38. He was kind of a squish pre-2017, but now he’s often the most outspoken, given to fits of packaged rage.

    http://www.salon.com/2018/09/26/brian-kilmeade-rants-in-defense-of-kavanaugh-on-fox-and-friends_partner/
    I cited the commonality. Graham because Kilmeade can still come off like Down-Low Dad.

    urbanleftbehind (9864c2)

  39. Here’s a nice summary of presidential polling accuracy over the last 80+ years of elections:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_United_States_presidential_elections

    National polling has generally been pretty accurate, particularly in recent years, but of course the election isn’t decided by the popular vote.

    Dave (1bb933)

  40. May be somewhat tied to the harassment he’s received in NYC.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  41. JRH, a Sanders – Trump debate could easily turn into the final scenes of Scanners or that well-worn sitcom trope where one character who is hectored by an older rival says “Drop Dead“, and the nemesis obliges.

    urbanleftbehind (9864c2)

  42. kilmeades a little high strung, I like his morning update,

    narciso (d1f714)

  43. One more thought: I forgot Trump’s secret weapon. He loves this stuff. He loves campaigning. Every single Dem looks like they’re more or less miserable. Doing something they must do. Trump on the other hand would rather do nothing else. If I had to bet I think we are gonna have him for 4 more years.

    JRH (52aed3)

  44. Trump’s approval rating has the least variation of any post-World War II president.

    That’s because, in his case, it is much more an overall evaluation, while that doesn’t happen with other presidents, except when it gets close to an election in which they up for re-election.

    Usually the “doing..job” question is taken by most people to refer to what has been most on the news in the last six weeks. (note the presdent tense) Bill Clinton understood this very well.

    Sammy Finkelman (6a3404)

  45. One more thought: I forgot Trump’s secret weapon. He loves this stuff. He loves campaigning. Every single Dem looks like they’re more or less miserable. Doing something they must do.

    You must be watching different candidates. Warren and Sanders, at least, seem very energetic. Of course, they are often channeling anger and resentment, but so is the orange.

    Dave (1bb933)

  46. The part of the poll that can be trusted the most (because it is the same group of people) is the relative ranking od Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris and Elzabeth Warren versus Trump.

    Biden and Sanders do best simply because they ARE NOT UNKNOWNS. A significant fraction of voters will not support an unknown, at least in polls.

    Biden actually takes away a few votes from Trump that the others do not. Elizabeth Warren must have some unfavorables, probably because she is so well known for having claimed Indian ancestry. (as the New York Times and some ohers now like tosay “without evidence.”)

    Sammy Finkelman (6a3404)

  47. I don’t trust the king rat, who’s the head of the sun cartel:

    https://babalublog.com/2019/08/19/socialist-venezuelas-communist-rats-may-be-preparing-to-jump-ship/

    narciso (d1f714)

  48. “Warren and Sanders, at least, seem very energetic.“

    In the case of Warren, use of animatronics. In Sanders’ case, repetitive chopping of air in one direction passes for energy.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  49. 11.

    Kevin M (21ca15) — 8/19/2019 @ 8:44 am

    “It’s the economy, stupid!” Trump thinks so, and he’s attacking the media for claiming that there could be a recession; the Federal Reserve Board for following policies that could create a recession, and he told an audience in New Hampshire that they had no choice but to vote for him whether they liked him or not, for the sake of their 401(k)s – he didn’t even put it that way, he seemed to say because they were already up. He did not explicitly say that the Democatic candidates for president were going to wreck the economy or maybe it’s the value of their investments.)

    U+In he past he told staff in the White House that Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell was trying to (or could) turn him into Herbert Hoover.

    Sammy Finkelman (6a3404)

  50. the arquillians use double shifts, Bernie reminds me of the mad scientist in the first doctor who episode I saw from 1974, robot, they didn’t air it till 78, on pbs,

    narciso (d1f714)

  51. Oh and what’s old is new again: http://news.yahoo.com/zapatista-rebels-extend-control-over-160605932.html

    urbanleftbehind (9864c2)

  52. you can never satisfy these people, this is why they sent the airborne troops to crush the first generation of Zapatistas,

    narciso (d1f714)

  53. And that IL state senator was better off photoshopping Trump-as-Mariachi (like Nixon going to China) into a fake news missive to bait a disillusioned follower into doing the deed.

    urbanleftbehind (9864c2)

  54. that was what frequent Lolita express flyer enabled with the farc and the eln in the mid 90s,

    narciso (d1f714)

  55. andres pastrana, he was the bill weld candidate, whereas uribe, was the strong liberal,

    narciso (d1f714)

  56. In Sanders’ case, repetitive chopping of air in one direction passes for energy.

    The move where he throws both his arms up in the air in frustration is also entertaining.

    Dave (c4bb53)

  57. 35, 39, 41:

    Dave, Dave, Dave:….The “national polls” were accurate only on a subject that was irrelevant: the national vote; but inaccurate and misleading because they relied on a raw vote total, as if the EC did not exist.

    They also over-counted college graduates, and overestimated Clinton’s vote in the Midwest swing states.

    And its recognized that many Trump voters declined to respond or responded falsely to pollsters.

    So the “accurate but misleading” polls, were the basis for excited but ill-informed predictions from ignorant people. “News anchors” to 27 year old Huff Po “political writers” had forgotten about the EC, assuming they ever knew about it to begin with.

    Defending them as “accurate” is again like projecting victory for the fat man of 300 lbs, versus the fit man of 245 lbs.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (0c349e)

  58. They blinded him with science.

    Colonel Haiku (6ddbda)

  59. trump did not defeat hillary clinton in the electoral college. Jill stein did as she got more votes then the difference between clinton and trump in michigan, pennsylvania, wisconsin and nearly minnesota.

    lany (787b64)

  60. Dave, Dave, Dave:….The “national polls” were accurate only on a subject that was irrelevant: the national vote; but inaccurate and misleading because they relied on a raw vote total, as if the EC did not exist.

    Popular vote polls are neither inaccurate nor misleading.

    But they may not reflect the electoral college outcome.

    And its recognized that many Trump voters declined to respond or responded falsely to pollsters.

    Not that many, since the polls correctly predicted Trump’s fraction of the two-party vote within better than 2%.

    Defending them as “accurate” is again like projecting victory for the fat man of 300 lbs, versus the fit man of 245 lbs.

    No, it’s nothing like that. National polls measure what they measure. Whether they are accurate or not is a question of fact, not opinion. In 2016 they were accurate.

    Dave (1bb933)

  61. Popular vote polls are neither *inherently inaccurate nor misleading.

    Dave (1bb933)

  62. THe polls said Trump would lose– right up until he won. Only the hardcore base will admit to a pollster, for free, that they’ll vote for Trump.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  63. I’m waiting to see who the Libertarian party nominates. Or what Justin Amash decides to do.

    I won’t be voting for Trump or any Republican. I won’t be voting for any Democrat. So my choices are limited.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  64. @ Kevin M, #19:


    I used to think [abolishing the Electoral College] was impossible, because the little states would never sign on. But the Democrat governor and legislature of my little state (NM) have signed onto the Compact. It will just take a bit more marching through the institutions, and it will be a done deal. At which point voter participation in elections in Democrat areas will take a noticeable jump.

    The NPVIC cannot possibly survive constitutional scrutiny without congressional consent, if the Supreme Court at all cares for the Constitution.

    So all it will take is for us to have a willing Congress, or a Supreme Court that does not care for the Constitution.

    Yup. We’re doomed.

    Demosthenes (7fae81)

  65. “I won’t be voting for Trump or any Republican. I won’t be voting for any Democrat. So my choices are limited.”

    As is your impact.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  66. THe polls said Trump would lose– right up until he won. Only the hardcore base will admit to a pollster, for free, that they’ll vote for Trump.

    And yet the polls somehow predicted the 2016 and 2018 national vote with an accuracy better than 2%.

    Dave (1bb933)

  67. “THe polls said Trump would lose– right up until he won. Only the hardcore base will admit to a pollster, for free, that they’ll vote for Trump.”

    I think a good many people get a kick out of misleading pollsters and an absolute thrill with their inevitable “wha happen?”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  68. @ the Colonel, #70:

    As is your impact.

    In an election where over 100 million people vote and only a handful of states can truly be called competitive…pretty much everyone’s impact is limited, no?

    Demosthenes (7fae81)

  69. @72. Yep. Agree.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  70. 73… yes… however, voting for a party or a candidate with absolutely no possible chance of emerging victorious has even less impact.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  71. And there should be more than a handful of states…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  72. is it masochism, coronello that they want to sentence us to Australian or even uk style brownouts,

    narciso (d1f714)

  73. @ 75: I understand your position. But how do you measure “even less,” though? The first number is so close to zero that even if the second number actually is zero, the difference between them is miniscule. It’s like saying I have less chance to be named Sexiest Woman Alive than Sexiest Man Alive. I suppose it’s a trivially true statement, since I’m a man…but unless literally tens of millions of other men worldwide die tomorrow, I probably shouldn’t be expecting that call from People Magazine.

    The same reasoning applies here. I live in a very red state. It almost certainly doesn’t matter for whom I vote, since Trump will win here anyway. Let me put it to you this way: if he needs my help to win my state, he’s lost everywhere else…and so again, my vote won’t matter. So since I will already have no impact, how could giving my vote to, say, John Doe instead of Donald Trump possibly leave me with any less impact as a practical matter?

    Demosthenes (7fae81)

  74. “It’s like saying I have less chance to be named Sexiest Woman Alive than Sexiest Man Alive. I suppose it’s a trivially true statement, since I’m a man…but unless literally tens of millions of other men worldwide die tomorrow, I probably shouldn’t be expecting that call from People Magazine.”

    But there’s still a chance!

    Seriously, if everyone thought it was as hopelessly hapless as described, who would bother voting?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  75. And building on my comment at #78, if enough people like me decide to “waste” their votes on a protest candidate, we just might have an impact. It won’t topple the two-party system and put a third-party candidate in the White House, but it could make the two major parties recalibrate their messages in future elections, in an attempt to recapture some of those disaffected voters.

    Demosthenes (7fae81)

  76. Seriously, if everyone thought it was as hopelessly hapless as described, who would bother voting?

    If the presidency were the only office on the ballot, who would bother voting? But there are other federal candidates…state candidates…local candidates, where your vote really CAN make an impact…referendums in some places…bond issues in others…

    Just because I don’t think my vote matters as far as the presidency is concerned doesn’t mean I think my vote doesn’t matter.

    Demosthenes (7fae81)

  77. Generations of gumball machines beg to disagree about the minuscule impact of 1/100 millionth of a vote. Think about it.

    nk (dbc370)

  78. Until there’s a better way to go about it, I’ll buy teh gumball…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  79. And ten trillion ants would disagree… if they could.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  80. I got high hopes…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4212 secs.