In this week’s Economist/YouGov tracking poll, Trump’s job approval is now 42%-52% (–10). That is down a staggering 16 points from his first week. The loss of support amongst three groups that were critical to Trump’s November win are even more dramatic:
In this week’s Economist/YouGov tracking poll, Trump’s job approval is now 42%-52% (–10). That is down a staggering 16 points from his first week. The loss of support amongst three groups that were critical to Trump’s November win are even more dramatic:
• 18–29: 33%–54% (–21)
• Hispanics: 25%–71% (–46)
• Independents: 32%–56% (–24)
Here is The Economist’s article, as well as a link to the recent tracking poll.
Does seem to line up with the movement to the right among these groups being temporary vs. a lasting realignment but need elections to happen to be sure.
We won't really know the impact/extent of the realignment until after he's gone. Remember the GOP got shitcanned by the swingy groups in 2018, amd the thought was 2016 was an aberration amd sense would go back to the world, but it didn't turn out like that.
Trump brings out MILLIONS of voters who love him but don't care much for Republicans. How many of them stay loyal Republicans vs how many drift back into routine non-voters like happened with many of Perot's voters, depends on a lot of variables impossible to predict currently.
We also don't have many data points here. Since 2016 we've only had two data points for regular elections that didn't have him on the ballot. Those being the two midterms of 2018 and 2022, which as is common had their own things going on.
I think on this axis of thought it comes down to if a republican candidate can successfully take up that mantle in the eyes of the conservative voter base. It's not an easy task, and I wouldn't bet on anyone being able to do it. But "not easy" isn't the same as "not possible." For that matter it is not their only path to victory again.
We're going to have closely divided electorates for the foreseeable future I expect. The question is how the coalitions within them look.
Yes; despite the party essentially becoming a Reagan-worship cult after his presidency, no other GOP Republican came close to matching his numbers with traditionally Dem WWC/union constituencies until Trump 20 years later.
But a lot has changed since the 1980s; I worry about the Balkanization of people's media consumption in the smart phone age.
I think there's a good chance of that, but I think there's not a certainty that this will be what near-future elections come down to. What animates various parts of the electorate and what dominates the narrative of an election is not static. I'd argue that in this century that culture war has only been a dominant coalition shifting factor since 2016. Even when eg same-sex marriage was an issue that republicans were using to animate their base, like in 2004, it was far more of a background factor than the culture war topics are today. Dominate electoral narratives went from terrorism, to war, to the economy, and now culture war. What's next?
That changed. This will eventually too. The critical question is: when? Which I do not know. But it could be by 2028 or 2032 that we have a new dominate factor. Or it could stick around a bit longer.
Oh definitely. The culture war keeps on reinventing itself and will continue to. And it will always put the progressive party at a competitive disadvantage when the majority hates cultural change.
Maybe. But it seems to me that it is the reactionary MAGA movement that is seeking cultural change – truly radical cultural change.
Their very slogan, "Make America Great Again", allows adherents to imagine the MAGA-Republican Party striving for whatever past Golden Age they choose to project that slogan onto.
What I was trying to say is that it's not guaranteed that any culture war issue will be what dominates discussions in any specific election going forward. These things come and go in waves. At some point in the unknown future, an election's discourse and narrative will instead be dominated by something else, something that isn't a culture war. What thing something else is, or when that happens, I do not know. But it will happen.
Obama won in 2008 and 2012 because of economics, and if the economy is in the toilet in 2028 and there are real elections, the Republicans will probably get drubbed for that reason, regardless of how many bogeymen they trot out to try to scare people.
Republicans rigging the election is probably dependent on them keeping the race close enough that just a little bit of meddling can tip it in their favor. Which in turn is dependent on the cult of MAGA remaining fully intact through 2028.
If Trump loses his economic goodwill things could change in a heartbeat.
I don't agree with you. If Republicans are allowed to arbitrarily annul several thousand duly counted (and repeatedly recounted) votes this time, the same or other Republicans are likely to try to annul a much larger number of votes next time.
Focusing on presidential elections: I wouldn't call any of 2000-2012 as culture war elections. Don't think 1992-1996 count either. Outside of our immediate history I'd think 1968-1972 or 1980 depending on how you assess things, were the next most recent culture war focused elections.
The focal point of elections change over time. The present might feel long-enduring, but it rarely is — for good and for ill.
1980 was above all about stagflation, and secondarily, the Iran hostage crisis that Reagan (or at least his people) ensured would continue till the day he was inaugurated. Manufactured culture war issues (because remember, Carter was a genuine born again Christian while Reagan hardly ever went to church) were played up, but it's hard to argue that they accounted for the margin of victory. So in that sense, Reagan was as much a cultural warrior as G.W. Bush, not more. But he was historically probably more important because he was the first victorious presidential candidate to blatantly pander to people who wanted to impose their reactionary evangelical values on everyone, and his presidency was seen as very successful.
More evidence that 2024 was a vote against Kamala Harris and not a vote for dt. People never liked dt they just did not want Kamala Harris as President. Reach your own conclusions as to why this was so!
While I think Trump always had a lot of "soft" support even at his apex, I don't think this is entirely accurate. Polling started showing Trump's favorables at historic highs from late 2023 through this past February. Pre-election lots of people (including myself) said it was bullshit, but then the election proved I was full of shit.
The fact that some people who voted for Trump don't approve of his performance currently in an opinion poll doesn't mean they didn't vote for him or that they would oppose him if he were able to run again. If we should have learned anything, it's that people are changeable, sometimes very quickly, and that loads of people vote Republican because of who they hate or how they identify, even if they vote for Democratic policies in droves when the choice is presented to them as a pure issues referendum and don't fully approve of what their chosen officials do.
TRUMP’s MASSIVE LOSS OF SUPPORT
In this week’s Economist/YouGov tracking poll, Trump’s job approval is now 42%-52% (–10). That is down a staggering 16 points from his first week. The loss of support amongst three groups that were critical to Trump’s November win are even more dramatic:
• 18–29: 33%–54% (–21)
• Hispanics: 25%–71% (–46)
• Independents: 32%–56% (–24)
Here is The Economist’s article, as well as a link to the recent tracking poll.
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/04/16/donald-trumps-approval-rating-is-dropping
https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/52035-donald-trump-job-approval-economy-stocks-tariffs-taxes-budget-april-13-15-2025-economist-yougov-poll
45-53 among RVs.
I told you guys yesterday.
Let's hope we get a FDR after Hoover.
We're gonna need an FDR after the mess this administration will put us in.
I think one possible silver lining to Trump is that if he tanks the economy he'll lose the political capital to do his authoritarian stuff.
We need more than that, and they won't have 3+ terms to do it.
Does seem to line up with the movement to the right among these groups being temporary vs. a lasting realignment but need elections to happen to be sure.
We won't really know the impact/extent of the realignment until after he's gone. Remember the GOP got shitcanned by the swingy groups in 2018, amd the thought was 2016 was an aberration amd sense would go back to the world, but it didn't turn out like that.
Trump brings out MILLIONS of voters who love him but don't care much for Republicans. How many of them stay loyal Republicans vs how many drift back into routine non-voters like happened with many of Perot's voters, depends on a lot of variables impossible to predict currently.
We also don't have many data points here. Since 2016 we've only had two data points for regular elections that didn't have him on the ballot. Those being the two midterms of 2018 and 2022, which as is common had their own things going on.
I think on this axis of thought it comes down to if a republican candidate can successfully take up that mantle in the eyes of the conservative voter base. It's not an easy task, and I wouldn't bet on anyone being able to do it. But "not easy" isn't the same as "not possible." For that matter it is not their only path to victory again.
We're going to have closely divided electorates for the foreseeable future I expect. The question is how the coalitions within them look.
Another example: Reagan dropoff
Yes; despite the party essentially becoming a Reagan-worship cult after his presidency, no other GOP Republican came close to matching his numbers with traditionally Dem WWC/union constituencies until Trump 20 years later.
But a lot has changed since the 1980s; I worry about the Balkanization of people's media consumption in the smart phone age.
Depends mostly on both sides' culture war management, especially in Presidential cycles.
I think there's a good chance of that, but I think there's not a certainty that this will be what near-future elections come down to. What animates various parts of the electorate and what dominates the narrative of an election is not static. I'd argue that in this century that culture war has only been a dominant coalition shifting factor since 2016. Even when eg same-sex marriage was an issue that republicans were using to animate their base, like in 2004, it was far more of a background factor than the culture war topics are today. Dominate electoral narratives went from terrorism, to war, to the economy, and now culture war. What's next?
That changed. This will eventually too. The critical question is: when? Which I do not know. But it could be by 2028 or 2032 that we have a new dominate factor. Or it could stick around a bit longer.
Oh definitely. The culture war keeps on reinventing itself and will continue to. And it will always put the progressive party at a competitive disadvantage when the majority hates cultural change.
Maybe. But it seems to me that it is the reactionary MAGA movement that is seeking cultural change – truly radical cultural change.
Their very slogan, "Make America Great Again", allows adherents to imagine the MAGA-Republican Party striving for whatever past Golden Age they choose to project that slogan onto.
That is true, but isn't what I was getting at.
What I was trying to say is that it's not guaranteed that any culture war issue will be what dominates discussions in any specific election going forward. These things come and go in waves. At some point in the unknown future, an election's discourse and narrative will instead be dominated by something else, something that isn't a culture war. What thing something else is, or when that happens, I do not know. But it will happen.
I submit that any time a culture war doesn't dominate an election cycle represents a vacation from history...and that the moment will be fleeting.
Obama won in 2008 and 2012 because of economics, and if the economy is in the toilet in 2028 and there are real elections, the Republicans will probably get drubbed for that reason, regardless of how many bogeymen they trot out to try to scare people.
Republicans rigging the election is probably dependent on them keeping the race close enough that just a little bit of meddling can tip it in their favor. Which in turn is dependent on the cult of MAGA remaining fully intact through 2028.
If Trump loses his economic goodwill things could change in a heartbeat.
I don't agree with you. If Republicans are allowed to arbitrarily annul several thousand duly counted (and repeatedly recounted) votes this time, the same or other Republicans are likely to try to annul a much larger number of votes next time.
I have my doubts they'll succeed, though, if they try.
Focusing on presidential elections: I wouldn't call any of 2000-2012 as culture war elections. Don't think 1992-1996 count either. Outside of our immediate history I'd think 1968-1972 or 1980 depending on how you assess things, were the next most recent culture war focused elections.
The focal point of elections change over time. The present might feel long-enduring, but it rarely is — for good and for ill.
1980 was above all about stagflation, and secondarily, the Iran hostage crisis that Reagan (or at least his people) ensured would continue till the day he was inaugurated. Manufactured culture war issues (because remember, Carter was a genuine born again Christian while Reagan hardly ever went to church) were played up, but it's hard to argue that they accounted for the margin of victory. So in that sense, Reagan was as much a cultural warrior as G.W. Bush, not more. But he was historically probably more important because he was the first victorious presidential candidate to blatantly pander to people who wanted to impose their reactionary evangelical values on everyone, and his presidency was seen as very successful.
More evidence that 2024 was a vote against Kamala Harris and not a vote for dt. People never liked dt they just did not want Kamala Harris as President. Reach your own conclusions as to why this was so!
While I think Trump always had a lot of "soft" support even at his apex, I don't think this is entirely accurate. Polling started showing Trump's favorables at historic highs from late 2023 through this past February. Pre-election lots of people (including myself) said it was bullshit, but then the election proved I was full of shit.
The fact that some people who voted for Trump don't approve of his performance currently in an opinion poll doesn't mean they didn't vote for him or that they would oppose him if he were able to run again. If we should have learned anything, it's that people are changeable, sometimes very quickly, and that loads of people vote Republican because of who they hate or how they identify, even if they vote for Democratic policies in droves when the choice is presented to them as a pure issues referendum and don't fully approve of what their chosen officials do.
It was more of a vote against Biden than one against Harris.
Out today:
CNBC 44/51
Gallup. 44/53.