Trump's net approval is historically weak for this point in a presidency — and his approval on handling prices and the economy is even worse than Joe Biden's low
I fully agree with this. If it's truly a blue tsunami in terms of voting totals, Democrats will still take the House, and gerrymandering is pretty irrelevant to the Senate.
True, you can't gerrymander away a dismal approval rating. But you can most likely gerrymander, suppress, vote-count manipulate, and potentially challenge and nullify it away -- such that, as in several past suspect elections but more so, election results turn out to be a "shocking" red-shifted departure from poll-based expectations. Time to wake up and smell the rigging -- and be prepared for it. Trump's not going gentle.
The Trumplicans' efforts to win the House by rigging the maps, could work against them in some of the Senate races. They're not going to be better off if Dems have a smaller House majority along with a Senate takeover.
Your headline was so great that I stopped scrolling through my overnight feed and read the column. It was encouraging for sure, but I can't help noticing that 35+ percent of those polled apparently approve of Trump. That's terrible for what we like to think of as U.S. democracy. Most commentators focus on the economy, especially inflation, and rarely if ever mention the Republicans' big elephant, a major -- perhaps *the* major -- source of their electoral appeal: racism, a close cousin of immigration as they understand it. How bad does the economy have to get before these voters decide that "Make America White Again" is costing them too much?
I want to believe that there *is* a bottom, but then I recall the white Southerners who fought and died for a regime that offered them white supremacy but not much more. I remember how the (white) South rose again after the Civil War and kept rising till the civil rights advances of the mid-20th century. That setback didn't last long either: we've been living in a sort of neo-Confederacy since the Reagan administration. Unfortunately most of the Democratic Party hasn't risen to the occasion, and they tend to marginalize the Democrats who call them out on it.
Short version: 35+ percent may be a bad approval rating, but it's not bad enough if U.S. democracy wants to survive and flourish.
"a good reminder that even via gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts, redistricting and registration purges, you cannot artifically alter your approval rating. " Kind of irrelevant. A category error -- he wasn't trying to up his approval he was trying to barricade the House.
Thanks for replying. I read that earlier post with great interest. My point was that the headline was kind of beside the point, since it denied an outcome which was never intended. And I kinda beg to differ — he IS on the way to gerrymandering himself out of low approval ratings which would normally result in a wave — as you’ve so capably documented — but now looks more likely to be a wavelet. It won’t change his approval, but if they hang onto the House by a handful of seats or even lose it by only a handful of seats he will have gerrymandered away his own low approval numbers.
I also worry that every progressive pundit seems obsessed with the House, when IMHO the Senate is arguably more important since he might have the chance to name an unprecedented FOURTH justice to SCOTUS not to mention continuing to pack the appellate courts with partisan hacks.
Thank you for the work you do. It’s irreplaceable.
Yes, but Dems have to campaign in such a way to take advangage of that level of disapproval. I sort of understand, but not exactly, how you get to Dems having to win by 4 points in November. Then I read about Planned Parenthood PAC jumping into the CA-22 race in favor of the moderate Dem who sort of opposes Medicaire for all (sometimes). To me, healthcare -- or poor healthcare delivery -- hits everyone alike, especially in rural America. Look how hard Platner in Maine hits the subject, based on his experience with the military's version, the VA, and how it 'saved' his life.
I fully agree with this. If it's truly a blue tsunami in terms of voting totals, Democrats will still take the House, and gerrymandering is pretty irrelevant to the Senate.
True, you can't gerrymander away a dismal approval rating. But you can most likely gerrymander, suppress, vote-count manipulate, and potentially challenge and nullify it away -- such that, as in several past suspect elections but more so, election results turn out to be a "shocking" red-shifted departure from poll-based expectations. Time to wake up and smell the rigging -- and be prepared for it. Trump's not going gentle.
The Trumplicans' efforts to win the House by rigging the maps, could work against them in some of the Senate races. They're not going to be better off if Dems have a smaller House majority along with a Senate takeover.
Hard for me to get my head around the reported ~37% cult approval of this Orange hot mess
Your headline was so great that I stopped scrolling through my overnight feed and read the column. It was encouraging for sure, but I can't help noticing that 35+ percent of those polled apparently approve of Trump. That's terrible for what we like to think of as U.S. democracy. Most commentators focus on the economy, especially inflation, and rarely if ever mention the Republicans' big elephant, a major -- perhaps *the* major -- source of their electoral appeal: racism, a close cousin of immigration as they understand it. How bad does the economy have to get before these voters decide that "Make America White Again" is costing them too much?
I want to believe that there *is* a bottom, but then I recall the white Southerners who fought and died for a regime that offered them white supremacy but not much more. I remember how the (white) South rose again after the Civil War and kept rising till the civil rights advances of the mid-20th century. That setback didn't last long either: we've been living in a sort of neo-Confederacy since the Reagan administration. Unfortunately most of the Democratic Party hasn't risen to the occasion, and they tend to marginalize the Democrats who call them out on it.
Short version: 35+ percent may be a bad approval rating, but it's not bad enough if U.S. democracy wants to survive and flourish.
"a good reminder that even via gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts, redistricting and registration purges, you cannot artifically alter your approval rating. " Kind of irrelevant. A category error -- he wasn't trying to up his approval he was trying to barricade the House.
Yes, as covered here: https://www.gelliottmorris.com/p/2026-05-10-dem-house-pop-vote-threshold-gerrymandering?r=a9pj&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Thanks for replying. I read that earlier post with great interest. My point was that the headline was kind of beside the point, since it denied an outcome which was never intended. And I kinda beg to differ — he IS on the way to gerrymandering himself out of low approval ratings which would normally result in a wave — as you’ve so capably documented — but now looks more likely to be a wavelet. It won’t change his approval, but if they hang onto the House by a handful of seats or even lose it by only a handful of seats he will have gerrymandered away his own low approval numbers.
I also worry that every progressive pundit seems obsessed with the House, when IMHO the Senate is arguably more important since he might have the chance to name an unprecedented FOURTH justice to SCOTUS not to mention continuing to pack the appellate courts with partisan hacks.
Thank you for the work you do. It’s irreplaceable.
Yes, but Dems have to campaign in such a way to take advangage of that level of disapproval. I sort of understand, but not exactly, how you get to Dems having to win by 4 points in November. Then I read about Planned Parenthood PAC jumping into the CA-22 race in favor of the moderate Dem who sort of opposes Medicaire for all (sometimes). To me, healthcare -- or poor healthcare delivery -- hits everyone alike, especially in rural America. Look how hard Platner in Maine hits the subject, based on his experience with the military's version, the VA, and how it 'saved' his life.