The Problem Of A High Floor & Low Ceiling
A graph that shows why Trump should be concerned
![[Graph of Monmouth Survey on Enthusiasm for 2024 Presidential Race]](https://otb.cachefly.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/GU874NlXUAAppIp-969x1024.avif)
It has been said that Donald Trump has a high support floor and a low support ceiling. This means that when you look at his favorability numbers, he has a high level of consistent support among the Republican base (floor), but also low overall favorability with voters (ceiling). The above graph from Monmouth College’s latest voter enthusiasm survey really hits this point home.
Following the Republican trend line, enthusiasm among Republican voters grew as Trump became the presumptive nominee, peaking in June at 71%. Then something happened and enthusiasm stayed flat for the subsequent measurement in August.
Well, more than just “something happened.” Lots of things happened as, at least in US politics, July 2024 lasted an entire year. On the Republican side, Trump survived an assassination attempt, leading to one of the most striking photographs of this presidential race. He also accepted the Republican nomination in triumphant fashion at the Republican National Convention. If it had been just those two things, you would expect that Republican enthusiasm would continue to grow. But again, even within his party, his favorability has a relatively low and stable ceiling.
More importantly, this graph shows the impact of the other big things that happened in July: President Biden stepping down from the ticket and the Democrats quickly uniting behind Vice President Harris. As a result, Democrats’ enthusiasm jumped from 46% to 85% in the span of two months. While that should be concerning to the Trump campaign, it’s also somewhat expected. It’s not surprising that suddenly having a younger and more active candidate will excite her party.
What is really noteworthy is the movement we see among independents. Again, look at the chart:
Looking at the span between April and June, enthusiasm among independents moderately grows. Its growth mirrors that of Republicans and Democrats, and as such, it’s hard to draw any inferences about causation. Let’s be generous and say that most of that comes from Independents who lean Trump (which I think is fair).
However, from June to August, the growth of enthusiasm among independents is closer (though clearly less steep) to the growth among Democrats. Again, there was no net growth in enthusiasm among Republicans. The combined growth of Democrats and Independents was so great that the overall enthusiasm of all voters (68%) for the June/August period was almost the same as that of all Republicans (71%).
Granted, things could change. This is one poll. And there’s still one more period of measurement before the November election. Most importantly, correlation is not causation.
And still, this feels like a canary in a coal mine warning for the Trump campaign. Further, despite the former President’s claims that he’s leading in all polls, Harris has closed the former President’s lead and appears to be opening up new electoral college paths.
We know from surveys that when it was Trump versus Biden, polls showed many voters were dissatisfied with both choices. Suddenly, one of those two choices was replaced, and there was a corresponding significant jump in voter enthusiasm. And while Trump has a well-established low ceiling (to the degree he has never gotten above 46.8% of the popular vote*), Vice President Harris’s ceiling is, as yet unknown. Should it turn out that her ceiling is higher than Trump’s, the chances of his winning the election will continue to decrease.
* – Yes, I am old enough to remember the 2016 election (not to mention the 2000 election) and I know that ultimately the popular vote isn’t what decides the race. Folks should also remember that between 2016 and 2020 Donald Trump increased his share of the popular vote and still lost that election. So while electoral votes count, polls about the popular vote is still are an important indicator in trying to predict elections.
As Dr. T pointed out the other day, the “hate both” voters are breaking for Harris. In an interview, Frank Luntz, noted that as well and added that “soft” Felon voters are moving to undecided. Also of note is the NYT’s polls over the weekend had Harris at 50% in MI, PA and WI.
Right now the Felons campaign is only reminding voters as to why they hate him.
While is is unambiguously true, it is also true that in the past anyone who won a nail biter of an elections would be more cognizant of the fact that you can’t really claim a mandate (especially when you lose the popular vote). But starting with Bush II that was all thrown out the window and any win now = unfetter mandate to govern as far right as you can beg, barrow, or steal for Republicans. I mean look at the timidness in which Obama governed and he had a 5 point lead in the popular vote, had a 60 vote majority for a few months and settled at 59 and a 79 vote majority in the house. But he governed like he barely won (and his fealty to bi-partisanship was his kryptonite).
Trump gets elected squeaking with an EC win and one of two houses and they governed like they had a landslide victory. So while the popular vote does not election a president it does show you where the mood of the people is and politicians should govern accordingly. What sunk Trump was a very close race and then they tried to ram all kinds of nonsense down everyone’s throat. I’m sup[riced that SCOTUS was stupid enough to go for the abortion ring on such shaky ground but they really had no choice, it was do it when they did or risk never getting the chance again.
No new momentum for Trump, lots of new momentum for Kamala. He’s stalled, and he lacks any capacity to attract new voters. He has what he has. She has what she has, and the real possibility of pick-ups. Barring black swans, Kamala is going to settle in at a 5 point lead – nationally and in most of the swing states – and ride it all the way to November.
My guess/prediction is a repeat of 2020 in the EC, and an even bigger margin in the popular vote – say a 10 million edge rather than 7 million – which will strangle election deniers’ bullshit in its fetid cradle. If the Democratic Party were better-organized in Florida, she’d take that, too.
One nice thing: Biden could have only had one more term, Kamala could be POTUS until 2032.
Republicans will rue letting Trump gut their GOTV.
Interesting post Matt. Thanks. I’m not inclined to draw any conclusions about what it means to an event that is still 2 1/2 months away, but because of my age, I’m resigned to a reality that accepts that some form of MAGAt pseudo-conservatism* is the destiny of the nation for the time being.
Then again, I was skeptical of how Democrats would embrace Harris and was wrong there. Maybe my skepticism about the death of MAGA will be wrong also. I could live with 2 for 2 on being wrong in that case.
*I suppose it’s possible that MAGAt conservatism is the real deal rather than a pseudo version. By this, I would suggest that the conservatism I grew up with–concern for balanced budgets, belief that the market might well be able to “lift all the boats,” levels of taxation that don’t penalize prosperity and entrepreneurship, and so on–was all smoke and mirrors hiding the genuine purpose of promoting a “meritocracy” of oligarchs and punching down, keeping the nKKKLAAANNNNGGGs and crackers in their place, but still a higher place than the former mentioned. (And I will note for reference purposes that the William F. Buckley of The National Review and editorials advocating the obligations of white Southerners to purge the voting rosters of blacks, who were still to ignint to trust voting to, is before my time as I was three when the inaugural edition hit the stands. The conservatism Joan Didion and James Fallows–I read somewhere that both of them were interns with Buckley early in their careers–left behind may well be different than the conservatism of my late adolescence and young adulthood.
Even The New Republic experimented with “rethink[ing] liberalism and get[ting] paid for it” in the days of Fred Barnes, Charles Krauthammer, Mort Kondracke, and, last but certainly not least, Andrew Sullivan. MAGA may well be the real thing and Reagan, bad as he was, merely the upstart pretender to the throne.)
@Michael Reynolds: Prudence, prudence…. do not get so happy yet or you risk 2016 again (although I note that Harris is showing a popular campaign natural skill set that Madame Clinton just constitutionally clearly did not have, which brings comfort).
Nevertheless prudence – the margins are too close for any comfort in the Swing States and until Madame Harris shows more comfort with the labouring classes in those geographies (this not to say she will not, but prudence), one should have a healthy fear of 2016.