Gallup: 60 Percent Of Americans Disapprove Of Trump Performance

donald_trump_president-elect_portrait_croppedThere is another poll out to today showing growing dissatisfaction among voters over President Donald Trump’s performance in office. According to Gallup, sixty percent Americans disapprove of President Trump’s job performance.  What is interesting is that Trump still maintains his core of 38 percent of supporters.  That still makes him more popular than figures like French President Emmanuel Macron with only 26 percent of voters with a favorable view of his tenure in office.  However, it is hard to see how Trump can prevail in 2020 with such an increasingly alienated and hostile majority.


The weekly presidential job approval tracker released Monday found that 60 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump’s performance which matches his worst polls. This is the forth time that he has hit the 60 percent level.

Trump can take some solace in a RealClearPolitics average of polls which show an approval rating of roughly 43 percent and his disapproval rating of roughly 53 percent.


156 thoughts on “Gallup: 60 Percent Of Americans Disapprove Of Trump Performance”

  1. The circumstantial evidence indicates Julian Assange is a front for Russian intelligence.

    He claims to be for transparency in government but has been silent about Putin’s widespread corruption. He has done nothing to help expose Putin’s suppression of dissidents inside Russia either.

    Assange even had a show on RT, Russia’s propaganda network.

    The minute Assange leaves that embassy Britain needs to try him under espionage laws.

    Or Britain could declare war on Ecuador, enter the embassy to arrest Assange, then sign a peace treaty. Ecuador is not in a position to fight Europe.

    1. The circumstantial evidence indicates Julian Assange is a front for Russian intelligence.

      You need to be subtler. Being a blatant shill is boring.

  2. And Hillary had a 95% chance of winning by some polls, whats your point in posting bias polls?

    1. Are you still “unskewing” polls?

      That didn’t work to your favor in the House elections.

  3. The latest Real Poll looks strongly saying Screw Gallup’s Polls, in Mississippi they’ve supported Trump’s choice by about 55% for to 45% against.

    And looking at the crowds there yesterday & everywhere he goes most Americans seem to be with his plans/policies & all the American Hating Trash want this country completely destroyed & turned completely Authoritarian.

  4. if all meuller has is complicated tax evasion and ML conviction against manafort and a bunch of process crimes against other lesser figures, and a bunch of charges against phantom Russians, then the probe is a big fail,(except perhaps as a harassment tactic, in which it clearly was a success). Corsi, is not a good target. Stone is a juicy target though, he would be a scalp worth taking if Mueller could get it.

    but i don’t really get the stone issue. seems like they are badgering him about 1st amendment protected activity. he can say that he expected a big dump of leaks from assange .that is just not any crime at all

    likewise arguably assange has a journalistic privilege under Pentagon Papers.

    I hope Meuller doesn’t just tell a bunch of lies like he did about the WMDs in Iraq remember that or he may end up with a hard headed defendant in Stone like Sonny Barger who took him to the cleaners in the botched Hells Angels RICO trial

    Meuller, what a goof. he may just pack it in with a lesser result than the Dems hope

  5. heres my headline

    NPR government radio saw private town hall space youtube not banning speech fast enough

    funny how many there ways are around the spirit of the 1st amendment huh

    how often we see goobermint bureaucrats like NPR staff and silicon valley team up to silence the citizens,

    all heads nod in agreement, NPC script says ban hate, orange man bad, refugees welcome

    1. Kurtz, there’s no real story at that link; only some critic noting extremist content is still an issue.

      Kurtz, do you think ISIS should have unlimited access to YouTube? Or how about anti-Semitic hate groups? Should they have unfettered access to YouTube?

      It seems like you’re rooting for extremists.

      1. YES i believe extremist content should be on youtube subject to reasonable age verification and modest user notices if thats what youtube wants to do

        the legal basis for restricting their “private” forum freedom to censor their own content– is their bandwidth. they are not the “turley blog” they are MASSIVE and they are drawing on hugely on public infrastructure resources to deliver the product that fetches their profits.

        they are essentially a public utility. they can’t be allowed to restrict content they dont like just like the utility can’t refuse gas heat and water service to a law abiding “klansman”

        I don’t care if it’s kluckers or isis or antifa.
        now hey if they cross the existing legal lines for making threats or other valid criminal laws which impinge on expression that’s ok, take it down

        just saying naughty stuff should not get people banned. alex jones should not be banned. Malcolm X, George Lincoln Rockwell, let it all in

        now there might be other valid reasons to restrict content again like porn since age verification is probably impossible anyways, or defamatory content, copyright infringements, that’s all fine

        but censoring hateful political content, that’s exactly wrong for them to do

        1. moreover in banning alex jones, they aren’t banning an extremist. the guy is basically like the old john birch society. that’s just banning him because he is a big Trump supporter with a huge audience. patent abuse of power.

          here, , dont listen to me, I am a knuckle dragging neandertal from flyover, listen to left wing progressive jimmy dore make the case



    “@WikiLeaks launches legal fund to sue the Guardian for publishing entirely fabricated story “Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy” — which spread all over the world today. It is time the Guardian paid a price for fabricating news.”

    “Statement from Manafort: “This story is totally false and deliberately libelous. I have never met Julian Assange or anyone connected to him. I have never been contacted by anyone connected to Wikileaks, either directly or indirectly.”



    Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange is no doubt anxious about The Guardian’s story reporting that Paul Manafort met with him on at least 3 occasions at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Manafort also traveled to Ecuador in October of last year on business most likely related to Assange.

    Assange fears that if his relationship with Manafort is detailed in Robert Mueller’s report, the whole world might view him as a stooge for Vladimir Putin. Such a revelation would taint Assange forever and destroy the Wikileaks brand.

    So today Wikileaks launched a legal fund to sue The Guardian (according to TBob’s post). When I tried to Google that story, several entries came up from a 2011 attempt by Wikileaks to sue The Guardian. That was ‘before’ Julian Assange sought refuge in London’s Ecuadorian Embassy.

    Should Wikileaks attempt to sue The Guardian now, lawyers for that paper could demand that Assange himself appear in court. They could also subpoena Paul Manafort. But conveniently for them, neither Assange nor Manafort is likely to be available. Assange must remain at the Ecuadorian Embassy where he is, by one account, performing janitorial duties. As for Manafort, he is quite likely to be sentenced soon to a lengthy prison term.

    1. Another Peter News Headline. thanks

      oh wait i thought you guys already established Wikileaks was a Russian op
      guess it’s necessary to keep on repeating that until it stick huh

      kind of like all these headlines, churned out same old dreck again and again burning up space

    1. He was parroting Colin Powell. Powell had been convinced by the CIA. Mueller (and others) jumped on board.

      From Wikipedia:

      ” Mueller also testified that the government’s surveillance programs complied “in full with U.S. law and with basic rights guaranteed under the Constitution.”[56] ”

      There is at least one government surveillance program that is not in keeping “with U.S. law and basic rights guaranteed under the Constitution.” So Mueller was lying about what’s taking place on U.S. soil — or he didn’t (and still doesn’t) know. And I’m not sure which is worse.

  7. I disapprove of 100% of the members of Congress, 100% of our state legislators and the governor, 100% of our county commissioners and 100% of the city council and mayors in nearby towns. In my view they do more damage than good

    The key is to make the best of one’s own life and take charge of their own happiness. Living vicariously through politicians is not only foolish, it is rather pathetic and weak minded.

  8. Marcy Wheeler on “the list of skeptics about that Guardian report” by Luke Harding:



    Folks the skepticism to that Guardian report couldn’t be more broad-based:

    @ggreenwald @aaronjmate @auerfeld @pwnallthethings @benjaminwittes @NatSecGeek and me rarely ALL agree. But we do all think that this is sketchy.

    9:04 AM – 27 Nov 2018

    Second tweet:


    4h4 hours ago

    Add @HeerJeet and @PreetBharara to the list of skeptics about that Guardian report.

  9. At this point in his presidency (22-23 months in office), Obama had a Gallup approval rating of 42%.
    “It’s hard to see how” Obama “could prevail in” 2012 “with such an increasingly alienated and hostile majority.”

    1. This is a lie.

      Why do you bother making up things that can be so easily checked?

      Obama’s Gallup rating for the same week in his presidency (third week of November 2010) was 46%, with 46% disapproval. Trump is 38% with 60% disapproval. 22 points under water vs. even is a pretty stark difference to see.


      1. Why are you lying, “Doug”? You can check on the link that I provided.
        If your sources have different numbers, it must be because you are a liar.
        The number on Nov.27, 2011 was actually 43%…..I thought today was the 28th, when the 2011 number was 42%.

          1. Ok….I think you’re just mistaken then. November 2011 is a year ahead of where Trump is in his presidency – not the same point as your original post stated. (22-23 months into Obama’s presidency was November 2010)

            I should not have jumped to the conclusion that you were a liar rather than just that you’d made a mistake at what year you were looking at. For that I apologize.

            1. Doug,…
              You are correct…..I went to Nov. 2011, when the comparable 22-23 month period should have been Nov. 2010.
              I rechecked your correct time frame and it does show Obama at 45-46% approval rating in late Nov. 2010.
              If I start intentionally lying on this thread, I’ll be a lot slicker than making a blunder like the one I made.😉😀

        1. You’re looking at the wrong year. November 2010 was the same point in Obama’s presidency, not 2011. So I apologize for saying you were lying, your original post is merely incorrect.




    The words “detailed sentencing submission” loom large. Mueller’s team has always been tight-lipped publicly, but it has made some key disclosures through indictments (often referred to as “speaking indictments”). The indictments of 13 Russians earlier this year contained extensive detail and was perhaps more about disclosure than punishment, given the Russians almost definitely will never be in the United States to face trial. The initial Manafort indictment disclosed that he was viewed as a key witness not just generally but specifically with regards to potential Trump campaign collusion with Russia — a pregnant inclusion.

    The Mueller filing on Manafort’s alleged lies won’t be an indictment, per se, and there is a very real chance it could remain under seal to protect the ongoing investigation. But if it is made public, it would give Mueller a chance to say whatever he feels like disclosing, and notably without Whitaker’s approval — which would be required for a new indictment or for releasing a final report, if Whitaker has indeed taken oversight of the probe and supersedes Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein.

    Edited from: “Analysis: Could Robert Mueller Be About To Tell Us Something Big?”




    A reported 2017 meeting between Paul Manafort and the Ecuadorian president is under investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller, CNN reported. Mueller is taking specific interest in whether Wikileaks or its founder Julian Assange came up at the encounter.

    “Great importance was being attached to it as a matter of intense investigation by Mueller,” said CNN reporter Carl Bernstein, in an on-air report. “Many witnesses have been asked about this.”

    CNN’s report followed an article published Tuesday morning by the Guardian alleging that Manafort traveled to London in 2013, 2015, and March 2016 to meet with Assange, who is hold up in the Ecuadorian embassy there. The Guardian story also stated that Manafort traveled to Ecuador in May 2017 to meet with president-elect Lenin Moreno.

    A special counsel court filing from October 2017 states that Manafort travelled to Ecuador on May 9, using a phone registered to a false name while carrying one of his three U.S. passports. Mueller states that Manafort also used the phone on trips over the next month to China and Mexico.

    Mueller has reportedly asked witnesses if Manafort raised Assange’s fate with Moreno, who has since purportedly taken a less friendly line towards the country’s guest in London.

    The Guardian has also reported that Ecuador spent millions on a spying operation to monitor its own embassy in London.

    Edited from: “Mueller Probed Meeting Between Manafort And Ecuadorian President”


    1. Yesterday Trump legal adviser Alan Dershowitz told Fox News that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is about to release a “devastating” report. Dershowitz’ statement coincides with reports that Paul Manafort’s plea deal with Mueller has imploded. It seems that Manafort has lied to Mueller’s team after accepting said deal. Then today “The Guardian” breaks this story about Manafort’s meetings with Julian Assange. It appears that the Manafort-Assange connection could be the “devastating” development that Dershowitz alluded to.

      1. “Alan Dershowitz told Fox News that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is about to release a “devastating” report.”

        The entire quote is:
        “I think the report is going to be devastating to the president and I know that the president’s team is already working on a response to the report…When I say devastating, I mean it’s going to paint a picture that’s going to be politically very devastating…(but) I still don’t think it’s going to make a criminal case.”

        What Dershowitz is saying is that this investigation is not (and I will and never was a criminal case). It was purely political. He has been saying this for a long time. The DOJ and FBI were weaponized. That doesn’t look good for our Constitutional Republic.


    I think this is a fantastic editorial that has tidbits all sides will like and hate. Hanson compares Trump to the character Shane in the movie called Shane. The more one thinks about the op-ed the more one understands the nature of the problems we face.

    “Whether Trump rides out wounded in 2020 or 2024, he will likely do so as a lonely figure”

    1. VDH about the only writer at NR i like to read

      He’s right and if the suburban whites want to toss DJT aside, or if they have; they are stupid as well as weak. And as the unfit they earn the direct and indirect destruction that still creeps their way. I’m plenty capable of adapting to things the average sally soccermom is not.

      I was rather surprised they came together in 16. it seems that a lot of people think that in 18 a lot of the women chickened out.maybe so and maybe not. we will see a lot of surprises the next decade and who knows what will happen for good or for bad

  13. Did your poll query Americans or hyphenates?

    Is every person in the world an American-in-waiting; waiting for their fair share of “free stuff” and the vote?

    Ben Franklin, 1789, we gave you “a republic, if you can keep it.”

    Ben Franklin, 2018, we gave you “a republic, if you can take it back.”

    Original Intent: To vote in the American republic, a citizen must have been: Male, European, 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres.

    “…to ourselves and our posterity,…”

    – Preamble to the Constitution




    This story is trending big right now. It confirms that Trump’s campaign manager had a verifiable relationship with the publisher of Wikileaks. This means the Russia Probe could be entering a climatic phase after its midterm election blackout.

      1. PH – did you see WikiLeaks response?

        “Remember this day when the Guardian permitted a serial fabricator to totally destroy the paper’s reputation. @WikiLeaks is willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editor’s head that Manafort never met Assange.”

        Tweet by @WikiLeaks
        6:49 AM – 27 Nov 2018

      2. “@WikiLeaks launches legal fund to sue the Guardian for publishing entirely fabricated story “Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy” — which spread all over the world today. It is time the Guardian paid a price for fabricating news.”

        Tweet by @WikiLeaks
        11:22 AM – 27 Nov 2018

      3. “STATEMENT from Manafort: “This story is totally false and deliberately libelous. I have never met Julian Assange or anyone connected to him. I have never been contacted by anyone connected to Wikileaks, either directly or indirectly.” (1/2)

        “I have never reached out to Assange or Wikileaks on any matter. We are considering all legal options against the Guardian who proceeded with this story even after being notified by my representatives that it was false.” (2/2)

        Tweets by WikiLeaks
        12:27 PM – 27 Nov 2018

        1. T Bob,..
          But your presentation of Wikileaks rebuttal lacks the lengthy, blaring ALL-CAPITALIZED HEADLINES.😄
          Get with it, TBob, and learn to present your comments as if they were major, stunning, BREAKING NEWS FLASHES coming acrossed your news anchor man desk.😉😂

      4. what, do you think someone will find the sex workers that supposedly peed on DJT? Hillary’s spook Steele’s sources in Russian intelligence may have only made that up of course.

        funny how it was so bad for Trumps side to receive the benefit of wikileaks of authentically true emails, and now they need to lock Trump workers up;

        but Hillary’s paid for pee pee dossier from her “Russian sources” was supposedly legal if however bogus and untrue but nobody needs to be spanked for that

        remember this folks, Dems worked together inside and outside government, to abuse the FISA court process to unlawfully monitor the Republican candidate, and once he unexpectedly won, to activate the Sztrok “insurance policy” in the guise of the Special Counsel witchhunt to delegitimize the electoral result. There’s the real scandal and it makes Watergate look like a third rate burglary by comparison!

        1. Haha. Rich. Is that what hannity swilled out to you today? Here in the real world, patriotic American public servants whose job is to fight crime applied for surveillance warrants based on probable cause from a detached and neutral magistrate, which were granted. Of course, to you, your ilk, and the other gullible rubes, dupes, klan wanabees, pocket-traitors and grifters on the make, reality and truth is whatever the day glo bozo claims, no matter how nonsensical it is to real people. So sorry for your loss.

          This is to “but these indictments must be fake news like he said!” kurtzie

Comments are closed.