A Nation Divided: A New Poll Shows Deep And Widening Split Over Trump


A new Gallup poll shows just how deeply and irreconcilably divided we remain over President Donald Trump.  Some 89 percent of Republicans approve of Trump. That is not just reaching the record levels of Dwight D. Eisenhower, but outpaces Jesus Christ who polls only a 68 percent share and he has two holidays.  However, among Democrats, the rate falls to 7% percent — a difference of 82 percent.

It is the largest gap ever recorded by Gallup in polling on American presidents.

What should worry Trump is the low numbers among the key independent voters. Trump averages a 35% job approval among independents.

However, overall, Trump is still at a 42 % job approval.  That is not far off from Obama’s 44.5% or Reagan’s 44.9% in their third years.

The same division is revealed on the question of impeachment.

A CNN poll shows 51 percent are in favor of removing Trump but 45 percent opposed. That results seems skewed against Trump, but still shows a virtual even division given the margin for error.  Another poll shows a virtual dead heat with 49 percent in favor of removal and 48 percent opposed.

This leaves us in truly uncharted territory that defies conventional political analysis. Indeed, that may be the most lasting legacy of this president in reframing our political equations and understandings.

178 thoughts on “A Nation Divided: A New Poll Shows Deep And Widening Split Over Trump”

  1. Better get the guns out of the hands of the Dems before they attack another Republican softball team

  2. None of the Dems running for the party ticket can beat Trump. The Dems will lose the House and lose more seats in the Senate. We are not far away from this apCray event in the Senate from being finished with a dismissal of the lame indictiment (impeachment articles}. The Dems have completely pushed me away from their party. I will vote for Trump– early and often.

  3. It’s been said that Democrats defended a President who admitted to crimes and impeached a President who committed none.

    All because the most investigated president in our recent history wanted to look into alleged criminal activity by a Democrat presidential candidate.

    This is the territory of a banana republic.

    1. Yes, Karen S, mangling the facts like that certainly helps make it into one.

      1. Bill Clinton admitted to committing felonies, and was disbarred. Nothing you can say can change that fact.

        Donald Trump did not commit any crime. Not only did the transcript and Ukraine itself prove there was no quid pro quo, he is not even accused of any crime. They dropped the bribery charge because it was insupportable.

        The reason why there is a sharp partisan divide is because this is political. If Trump did something terrible and went rogue, then there would be bipartisan support for his removal.

          1. David – do I need to post the videos again where Sondland admitted making the entire thing up, and both ambassadors confirmed that Ukraine knew nothing about any quid pro quo?

            Or no matter what evidence is presented, you will continue to just ignore it?

            That’s not justice. It’s political warfare.

            Perhaps Republicans will live like the Romans, and constantly investigate, spy on, and impeach the next Democrat to sit in the Oval Office. Democrats seem to be trying hard to convince everyone that this is the new normal in politics. If so, then both sides will behave this way. Pity.

            1. Karen, Sondland did not admit he made the whole thing up. He spoke to the President 20+ times and Guliani also and reiterated he knew the presidents wishes. You can pretend that the administration was just confused about what it attempted to get Zelensky to do – including a hold that only Trump could have ordered, followed by its sudden release without explanation but just when it became public knowledge – but you’d look foolish doing it. It has also been proven that the Ukrainians knew about the hold starting about the time of the famous phone call.

              1. Sondland said no one told him there was any quid pro quo or any linkage. He just “presumed”. This means he made it up, and told others about it.

                The Administration was not confused.

                You are willing to go to great lengths to protect Joe Biden from a criminal investigation.

                You don’t look foolish. You look like a revolutionary willing to do anything, ignore justice, ignore law, ignore criminal wrongdoing allegations of Joe Biden, just to get what you want. The Left in power. That sort of behavior has led to the death of millions of people in our planet’s history.

                Democrats: It was entirely right and lawful for us to use Democrat oppo research obtained from Russian intelligence, and totally debunked, in order to spy upon our Republican opponent as a candidate and in office. In fact, our guy in the FBI even changed a CIA email in order to get a back door into his administration. Then it was fine to continue to investigate him for years, based on this debunked oppo research.

                HOWEVER, if you even ask a country to cooperate into an investigation into the alleged criminal activity that OUR candidate bragged about doing on camera, then we’ll impeach you!!!

                Total dictatorship behavior.

                1. Karen, you’re either dense or a bad liar but in either case desperate to maintain obvious and inconsistent bulls..t. I suggest you listen to the details of the case being made by the House managers and then come back and try to repeat your inanities.

                  Sondland presumed the aid was tied to the investigation AFTER 20+ PHONE CALLS WITH TRUMP AND UNCOUNTED DUSCUSSIONS WITH GULIANI.Respond to that fact.

                  No, the administration effort to force the public announcement was not based on confusion. Trump made his wishes clear and held up the aid. No one else had that authority. Your interpretation is the one that requires the administration to be confused about whatbTrump wanted, not mine. Respond to that fact.

                  Immediately after this effort was made public, the aid was suddenly and magically released and without explanation. Why would that be. Respond to that fact.

                  Trump did not want an investigation, he wanted a public announcement of an investigation by Zelensky, an obvious ploy aimed at his benefit, not the Ukraine or the US. Respond to that fact.

                  Trump never expressed interest in corruption in any other country or other entities in the Ukraine other than his single most likely threat in gBe next election. In fact his favorite foreign rulers are Putin, Erdogan, Lil Kim, and MBS of Saudis Arabia, all oligarchs and murderers. Are you a complete idiot to believe he cared about corruption in the Ukraine . Crimes!!! Respond to that fact.

                  Joe Biden is not on trial and there are no credible charges against him. Your previous source for the bulls..t repeat here has been identified as part of the Guliani team by Parnas who has documentation. Nunes was part of it too.

                  Let’s hear the witnesses and see who’s right. OK?

                  1. Karen can’t be taken seriously. She digs in…without knowing the facts.

                    It’s pointless to engage with her.

        1. What Bill Clinton did had no implications for national security. It was wrong, but he eventually owned up. HIs lying about the affair and attempts to cover it up were done to protect his marriage. AND, critically important, he didn’t obstruct justice. Neither did Nixon. Trump did. He’s either lying, being stupid or is just displaying classic Trump arrogance by claiming absolute executive privilege in refusing to cooperate with subpoenas and directing witnesses not to testify. Executive privilege only applies to military and diplomatic secrets and documents integral to domestic decisional and policy making functions. There is no absolute, unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process. U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683. He cannot be allowed to get away with flaunting the Constitution that provides for Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch. They cannot do the job entrusted to them by our founders if the executive takes the position of blanket immunity. This is obstruction of justice, which is a crime.

          It has been repeatedly explained to you that quid pro quo is not needed for there to be a violation of federal law regarding foreign assistance in an election. Mere solicitation is enough, and we have that. Trump’s delaying of military aid, in and of itself, is also a crime under federal law, even without using the aid to solicit help for his campaign. That was explained to him, too. And he has never released the actual transcript–only a memorandum of the call.

          Trump need not have committed any crime in order to be impeached. Turley has explained that, too. You should believe Turley over Hannity on this point.

          1. Right….Bill Clinton lied ” to protect his marriage”.
            At last, some evidence that Natacha actually has a sense if humor.

          2. Natacha – Bill Clinton never lied to protect his marriage, Hillary was aware of every fling he had. Remember she headed up his “Bimbo squad.l” It was her job to destroy each of the women that Bill had either bonked or raped.

  4. Natascha, watches all the fake news Muller did not do his own report his crooks in the FBI did all that work.

  5. Pew Survey Supports CNN Poll

    Americans Under 50 And College Educated..

    Want Trump Removed By Wider Margins

    The Pew poll finds that 51 percent of Americans support the Senate removing Trump, while 46 percent are opposed. That’s the second poll this week — after CNN’s poll released Monday — finding that a majority backs removal.

    But the Pew poll also has some surprises in the internals.

    For instance: 53 percent of college-educated whites also support removal. Similarly, the CNN poll finds that 52 percent of college-educated whites supports the same.

    Those are remarkable numbers, given the traditional moderate lean of this constituency, and may underscore once again the depth of alienation these voters feel from Trump. At the same time, Pew also finds that 64 percent of non-college-educated whites oppose removal, again demonstrating the deep divide Trump is driving among white voters along educational lines.

    The Pew poll also finds that a stunning 63 percent of voters aged 18 to 29, and 55 percent of voters aged 30 to 49, support removal. By contrast, majorities of older voters oppose it, again demonstrating a similar Trump-driven cleavage.

    Another remarkable finding: 63 percent of Americans say Trump has probably or definitely done illegal things either during the 2016 campaign or during his time in office. And only 32 percent of Republicans say Trump has done illegal things. But this is really something:

    While a majority of the 32% of Republicans who say Trump has likely done illegal things either during the campaign or while in office also say he should remain in office (59%), about four-in-ten (38%) say the president should be removed from office.

    Edited from: “This Poll Underscores Risk GOP Is Taking On Sham Trial”

    Today’s Washington Post

    1. Regarding Above:

      This survey reiterates what we have known for 4 years at this point. Trump’s supporters tend to older and less-educated. Which makes us wonder where Republicans expect to draw their future voting blocks. Unless Millennials become dramatically more conservative with age, the GOP is on borrowed time as a major political party. Republican Senators may want to keep this in mind before rushing to a Quicky Acquittal.

      1. Here, Seth demonstrates elitist disdain for the working class who run the country. You know, if you get rid of the electoral college, all those deplorable blue collar workers won’t even have a say anymore in who becomes president. The peasants would be of no use at all, and they can just go languish in a reeducation gulag somewhere. Perhaps a Single Party state would one day be realized.

        As Professor Turley has pointed out numerous times, there is intense bias against conservative students and professors. There is intense hiring bias against conservative professors. Quite obviously, the products of an education system that has devolved from higher learning to Democrat madrassas would skew towards Democrat beliefs.

        1. Karen, explain how getting rid of the Electoral College would harm the working class. It sounds like an assertion lacking any basis whatsoever.

          1. Sure. It’s been explained to you numerous times, but I’ll waste my time again so you can ignore it.

            The Constitution set up the electoral college so that there would be no kingmakers. The presidential candidates must win over the entire country, not any one region. That produces a president that represents the country as a whole. Any candidate who ignores any state, does so at their peril. Eventually, even states that solidly vote one way can flip and be in play when it feels ignored long enough.

            The states with the overwhelmingly highest population are CA and NY. The popular vote would weight these states in any presidential election. In essence, it would disenfranchise most of America, including states where a lot of our food is produced. No one would care about the coal miners in Appalachia, tank builders in Ohio, the ranchers in Nebraska, reviving the auto industry in Michigan.

            The elites would rule, and they have a long standing disdain for rural America and blue collar workers. You helpfully showed this disdain when you mocked the education of Trump voters. I wonder if you talk this way about the poorly educated inner cities Democrat voting bloc.

            Democrats keep talking about how a natural disaster is less than 12 years away. If that’s the case, then frankly, most elite professions will become extraneous luxuries. You need people to build houses, grow food, and build the machinery that keeps the country running…Blue collar workers.

            1. Karen, you’re totally wrong on almost every point you make regarding the Electoral College. To begin with, California and New York are NOT the dominant states. It’s California and Texas followed by Forida. New York is only #4.

              But here’s a fact, 3/4 of all Americans are in 20 largest states. And without the Electoral College System, almost all those states could yield many votes for candidates of either party.

              Without the Electoral College system, presidential candidates would be campaigning in far more states than they are now. But Republicans would have to moderate their positions. Republicans would have to appeal more to suburban voters less to rural voters. And that would be good for the country. America shouldn’t be held political hostage to Whites in small towns (which is what we have now).

              1. Seth – most Americans live in cities, which lean heavily Democratic.

                Why is it so hard for you to accept that less populated states want representation, as well?

              2. Seth:

                “To begin with, California and New York are NOT the dominant states”. Actually, they are Democrat strongholds, so much so, in fact, that NY recently celebrated passing a law allowing the abortion of a completely viable infant. Both states can guarantee a massive percentage of Democrat votes among their population.

                TX and FL have a significant population of Democrats who fled the high taxes they inflicted on their home states, and who busily started voting for the very same policies that drove them away. Plus there are the snow birds in FL.

              3. Seth:

                “America shouldn’t be held political hostage to Whites in small towns (which is what we have now).” What you said is completely racist. If you replaced “whites” with “blacks”, it would become painfully clear to you. You should work on that.

                Explain exactly why any politician would ever bother to campaign in Iowa, Alaska, Kansas, or anywhere else if a Democrat candidate could count on enough popular votes in NY and CA alone to guarantee him the election, because the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would clinch it? Those few votes in the farming belt wouldn’t be worth his or her time. Plus, they are just peasants anyway so why bother? Many don’t have a college degree, and we all know how you feel about those who don’t have a college degree. Better to have a PhD in transgender studies rather than be a master carpenter or mechanic or anyone else in a useful profession. Right?

            2. https://images.app.goo.gl/yCFcsBU2J7naxU7k7
              This map provides a good quick look at Electoral College votes per state.
              And the huge clout a state like California has.
              That isn’t enough for some, who would like to see CA. hog an even bigger share of Electoral College votes.
              That’s very unlikely to happen. The “smaller” states are not going to surrender even more power to a huge, politically lopsided state line California.
              This debate played out in the Constitutional Convention about 235 years, and a big part of the compromise was that every state would get two Senators.
              This, and the fact that even the smallest (population) states like Alaska, Wyoming, Vermont, etc. get at least one House seat, does mean that a state with a very small population and 3 members of Congress and 3 Electoral College votes has a bit more representation (on a strictly per capita basis) than a huge state like California with its 55 votes.
              Those states with only 3 or 4 or 10 votes will not, for obvious reasons, say “sure, let’s lessen what little influence we now have to give more to California”.

              1. It won’t matter if some of the less populated states refuse to throw their voice away, if enough of the other states do so.

                National Popular Vote Interstate Compact – note the strong political bias in the signatory states.

                Maryland Maryland
                New Jersey New Jersey
                Illinois Illinois
                Hawaii Hawaii
                Washington (state) Washington
                Massachusetts Massachusetts
                Washington, D.C. District of Columbia
                Vermont Vermont
                California California
                Rhode Island Rhode Island
                New York (state) New York
                Connecticut Connecticut
                Colorado Colorado
                Delaware Delaware
                New Mexico New Mexico
                Oregon Oregon

                “The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome.[2][3] As of January 2020, it has been adopted by fifteen states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 196 electoral votes, which is 36.4% of the Electoral College and 72.6% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force.”


            3. Karen, your argument is both factually and logically wrong but with typical lack of self awareness by you, an obvious situational justification of something which benefits you now, but if flipped would have you howling. We all know that’s true.

              Most states are ignored during presidential campaigns now, large and small, as sophisticated polling has the candidates focusing on the few swing states, and even districts. 94% of the 2016 campaign events were in 12 states. Florida 71, NC 55, Penn 54, Ohio 48. There was 1 in Texas.1 in califirnia. None in NY, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, either Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana,Kentucky, Tennessee, New Jersey, WV, and SC. (Data from FairVote, founded by John Anderson).

              The system you are defending because it gave you 2 “winners” does exactly what you say abolishing or reforming the EC would. It is not possible to think you are sincere in your advocacy unless we also think you are not very bright.

              As to the constitution, winner take all state delegations are not mandated by the constitution . In federalist 68 Hamilton writes that “the sense of the people operate in the choice of the (president)” and in runoffs, which were expected to be common, the House (the people), not the Senate (the states) should decide. The current system was not mandated, nor was it how we started. It is a result of each state blindly trying to maximize its influence while ultimately knee capping it, and should be reformed or abolished. It is an outrage that we have been governed twice in the last 16 years by a person who represents the least number of voters but has the power to not only set policy but make lifetime court appointments to those who who similarly sport minority viewpoints.

              1. Book, you’re right. Currently about 7 Swing States get all the attention and everyone else is ignored.

                1. Swing states can change. Any state that gets ignored long enough will become a swing state. Understand? Or are you so hell bent on disenfranchising most of America that you just don’t care?

              2. I think Maine and one or two other small states allocate Electoral College votes proportionately.
                I’ve seen suggestions that all states should adopt this system, and other reform ideas to get away from the mostly winner take all system.
                Another example is to align EC results with the popular vote is to get states to pledge that all of their EC votes will go the nationwide winner of the popular vote.
                For example, if California adopted this system, all of their EC votes would have gone to Bush 43 rather than to John Kerry in the 2004 election.
                Kerry was well within reach of getting to the 270 required EC votes, and except for a narrow defeat in Ohio, he would have won the election despite trailing Bush in the popular vote by a few million.
                I don’t see that there will be universal agreement by the states to adopt any of the proposed reforms.
                And until and unless virtually every state agrees to reform (s) like these, it won’t work.
                Would California agree to either split their EC votes proportionately or to
                Would California give all of their EC votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote?
                There’d be too much resitance by too many states to get all 50 states on board, and these reforms won’t work unless every state agrees.
                There are some other complicationsthat might result from changing the current system, but absent a Constitution Amendment mandating that all states comply with this or that reform, I don’t see it happening.

                1. Anonymous:

                  “Another example is to align EC results with the popular vote is to get states to pledge that all of their EC votes will go the nationwide winner of the popular vote.” That’s called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, with 15 state signatories, and over 70% of what’s needed for it to become legally binding.

                  Essentially, what this means is that even if a state votes Blue, but the popular vote goes Red, that state would direct its delegates to vote Red. And vice versa. How, exactly, would that be in that state’s best interests, or in any way reflective of its own voters?

                  Answer, it’s not. But it would benefit Democrats so they don’t care.

                  “There’d be too much resitance by too many states to get all 50 states on board, and these reforms won’t work unless every state agrees.” They don’t need to get all 50 to agree. When there are enough signatories to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to make it legal, then the rest of the states would become irrelevant. They wouldn’t have to vote to throw away their voice for it to be wrested away from them by other states, typically Blue.

        2. You have just provided a textbook example of the effectiveness of Fox News and how it indoctrinates less educated Trumpsters into believing THEY are victims when Trump is criticized, impeached, investigated, etc.. These bad educated elitists are trying to kick your Trumpy Bear out of the White House, take away your guns, let those murdering rapist Hispanics run amok and turn America into a socialist country where we’re all going to starve. I’ve seen campaign literature attributed to Nikki Haley that talks about the US turning socialist and ending up like Venezuela and Cuba, where there’ll be “empty supermarket shelves, starving children and families, filthy hospitals without basics like aspirin or toilet paper…”. I had to ask myself, who believes this crap? Trump supporters, that’s who.

          Trump is not a conservative. Conservatives are adamantly opposed to increasing the national debt, which has rocketed to historic levels under Trump. They also believe in personal morality and responsibility, concepts foreign to Trump.

          You are not qualified to opine on higher learning since you don’t have any. Higher education teaches one to be self-motivated to think independently and to see past prejudices and rhetoric, and that’s why Trump is so unpopular with educated people. Elitism and what you believe is “disdain for the working class” have nothing to do with it, but Fox has done a great job of convincing you that those opposed to Trump look down on you.

    2. The young also trend more favorable towards socialism, which is responsible for the murder of millions of people.

      The young lack experience, and unfortunately Leftist politics has infested the public education system, as well as higher eduction. No kidding products of that system would be unfavorable towards Trump.

      1. Karen, Millennials trend favorably to socialism because they came of age during The Great Recession; a point that Republicans cant seem to grasp.

        1. Word. They’re pretty tuned into both pure communism, and pure capitalism, being incapable of dealing with current world challenge.

        2. Seth, wild idealism and becoming enamored with murderous philosophies, only later to mature out of them, has been going on for the duration.

          Here are some of the most recent iterations of these sayings.

          “If you are not a Liberal at 25, you have no heart. If you are not a Conservative at 35, you have no brain.”

          Winston Churchill

          “If a man is not a Socialist at 20 be has no heart, but if he remains one at 30 he has no head.”
          King of Sweden

          “Before You’re 25” the play, “before you are 25 if you are not a Socialist you have no heart and after you’re 25 if you are a Socialist you have no head.”
          1929, by playwright Kenyon Nicholson

          “An excited supporter burst into the private chambers of the old tiger Clemenceau one day and cried, “Your son has just joined the Communist Party.” Clemenceau regarded his visitor calmly and remarked, “Monsieur, my son is 22 years old. If he had not become a Communist at 22, I would have disowned him. If he is still a Communist at 30, I will do it then.””
          1944 the industrious anecdote collector Bennett Cerf presented an entertaining tale featuring Georges Clemenceau

          “Adolescent rebellion has been tolerated, and even sanctioned, as a “normal” stage of human development. After all, “if you aren’t a liberal when you’re young, you have no heart, but if you aren’t a middle-aged conservative, you have no head.”
          “Student Unrest: Threat or Promise?”, 1970

    3. If Trump had committed a crime, such as murder, there would be no partisan divide. It would be unanimous. There is a political division among this issue because it is a purely political hit job. Democrats appear to support what they would be outraged over should that weapon be turned upon them.

      1. No, Karen. If Trump committed cold blooded murder on television during prime time, Fox News, Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh would still defend him, make up some back story to create some sort of justification, but they would never turn on him.

        Bill Clinton’s impeachment was a political hit job: his sexual affairs had no implications for national security. Trump broke several laws, including the prohibition against holding foreign aid appropriated by Congress (regardless of the reason), soliciting campaign assistance from a foreign government and obstruction of justice. The last is the worst, IMHO, and should be grounds enough for impeachment because it directly flaunts the Constitutional right of Congress to conduct oversight. The SCOTUS in U.S. v. Nixon made clear there is no blanket presidential immunity from prosecution or blanket executive privilege. Trump says otherwise. We can’t let this go. If he gets away with this one, what’s next? He has no respect for the rule of law or the Constitution. He pulled the Ukraine shenanigans immediately after the Mueller Report came out. He has no shame.

  6. The great divide in our nation I think started with the news media.Cnn,msnbc,cbs, abc,nbc,nyt,wp never have anything good to say about DJT. They are constantly putting him down. People that listen to only these outlets are uninformed on the truth. THEY ARE TRULY FAKE NEWS.

    1. Linda, many would argue that those mainstream sources you cite gave Trump far too much attention during the 2016 Primaries. Had they ignored Trump then he might ‘not’ be president today.

    1. are they might become dead….suddenly?

      It was a long day and the students today were disappointing

      my apologies to Cindy

Comments are closed.