Understanding Presidential Approval Ratings: A Call for Unity and Solidarity

A discussion of recent Pew Research Center survey results

Introduction

Less than a month into office, the recent Pew Research Center survey gives us a glimpse into how Americans view President Trump's job performance. Spoiler alert: it's as divided as a Thanksgiving dinner with your drunk uncle. Let's dive into the numbers, shall we?

Summary of Survey Results

According to the Pew Research Center, 47% of U.S. adults think Trump is doing a great job, while 51% are less than impressed. The approval ratings are as polarized as ever, with 84% of Republicans cheering him on and only 10% of Democrats expressing their approval. Demographics also play a significant role:

• Higher Approval: Men (52%), White adults (55%), adults 50 years and older (51%), and those with a high school diploma or less (53%).

• Lower Approval: Women (42%), Black adults (19%), Hispanic adults (36%), those under 50 years old (43%), and those with a college degree or more (40%).

It's helpful to look at how other presidents have fared in their first month to put Trump's current approval ratings into perspective. Most modern presidents have historically enjoyed a honeymoon period with relatively high approval ratings. For example, Barack Obama started his presidency with a 68% approval rating, and George W. Bush had a 57% approval rating before him. Despite a polarized political climate, even Joe Biden began his term with a 53% approval rating.

While ever present, the partisan gap has widened significantly over the years. During Dwight Eisenhower's presidency (1953 - 1961), the partisan gap in approval ratings was 39 points, compared to the 80-point gap seen during Trump's first term. This growing divide reflects the increasing polarization in American politics, where approval ratings are heavily influenced by party affiliation and demographic factors.

Analysis and Insights

The deep partisan divide and demographic influences on approval ratings are about as surprising as finding out water is wet. But here's a reminder to those of us who are aghast at the dismantling of our democratic institutions: those who oppose Trump's policies aren't in the minority. In fact, 51% of Americans disapprove of his job performance. These results are consistent with pre-general election polling trends, showing a persistent divide in public opinion. Major media outlets, including the Pew Research Center, have covered these results extensively (See references below for further reading).

This is also a good time to mention that the 2024 general election failed to show the “mandate” that Trump world wants you to believe. In the election, approximately 245 million Americans were eligible to vote. Out of these, about 155 million ballots were cast, meaning roughly 90 million eligible voters did not vote, which is about 36% of the voting-eligible population. Donald Trump received around 77 million votes (about 32% of eligible voters), while Kamala Harris received approximately 75 million votes (about 30% of eligible voters). What this shows us is that splitting eligible voters into thirds: One-third voted for Trump, one-third voted for Harris, and another third just plain didn’t vote. Put another way, two-thirds of eligible voters did not vote for Trump.

And yet, I don’t think these partisan and demographic analyses alone explain the disparities in presidential approval. I’ve argued that conceiving of our division in terms of the left-right divide, be that “Democrat vs. Republican,” “Conservative vs. Progressive,” or “Red vs. Blue,” are not only unhelpful, they are counterproductive. These divisions are meant only to separate us across cultural and ideological divides when what is really at stake is the up-down divide between the owning and working classes. So, what about differences in income or net worth?

Income and Presidential Approval

Based on the studies and data available, there are clear trends in President Trump's approval ratings by income level, and these differences are likely to continue. Here's a summary of the key findings and trends:

• Higher Income Approval: Individuals with higher incomes (typically those earning above $75,000 annually) have consistently shown higher approval ratings for Trump. This trend is likely to continue as higher-income individuals often benefit from policies such as tax cuts and deregulation, which are more favorable to their financial interests

• Middle Income Approval: Approval ratings among middle-income earners (those earning between $30,000 and $75,000 annually) have been more mixed. This group reflects a blend of support and opposition based on varying economic and social perspectives. The trend here is less predictable but generally shows a moderate level of approval

• Lower Income Approval: Lower-income individuals (those earning below $30,000 annually) have generally shown lower approval ratings for Trump. This group is often more affected by cuts to social programs and healthcare policies that are less favorable to lower-income households. This trend is expected to continue as long as these policies remain in place

Forecasting Approval Trends

Given these trends, it is reasonable to forecast that approval ratings by income level will continue to show significant differences. Higher-income individuals will likely maintain higher approval ratings for Trump, while lower-income individuals will continue to show lower approval ratings. Middle-income earners will likely remain divided, reflecting the broader polarization in American politics.

These trends align with the broader patterns of economic disparity and political polarization in the U.S. As long as economic policies continue to favor higher-income individuals, we can expect these income-based approval differences to persist.

Building Working-Class Solidarity

Now, let's talk about the real takeaway here. I see opportunities to build solidarity around class, not ideology. If we expect partisan divides to continue at such an extreme disparity (80-90% of Republicans in support; only 10-15% of Dems), I’m not sure we can make much hay appealing to partisan differences. To tell a Republican who shares 85% of the support of Trump to give that up or to suggest to a Dem who only awards 10% to get on the Trump train, I see very little, if any, way to mount a political argument that is convincing to either side.

But where might we find some common ground? And I want to be clear: I am no apologist for either party, and I don’t suggest a shallow both-sidesism or “let’s all get along” rhetoric. Rather, I mean to penetrate more deeply. I mean to remind us that some demographic factors notwithstanding, our common social stations bind us much more closely than our politics allow us to see.

Common concerns across different demographic groups include several shared economic issues. According to the Brookings Institution, working-class Americans are particularly concerned with economic stability, healthcare access, and job security. The Center for American Progress also highlights that many working-class individuals are employed in retail, healthcare, and food service sectors, where they face unique challenges and often live paycheck to paycheck. These shared concerns emphasize the importance of unity and solidarity in pushing back against policies that harm marginalized communities, including poor whites. Consider that for Medicaid enrollments in fiscal year 2023, 39.5% of the enrolled population were white. In terms of voting records, I’ve cited this article before:

Medicaid expansion has been adopted by 41 states including the District of Columbia, split nearly evenly between states that voted for Trump (21 states) and those that voted for Harris (20 states).

Economic concerns are not lost on Trump voters—just the opposite! Many voters supported Trump due to economic concerns. In the 2024 election, a significant number of Trump voters cited the economy, particularly inflation and rising costs, as the most critical issues influencing their vote. They believed that Trump's policies could restore economic stability and lower prices, reflecting their frustration with the economic situation under the previous administration.

There is no doubt that we are living in the FAFO era. But consistently shoving this in the face of Trump supporters when prices rise over tariffs and deportation is not a productive action. While it feels good to say “I told you so,” it’s a shitty strategy to build coalitions. Note there is a significant difference between confronting a fascistic takeover of government through a soft coup and rhetorical attacks on Trump supporters. Resisting a fascist takeover should not be conflated with critiquing Trump supporters.

In my last post, I told us that we must treat our neighbors who support Trump as partners in the resistance, not those we are resisting against. This is not to give a pass to those neighbors who would snitch on others to ICE or place people in harm’s way through bigoted statements and policies. But I don’t think giving up on each other is the best move.

I’d like to suggest that the path forward is not through some meeting of the ideological minds. Instead, we build solidarity around the economic analysis. Both older white men without a college degree, a large Trump voting bloc, and marginalized populations (women, Black, and Hispanic people) share economic challenges, including lower income levels, job instability, higher poverty rates, and less access to health insurance, as we saw in the above Medicaid data. These similarities highlight the economic struggles faced by non-college-educated individuals and nonwhite people, disabled people, and other intersectional identities across different demographics.

I don’t want to discount disparities owing to systemic injustices. White men have more opportunities for wealth through homeownership and inheritance, and white Americans need to acknowledge that, at minimum, their skin tone has not been a barrier to their livelihoods in the ways barriers are constructed for historically marginalized populations. However, differences in wealth accumulation for middle- and lower-class Americans and reliance on social safety nets may offer fertile ground for a multicultural, democratic, working-class movement.

If Trump/Musk cut Medicaid, your grandma’s party affiliation won’t save her healthcare from being drastically cut.

Building multicultural working-class solidarity isn't just a nice idea; it's essential for creating a more just and equitable society that acknowledges the shared plight of the working class. The owning class continues to fleece everyday Americans to reward their billionaire buddies, exploiting us at every turn.

Conclusion

I’m optimistic. Anyone who knows me would tell you that, but I also try to be a pragmatist. Despite economic parallels, political ideologies often diverge, with older white men leaning more conservative, as we’ve seen borne out in these Pew survey results, and marginalized populations support progressive policies. This reality underscores the complexity of addressing economic inequalities across diverse groups.

So, what's the bottom line?

The recent Pew Research Center survey on presidential approval ratings reveals significant partisan and demographic divides. But remember, if you're opposed to Trump's policies, you're not alone. I think the next move to build solidarity is to show the economic disparities that exist and are likely to continue under a Trump/Musk administration. These economic injustices are greater divides in our social stations than are cultural issues that the Trump campaign exploited to motivate their populist movement. True populism discovers our shared economic hardship, regardless of our stances on gender-affirming care.

Trump told you that he stood with you, and Kamala Harris stands with they/them, but the truth is, Trump stands with Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Mark Zuckerburg, and other billionaires whose wealth is greater than many nation-states. These billionaires have been trading your data, exposing your social media timelines to predatory bots, and surveilling your online activity for decades. The wealthy have no concern for you beyond the ad dollars you generate and the datasets you populate to create shareholder value.

By understanding these Pew results and emphasizing unity and solidarity through our shared social and economic stations, we can work together to create positive change. Let's engage, mobilize, and build a stronger, more united working-class movement. After all, solidarity isn't just a buzzword—it's our path to a better future.

---

References

• Pew Research Center: Public Anticipates Changes with Trump but is Split Over Whether They Will Be Good or Bad

• Pew Research Center: Trump's Second Term: Early Ratings and Expectations

• Pew Research Center: Rising Partisan Antipathy, Widening Party Gap in Presidential Job Approval

• Brookings Institution: What Do Working-Class Americans Think About Economic Opportunity and Mobility?

• Center for American Progress: Working-Class Americans Need Economic Security

• Gallup Poll on Trump's Approval Ratings by Income

• Pew Research Center on Trump's Approval Ratings by Income

• Emerson College Polling on Trump's Approval Ratings