By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Gallup, a prominent public opinion polling agency, has announced it will discontinue tracking presidential approval ratings after nearly nine decades. This decision, according to the organization, stems from a shift in its research focus and priorities, moving away from individual political figures towards broader societal issues. The Presidential Approval Rating, a historically significant barometer of presidential performance, will cease to be measured. This change occurs amidst ongoing scrutiny of polling accuracy by figures like Donald Trump, who has frequently criticized unfavorable ratings and the media outlets reporting them.
Read the original article here
It appears Gallup has decided to cease tracking presidential approval ratings, a move that has certainly sparked a significant amount of discussion and, frankly, dismay. The idea that a longstanding institution, one that has historically provided a pulse on public sentiment regarding the presidency, would simply stop this practice raises more than a few eyebrows. It’s understandable why many are interpreting this as a concession, a bowing to pressure, especially when considering the current political climate and the vocal displeasure of the sitting president with any poll that doesn’t cast him in a favorable light.
The timing of this decision is particularly striking. We’re hearing sentiment that Gallup’s approval numbers for the current president have been hovering around historically low points, barely above his all-time nadir. This leads to a very direct question: is this cessation of tracking a proactive move to avoid unpleasant data, or is it a surrender to a figure who has consistently attacked the credibility of any poll that displets him? The implication here is that rather than report potentially unflattering numbers, Gallup has opted to simply not look, a tactic some are likening to ignoring a problem hoping it will disappear, much like the “if you stop testing for COVID, the cases will go away” mentality.
It’s hard to escape the feeling that this decision is directly linked to the president’s reactions. When a leader frequently decries unfavorable polls and questions the integrity of the polling process, and then that polling process is subsequently halted, it’s natural to draw a connection. The input suggests a narrative where the president, upon seeing his approval ratings in a state some describe as “in the shitter,” has exerted influence, or at least created an environment where institutions feel compelled to stop reporting on his numbers. The sheer consistency of his disapproval, regardless of the numbers gathered, is a point raised, suggesting that for a significant portion of the population, his approval is a non-starter.
This decision is being framed as a capitulation, a sign of a lack of fortitude from a reputable organization. There’s a stark contrast being drawn between how historical institutions have been expected to operate and this perceived act of self-censorship. The idea of “dictators” demanding favorable narratives and suppressing dissent is brought up, and the comparison to a “mob boss” creating an atmosphere of fear is palpable. The question then becomes about what kind of future polling we can expect, with suggestions of mandated approval ratings that are comically high, mirroring those found in authoritarian regimes.
Gallup’s stated reason for this change, citing an “evolution in how Gallup focuses its public research and thought leadership” and aligning with its “mission,” is met with considerable skepticism. After 88 years of tracking, the sudden “evolution” coinciding with a president’s vocal disapproval of his own polling numbers feels less like a strategic pivot and more like a convenient excuse. The sentiment is that this is a “BS reason” designed to obscure the real motivation, which is perceived to be avoiding negative repercussions. The notion that this aligns with Gallup’s mission is interpreted by some as a mission to avoid lawsuits or other forms of retaliation from the White House.
The implications for Gallup’s credibility are significant. Many feel that by making this decision, the organization has “bent the knee” and “lost ALL respect.” There’s a strong sense that this move is not just about business but about principles, and that by succumbing to what’s perceived as pressure, Gallup has betrayed its role as an independent observer of public opinion. The fear is that this sets a dangerous precedent, where institutions that provide critical data can be silenced if their findings are inconvenient for those in power, effectively creating a situation where truth is malleable based on who is in office.
The narrative that emerges is one of institutions caving to intimidation, particularly from a president who is perceived as having a volatile reaction to negative feedback. This is seen as a betrayal of public trust and a disheartening example of how power can influence even seemingly independent entities. The question of whether Gallup has federal contracts is raised, hinting at the possibility of financial incentives or pressures at play. However, the overriding sentiment is that regardless of the specific mechanisms, the outcome is a silencing of objective reporting, driven by a fear of reprisal or a desire to appease a sensitive leader.
Ultimately, the stopping of presidential approval ratings by Gallup is being viewed not as a neutral organizational decision, but as a deeply symbolic one. It’s seen as a concession to a president who dislikes bad numbers, a move that sacrifices objectivity for perceived expediency or self-preservation. This leaves many wondering about the future of public opinion polling and the resilience of institutions in the face of perceived pressure from those in power, particularly when the leader in question has been so vocally critical of any data that doesn’t align with his self-perception.