Perceptions of Donald Trump a month into his second term

The stability of Donald Trump’s approval rating was practically a meme during his first administration. No matter the headlines, scarcely any voters appeared to change their minds about the president, at least not when asked the simple question, Do you approve or disapprove of how Donald Trump is handling his job as president?

It remains to be seen whether Trump in his second term will enjoy (or suffer) from the same apparently locked-in public attitudes. But to shed more light into what Americans really think about him, the Marquette Law School Poll has begun asking two open-ended questions. What do you [like/dislike] about Donald Trump? We randomize the order of the two questions, and respondents can write whatever they want.

Each survey, we ask about 1,000 adults these questions. All but two or three percent share a response.

In December, 35% expressed entirely negative views of Trump, 12% were entirely positive, and 51% were mixed, sharing both likes and dislikes (the remaining 2% refused to answer). This changed only slightly in early 2025. The group with mixed opinions shrank by 4 percentage points, and the other categories grew by 1 or 2 points each.

Summary of open-ended survey responses
in the Marquette Law School Poll, national adult sample
Attitude toward Donald Trumpsurvey dates
12/2-11/241/27-2/6/25
Can name likes and dislikes51%47%
Doesn’t dislike anything12%14%
Doesn’t like anything35%36%
no answer2%3%

Donald Trump won in 2024 because he beat Harris by about 38 points among voters holding mixed views of him. He enjoyed especially high support among those who hadn’t voted at all in 2020.

Most of these people still approve of how Trump has begun his second term. However, Trump’s approval rating has slipped with this group, relative to December 2024.

In December 2024, 53% of adults approved (and 47% disapproved) of how Trump had handled his job during his first term. About a month into Trump’s second term, 48% approve and 52% disapprove of how Trump is currently handling his job.

The drop in approval is entirely due to lower views of Trump’s current job performance among those with more ambivalent views of him.

Among those who only listed things they like about Trump, 96% approved of his past job performance in the December poll and 96% likewise approve of his current job performance in the February poll.

Conversely, 97% of those with only negative things to say about Trump disapproved of his past job performance in December and disapprove of his current job performance in February.

But among those with mixed views of Trump, 77% gave him retrospective approval in December, falling to 67% approval in February.

Themes in the open-ended responses

Some voters express idiosyncratic combinations of views when given the opportunity. You’ll find the occasional conservative whose only complaint about Trump is his support for Israel or the odd Harris voter who dislikes Trump’s “racist attitude” but appreciates that he “doesn’t drink or smoke dope.”

But most responses fall into familiar categories. Here are a few themes that stood out to me.

  • Outside of the 36% of adults who despise Trump, Trump’s hyper-aggressive first month in office is usually perceived favorably. Many people said things like, “he’s fulfilling campaign promises,” or “He has already done more in a few days than Biden did.”
  • A common complaint among those who generally like Trump is his communication style. Some representative comments: “he talks too much”; “the way he talks, very crude”; and “mean tweets, rehearsing [sic] his wins in election too often.”
  • On the other hand, even some people who disapprove of him like aspects of his communication. “Confidence, has charisma, is funny on occasion”; “He’s funny. He says what he thinks.”
  • Quite a few people complained about Trump’s pardoning of the January 6th rioters, and few or none mentioned it favorably.

Finally, these data also undermine a point I have occasionally heard from conservative commentators. Referencing the more “muted” response to Trump’s second term from Democratic politicians and left-leaning organizations, some have argued that opposition toward Trump’s first term was largely an elite, media creation.

On the contrary, in reading these open-ended responses I see no diminution of opposition to Trump. If anything, the vitriolic tone may have intensified among those who like nothing about him. This group is not a majority of the country. It includes under 40% of adults in our sample, but is is more than twice as large as the group of people with only positive things to say about Trump.

During Trump’s first term, his opponents turned out at unusually high levels–flipping seats during special elections and midterms at a startling clip. Democrats will look to repeat that playbook in 2025 and 2026. The surprise victory of a Democratic candidate in a Trump +21 Iowa state senate district is a small, early indication that this strategy may work.

Explore the data

The above is just my interpretation of these responses. I strongly encouraged you to read them for yourself. Click here to access our web app for viewing responses. The tool allows you to see 5 randomly* selected responses with each click of the button. Some of these responses contain profane language and many contain typos. We present them in unedited form.

screenshot of a table from the web application showing random responses to the open ended questions about Donald Trump
Continue ReadingPerceptions of Donald Trump a month into his second term

Grapes of Roth, Part II: A Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing

[This is the fourth in series of posts summarizing my new article, “The Grapes of Roth.”]
Introduction
Part I-A: Duck-Rabbits in Equity
Part I-B: Counting to 21 Similarities

By the mid-1970s judges in both the Second and Ninth Circuits realized that the “recognizability” standard for copyright infringement determinations was unworkable. As Roth Greeting Cards and International Luggage Registry had demonstrated, mere recognizability swept uncopyrightable as well as copyrightable material into the comparison, and hinged the infringement determination on the faintest suggestion of either. Some test was needed that would allow courts to do all three parts of the difficult balancing act described in Part I-A, in particular the assessment of how much protectable material was taken and whether that amount surpassed some threshold that made it unreasonable. Pre-Legal-Process courts had tackled these questions, but without saying much more than that the defendant had “wrongfully appropriated” the plaintiff’s protected expression, or taken its “aesthetic appeal,” or “justified” an infringement claim. Such openly normative assessments, relying on the judge’s subjective evaluation of the material taken, plainly would not do in a more formalist age. An alternative framework was needed.

Two decisions in rapid succession, one from the Second Circuit and one from the Ninth, latched onto the “total concept and feel” phrase as a way to express an overall level of similarity or dissimilarity in protected expression without openly making a normative or aesthetic judgement. In Reyher v. Children’s Television Workshop (2d Cir. 1976), the Second Circuit considered a claim by the authors of a children’s book based on a simple story: a lost child describes her mother only as “the most beautiful woman in the world,” which delays finding her because the mother does not meet conventional expectations of beauty.  Sesame Street Magazine published a 2-page story that followed the same basic plot, but had different dialog, different illustrations, and was set in a different location. Was it infringing? Certainly the story was recognizable, but in almost every other detail the works were completely different. Reaching for a way to assess the protected expression in the stories holistically, the panel fell upon the empty verbiage from Roth: Given the simplicity of the stories, the court suggested, “we might [also] properly consider the ‘total concept and feel’ of the works in question.” Aside from a similar sequence of events, which the court found to be unprotectable scènes à faire, the remainder of the stories had an entirely different “total feel,” and thus there was no infringement.

The following year, the Ninth Circuit found its way back to the Roth formulation as well. In Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., the plaintiffs claimed that their children’s television show, “H.R. Pufnstuff,” had been ripped off to make the McDonaldland characters — Grimace, the Hamburgler, Mayor McCheese, etc. The issues were whether the jury verdict of infringement was correct and whether damages had been properly determined. But the opinion started with a long discussion of the proper test for infringement, casting shade — without mentioning any names — on how it had been done up to that point. Merely asking about the similarity between two works — in other words, whether anything from the plaintiff’s work is recognizable in the defendant’s — produces “some untenable results,” the court noted. “Clearly the scope of copyright protection does not go this far. A limiting principle is needed,” namely one that separates out idea from expression and determines only the extent to which there has been copying of the latter.

The court then grandiosely declared, “The test for infringement therefore has been given a new dimension.” Unfortunately, as is well known, that new dimension was a thorough garbling of the Arnstein v. Porter decision from the Second Circuit, a misstep that has thrown Ninth Circuit caselaw for a loop it is still trying to recover from. But after mangling the concept of substantial similarity, the Ninth Circuit had to apply its new framework to the jury verdict below, which had held the McDonald’s characters to infringe the somewhat similar-looking H.R. Pufnstuf characters. Were they? The Ninth Circuit panel agreed with the jury. “It is clear to us that defendants’ works are substantially similar to plaintiffs’.” Why? “They have captured the ‘total concept and feel’ of the Pufnstuf show.”

In both Reyher and Sid & Marty Krofft, the reference to “total concept and feel” allowed the court to express a conclusion as to whether the defendants had taken too much copyrightable expression without specifically identifying what in the plaintiff’s work was expression, what in the defendant’s work was similar or dissimilar, and where the threshold level of similarity lay. “Total concept and feel” was thus a way of summing up all three of the difficult judgments an infringement determination required, and it did so in a way that met modern judicial norms while avoiding the ham-handedness of “recognizability.”

Continue ReadingGrapes of Roth, Part II: A Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing

Get ready for 6 years of Supreme Court races

Wisconsin has held just 1 Supreme Court race in the past four years, but that is about to change. The 2025 SCOWIS race kicks off a six-year streak of annual elections. Six out of seven seats will be elected before the next redistricting cycle.

The rest of this post will briefly recap how the current 7 justices were elected. These races cover a wide variety of circumstances and likely give a good preview of things to come. If the past few years are any guide, these races will feature high turnout and extreme partisanship.

Appointment calculus

All of the current justices are serving a ten-year term to which they were elected. It’s fairly common, however, for justices to end their terms early, whether due to death or retirement.

When this happens, the governor independently appoints a successor, with no involvement from the legislature. That appointed justice then stands for election in the first year “when no other justice is to be elected,” per Wisc. Stat. 8.50(4)(f)1.

Consequently, if Janet Protasiewicz (elected in 2023) were to resign (or otherwise leave office), the governor’s appointed replacement would serve until an election in 2031. If another of the current justices vacates before their term ends, their appointed successor will serve until the year when their election was already scheduled.

Subscribe to John’s newsletter to receive these posts in your inbox.

The stakes

Voters this April will choose whether liberal candidate Susan Crawford or former Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel will replace retiring justice Anne Walsh Bradley on the bench.

Bradley is part of the 4-justice liberal majority, so a victory by Schimel would flip control of the court for at least another year. Liberals would have a chance to win it back in 2026 or 2027, when the terms of Rebecca Bradley and Annette Ziegler, respectively, end.

If Crawford wins, conservatives will have to wait until at least 2028 for another shot at the majority. Also, the liberals could double their 1-justice majority by flipping either of the next two races.

How this court got here

Spring elections in Wisconsin can feature an eclectic mix of offices including judicial races, school boards, the state superintendent, constitutional referendums, and presidential primaries. The specific set of races on the ballot varies each year.

Even with this variation, there is a clear trend of growing participation in SCOWIS elections.

The following table shows the results of the races that elected each of the current seven justices.

table showing statistics from the past 7 SCOWIS races
  • Just 18% of adults voted in 2015, when Anne Walsh Bradley was last reelected.
  • The next SCOWIS race coincided with the 2016 presidential primary. 47% of adults participated and the court result almost perfectly matched partisan primary participation. 52% of voters participated in the GOP primary and 52% voted for the conservative judicial candidate, Rebecca Bradley.
  • In a sign of their general disarray following Trump’s first victory, liberals in Wisconsin failed to field a candidate in the 2017 SCOWIS race. Annette Ziegler was reelected by the 18% of adults who participated. The other statewide race on the ballot was for school superintendent, which the future Democratic governor Tony Evers won with 70% of the vote. To me, this is the last spring election in Wisconsin to have actually felt relatively nonpartisan.
  • 22% of adults voted in 2018, when liberal Rebecca Dallet defeated conservative Michael Screnock by 11.5 points in an open race to replace retiring conservative Michael Gableman.
  • The 2019 race was also open, after longtime liberal justice Shirley Abrahamson retired. Conservative Brian Hagedorn narrowly defeated liberal Lisa Neubauer by 0.5 points in a race with 27% participation.
  • The 2020 SCOWIS race coincided with the presidential primary, but unlike 2016, there was no Republican primary and the Democratic primary was nearly over, (Biden’s last opponent dropped out a few days later). Turnout was 35% and liberal Jill Karofsky defeated conservative Dan Kelly by about 11 points.
  • In 2023, the SCOWIS race was the most prominent contest on the statewide ballot, and its consequences were widely understood: namely, majority control of the court. Turnout was 40%, higher than in any previous spring election not corresponding to a presidential primary. Conservatives once again ran Dan Kelly. He lost to liberal candidate Janet Protasiewicz by slightly more than his defeat to Karofsky in 2020.

Just as turnout in SCOWIS races has gradually risen over the past decade, so has the degree to which partisanship shapes the outcomes. This graph, from my colleague Charles Franklin, shows the correlation between judicial votes and presidential votes in each county.

In 1978, the correlation between how a county voted for state Supreme Court and how it voted in the previous presidential election was 0.002. In 2016, it was 0.869. And in 2023, it was 0.964.

graph showing the correlation between SCOWIS and presidential races

What to expect in 2025

In April 2025, I anticipate continued high turnout. The last time a state superintendent race overlapped with a contested SCOWIS race was 2013, but the stakes in this election seem more similar to 2023, when the outcome of the race would determine majority control of the court. Also like 2023, this race features candidates who voters can easily connect to policy positions on hot topics like abortion access and redistricting.

Beyond its policy consequences for Wisconsin, this race will be a test of a leading theory about the 2024 election—that Democrats are the off-year party now. Republicans, the theory goes, win with voters who are less likely to participate in non-presidential contests. The reverse used to be true, with Republicans more often winning low turnout elections.

If Crawford wins, it will bode well for Democrats hoping to win a trifecta in Wisconsin in the 2026 midterms. A Schimel victory would suggest that conservative support is more vigorous and reliable than the Trump-specific low propensity voter narrative suggests.

Continue ReadingGet ready for 6 years of Supreme Court races
Newer Posts
Older Posts