This was +0.9% on March 1st. I'd use this.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/donald-trump/approval-rating

Maybe change it to 3% change in polling vs absolute -3%

"ABC is also eliminating the political and data-driven news site 538, which had about 15 employees."

I guess they won't close for two weeks, but who knows.

https://www.wsj.com/business/media/disney-to-cut-nearly-6-staff-across-abc-news-disney-entertainment-networks-8af04b40

@Emanuele1000 that's a bummer. I'll try to find an alternative if this were to happen. Any recommendations?

@Jo2e2b I’d lean toward resolving N/A in that case, unfortunately. There are a few others out there, but they have a significantly different average.

• https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker puts Trump at -3.8 already (and is technically tracking favorability, not approval).

• https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/donald-trump/approval-rating puts Trump at +1.3 still.

• Nate Silver has announced that he’s going to be creating one, but it’s not out yet, and will probably be at least somewhat different from 538.

• https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx only shows Gallup’s polling, which is several weeks out of date, and not an average

• While 538 is now down to -0.3.

Replacing with any of the other sources is going to be significantly different from the original market.

@Gabrielle Yes, I think it needs to be resolved in N/A, I understand the site has already been shut down, they are all fired immediately.

Just to clarify, @Jo2e2b, does this resolve to the approval rating on March 22nd, or the CHANGE in approval rating from March 1st (0.7) to March 22nd? (In which case, -2.3 would be enough to resolve to <-3)?

Also, by > and <, do you mean less than or equal to and greater than or equal to? Like, does 3% or -3% exactly count?

@bens description and comment thread below clearly indicate it's only net approval, not change in net approval

@bens I must confess I didn't really consider this when asking the question, since the net approval rating was so close to zero anyways. While it would probably have made more sense to look at change, let's stick to what I said, which is absolute net approval.

Regarding the comparison signs, I used strictly less than and greater than, so let's stick to that. 538 gives two digits of precision, so it shouldn't matter too much.

@Jo2e2b

Let's stick to what I said, which is absolute net approval.

I disagree with this choice as it is quite obviously the spirit of the market to have the listed options be an equal change in approval. The change in approval is what the title question is asking. The numerical approval rating itself does not answer the title question since their relation is arbitrary.

Furthermore I think generally sticking to 'what you said' is a terrible idea since you used "3%" instead of "3ppt". Which makes the calculation for the answers even more confusing.

I suggest sticking to the spirit of the market and an equal, 3ppt change in approval rating either way.

Disclaimer: I hold a lot of NO for +3, but I am confident in my position regardless of the requirement being +3 or +2.3, and would argue for the abovementioned resolution standard regardless of any of my positions.

@dgga his net approval was already trending down, so it's arguable the current resolution is closer to the spirit of the question regardless

@cthor the way the approval was trending has absolutely no relevance to the spirit of the market

@dgga of course it does? If his net approval went down for other reasons, e.g. tariffs causing inflation, it would be spurious to attribute the entire swing to his talk with Zelenskyy.

If you're making a spirit of the market argument to revise a perfectly clear description, you can't just pretend wider context is irrelevant.

@cthor I'm making an argument for less ambiguity and you are making an argument for more ambiguity. If trump nuked New York tomorrow and his approval rating went to 3%, are you saying this market should ignore the trend becausr it has nothing to do with the Zelensky talk?

@dgga I'm saying the current description is perfectly clear, unambiguous, and adequate and you haven't made a good enough case to revise it.

For reference, after Biden’s disastrous debate that ended his campaign, his polling didn't drop this much:

https://manifold.markets/Balasar/will-the-first-presidential-debate

I think it will have a negative effect but not 3.7ppt.

@brod I agree 3.7ppt is a lot. However, Trump already had a very negative momentum, so this might add to it. Honestly I don't know 😂 :-)