Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How do CNN, Fox News, and Rasmussen report differences in Trump's approval rating?
Executive Summary
CNN’s recent polling cycle shows President Trump’s approval in the high 30s, with a CNN/SSRS headline figure of 37% approval and 63% disapproval that CNN characterized as the lowest of his second term [1] [2]. Rasmussen’s nightly tracking has reported higher approval figures—around 44–45% with net approval near -8 points—producing a less negative picture than CNN’s single poll but roughly aligning with some aggregated averages [3]. Fox News’ coverage in the materials provided is inconsistent in tone and lacks a clear single headline figure here; one Fox-branded summary framed the numbers as “setting another record,” a characterization that could emphasize either record disapproval or historical context depending on framing [4]. Across sources, methodology (sample frame, likely voters vs. adults), weighting, and organizational slant explain most of the numerical spread rather than a single contradiction of facts [5] [6].
1. Why CNN’s 37% figure reads as a news event — methodology and timing that matter
CNN’s standalone poll reported a 37% approval and 63% disapproval as a moment-in-time snapshot and labeled that the lowest approval of Trump’s second term, with particular emphasis on economic evaluations where 61% said his policies worsened the economy [1] [2]. That result comes from a CNN/SSRS survey round and is presented both as a discrete poll and as part of CNN’s polling narrative; CNN’s Poll of Polls, compiled separately, averages multiple recent surveys and shows a somewhat higher multi-poll average near 40% approval [7]. The difference between a single poll headline and a pooled average underscores an important factual point: a single survey can headline a record low while an average across surveys softens that reading. CNN’s reporting therefore highlights a specific low point while also maintaining an aggregate measure that is less extreme [7] [2].
2. Rasmussen’s tracking — higher approvals, different universe, and partisan perceptions
Rasmussen’s nightly tracking reported approval figures in the mid-40s—about 44–45% approving, 53% disapproving, producing a net around -8 points, which is notably less negative than CNN’s single-survey headline [3]. Methodologically Rasmussen often samples likely voters and publishes daily tracking, producing smoother short-term trends that can run higher than single cross-sectional adult samples. Independent assessments of Rasmussen note a right-leaning bias or Right-Center orientation that can shape questionnaire wording and turnout modeling; evaluators have given Rasmussen mixed credibility ratings while acknowledging reasonable predictive performance in some cycles [6] [8]. Factually, Rasmussen’s numbers are concrete in the dataset presented and systematically differ from CNN’s headline poll because of the sampling frame and longstanding methodological choices, not because one source is inventing results [3] [6].
3. Fox News’ role — framing differences and ambiguous presentation in these materials
Within the materials provided, Fox-branded coverage appears to treat the approval/disapproval numbers as a noteworthy inflection—one summary framed Trump’s rating as “setting another record”—but did not present a clear single numeric comparison in the same way CNN or Rasmussen did in these excerpts [4]. That headline wording leaves room for two factual readings: emphasizing a record high in disapproval or underscoring record-setting dynamics generally. Fox News is typically identified as a conservative outlet whose editorial and coverage choices can highlight different aspects of polling for political effect, and the provided analyses note that Fox’s reportage often differs in tone from CNN’s [4] [8]. Factually, the Fox item cited does not supply a distinct alternative numeric consensus here, so the substantive difference in this dataset rests on CNN’s low single-poll headline versus Rasmussen’s higher tracking numbers [4] [3].
4. Aggregates, averages, and why the spread isn’t a mystery — polling mechanics produce predictable variance
Aggregators and poll-of-polls approaches compile disparate methodologies and produce intermediate figures: CNN’s Poll of Polls showed an average near 40% approval by late April into November, which sits between CNN’s low single-poll headline and Rasmussen’s nightly tracking [7]. The documented spread stems from three factual drivers: [9] whether the poll surveys all adults, registered voters, or likely voters; [10] weighting choices for partisanship, demographics, and turnout; and [11] timing and sampling error margins—CNN’s single poll carried a reported margin of error and demographic weighting decisions that explain variance versus Rasmussen’s tracking [5] [2]. These are measurable methodological differences, not mere spin; recognizing them explains why multiple reputable sources can all publish accurate but numerically different approval ratings.
5. What to take away — cross-checking, trend focus, and reading the coverage contextually
The fact pattern in these materials is clear: CNN’s headline poll reported a second-term low at 37% while Rasmussen’s tracking showed mid-40s approval—aggregates landed near 40%—and Fox’s cited coverage framed the numbers without a single contrasting figure [1] [3] [7]. The appropriate factual response is to treat each figure as valid within its methodological frame and to prioritize trends and multi-poll averages when assessing directionality rather than relying on any single headline. Given documented biases and sampling choices—Rasmussen’s right-leaning orientation and CNN’s left-leaning framing tendencies discussed in the analyses—readers should weigh polls by methodology, sample universe, and aggregation rather than outlet brand alone [6] [8] [7].