特朗普總統2025年9月30日支持率是否暴跌？台灣總統賴清德呢？

1. Summary of the results

Multiple provided analyses portray President Trump’s approval as low but not uniformly “collapsing”: one synthesis reports around 43% approval and characterizes his standing as low yet relatively stable, while another poll cited shows a modest dip to 45% approval with 53% disapproval, suggesting short-term fluctuation rather than a precipitous fall ^{[1] [2]}. Reporting emphasizes that Trump retains overwhelming support within the Republican base—about nine in ten GOP voters remain loyal—so aggregate approval moves depend heavily on independent and swing voters ^[1]. For Taiwan’s President Lai Ching‑te, the available analyses indicate sliding satisfaction tied to perceived policy inaction, with at least one commentary noting a significant decline in public confidence and weakened “political efficacy” among his supporters ^{[3] [4]}. Together, the materials show different narratives: marginal poll movement for Trump and notable concerns about waning support for Lai, but none of the summaries supplied definitively document a dramatic, immediate collapse for either leader on the date in question ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The supplied analyses omit crucial methodological context that would alter interpretation: publication dates, sample frames, weighting, margin of error, likely voter models, and trends across multiple polls are not supplied, making it hard to assess whether observed shifts are statistically significant or transient ^{[1] [2] [5]}. Alternative viewpoints that could moderate the “decline” narrative include longitudinal national tracking polls showing longer-term stability, regional heterogeneity—Trump’s approval might be stable nationally but weaker among specific demographics—and Taiwan polling that distinguishes approval, re‑election intent, and issue‑specific satisfaction. Coverage also lacks explicit attribution of contemporary events (e.g., legislative fights, economic indicators, security incidents) that commonly drive short-term approval changes, though some pieces note contextual stressors like a looming shutdown and military‑executive discussions ^{[6] [5]}. Without date‑stamped, method‑transparent polling and a fuller cross‑section of surveys, claims about steep drops remain under‑specified ^{[2] [5] [3]}.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

Framing the question as whether either president’s support “暴跌” (plummeted) invites a dramatic interpretation that may benefit political adversaries, advocacy outlets, or media seeking sensational headlines; selective citation of a single poll showing a decline (45% vs. 53%) can be used to amplify a narrative of collapse despite other analyses characterizing approval as “low but stable” ^{[2] [1]}. For Lai Ching‑te, pieces emphasizing declining “political efficacy” among supporters can advantage opposition parties by projecting momentum loss, while omitting counter‑data such as widening leads in other polls two weeks before an event—if those exist—skews public perception ^{[3] [4]}. The sources provided themselves display different emphases: some foreground base loyalty and institutional context, others emphasize headline approval shifts; each choice of emphasis may reflect editorial or partisan aims. Readers should treat single‑poll snapshots cautiously and seek methodologically transparent, date‑stamped, multi‑poll aggregates before concluding that either leader has experienced a true collapse in support ^{[1] [5]}.