“In the latest data from Morning Consult’s Trump Tracker, which measures the president’s approval rating in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, a record low of 40 percent of voters approved of Trump and a record-high 55 percent disapproved, resulting in the worst monthly net rating of his presidency.”

Looking state by state with an eye toward the electoral college, Trump is underwater in key states:

• Minnesota (39/57)
• Wisconsin (40/56)
• Pennsylvania (43/53)
• Arizona (44/52)
• Ohio (45/51)
• Michigan (40/55)
• North Carolina (46/50)

“In all, the January data shows Trump’s net approval declined in 43 states and increased in four: Idaho, Louisiana, Georgia and New Mexico,” the polls finds. “The biggest slide came in New Hampshire, the traditional holder of the first-in-the-nation presidential primary. Nearly six in 10 Granite Staters (58 percent) disapproved of Trump in January — up 6 points since December — while 39 percent approved, down 4 points since the prior month.”

Trump is singularly inept — uninterested, actually — at broadening his base of support or winning back disaffected voters. Provided Democrats do not nominate someone who turns off a substantial share of the electorate (no slam-dunk), they have a pool of available voters they did not enjoy in 2016.

In short, Trump is failing. The question remains whether Democrats can avoid screwing up. One need look no further than Virginia to understand that remains a not-insignificant possibility.

“This new initiative will for the first time coordinate America’s commitment to one of the most undervalued resources in the developing world — the talent, ambition and genius of women,” Trump wrote in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal that announced the news. For the Women’s Global Development and Prosperity Initiative, the U.S. government will team up with several private companies such as UPS and Pepsi to “facilitate complementary private-sector investments to achieve our shared goals,” Trump said.

But despite the initiative’s ambitions, it is unclear how the White House-led fund would fit into the president’s broader skepticism about foreign aid. Notably, the government funding for the project will come from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) — an organization whose funding President Trump has repeatedly tried to cut.

The relatively small sum the U.S. government has allocated for the fund — $50 million designed to help 50 million people — also stood out to critics.

“$1 per woman, or rather $0.02 per woman, once you subtract the money WalMart and others will spend on glossy, self-congratulatory advertisements,” Brad Simpson, a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center, wrote on Twitter.