Trump's approval plunges to 37%

[Pogo]

Can't fake this poll

Unfortunatement --- that ain't a "poll". That's the Electrical College, which is entirely different.

Here's what the poll you're thinking of actually looks like expressed as a poll:

:
​

I understand, it's comforting to have fantasies when the realities sting, like "everybody in this state unanimously voted for Floont".

So yeah you just DID fake that poll.

Good nooz though. It also means your Creamsicle only dropped nine points from the 46% he got in that poll. Why at that rate he might even make Hallowe'en before he hits zero.

 

[Pogo]

Your senility is noted but I didn't actually say she won the election. What I did say is she won the popular vote by 2.1 percentage points and the polls, on average, predicted she would win it by 3.2 points. So the polls were not far off.

The ones that mattered were.

Exactly how senile are you? We're not talking about the electoral college. We're talking about the accuracy of polling. As you were shown, the polls were, on average, about 1 point off in predicting Hillary would win the popular vote.

Now then, let's see if you're capable of staying focused....

I'm talking about the polls in the swing states that got things all wrong.

Try to stay focused.

Ok, you're too senile to stay focused. No one here was talking about that. You're also apparently too deranged to comprehend why they're called, "swing states" in regards to polling -- because the polls reflect such states are too close to call for either candidate. So no, the polls were not off by much there either.

Actually I'm just stringing this along because I'm bored.

I've started my issues with polls in general, in particular polls that are not the equivalent of a hard choice, i.e. "who you are voting for" vs. a soft choice, i.e. (is this guy doing a good job."

The main issue with the latter is people can be pissed at trump for not doing ENOUGH of what he is doing, thus skewing the disapproval numbers that mostly include people who think he is doing too much.

If it's even 5% who are mad at him for not being "burn government burn" enough, that changes things. If it is 10% that changes things a lot.

Excellent points. They should be included in a more comprehensive poll and surely eventually they will.
This from what I gather is Gallup's ongoing tracker so it's more basic.

 

[martybegan]

The ones that mattered were.

Exactly how senile are you? We're not talking about the electoral college. We're talking about the accuracy of polling. As you were shown, the polls were, on average, about 1 point off in predicting Hillary would win the popular vote.

Now then, let's see if you're capable of staying focused....

I'm talking about the polls in the swing states that got things all wrong.

Try to stay focused.

Ok, you're too senile to stay focused. No one here was talking about that. You're also apparently too deranged to comprehend why they're called, "swing states" in regards to polling -- because the polls reflect such states are too close to call for either candidate. So no, the polls were not off by much there either.

Actually I'm just stringing this along because I'm bored.

I've started my issues with polls in general, in particular polls that are not the equivalent of a hard choice, i.e. "who you are voting for" vs. a soft choice, i.e. (is this guy doing a good job."

The main issue with the latter is people can be pissed at trump for not doing ENOUGH of what he is doing, thus skewing the disapproval numbers that mostly include people who think he is doing too much.

If it's even 5% who are mad at him for not being "burn government burn" enough, that changes things. If it is 10% that changes things a lot.

Excellent points. They should be included in a more comprehensive poll and surely eventually they will.
This from what I gather is Gallup's ongoing tracker so it's more basic.

A more comprehensive poll would be nice, but again once you make the polling more complicated, how you ask the question, or even the tone of the question becomes far more of an impacting factor. What is the positive answer to the question, what is the negative? Is there a qualifying statement before the question?

You have a percentage of the population that just likes to agree to asked questions, which makes the positive/negative aspect important.

And again, a 1500 person sample size is kind of LOL to me.

 

[Pogo]

Boy you are delusional!

Midterm Election years usually benefit the GOP except in the 2006 election.

Wrongo.

Mid-terms are almost always carried by whichever political party is not holding the White House. Since the Duopoly has existed there have been exactly three (3) exceptions. Since the Civil War. You could look it up.

In an average presidency that means Democrats should see considerable victories in 2018. With this kind of nosedive going on it's virtually guaranteed.

Try again and if you think your political party will win in 2018 when Democrats have more seats to defend in the Senate then you are delusional!

I don't have a political party; I simply observe history. And what I just quoted IS the history. Whether consciously or not American voters as a whole go for balance. Mid-terms are never an election to look forward to for whoever has the White House. Go ahead, look it up and try to prove me wrong.

 

[Pogo]

A more comprehensive poll would be nice, but again once you make the polling more complicated, how you ask the question, or even the tone of the question becomes far more of an impacting factor. What is the positive answer to the question, what is the negative? Is there a qualifying statement before the question?

You have a percentage of the population that just likes to agree to asked questions, which makes the positive/negative aspect important.

All of that, if it's a legitimate poll, is meticulously engineered in its language so as not to suggest one way or another and to be open-ended. Plus the questions are (should be) rotated so they never establish a pattern. I did that once upon a time and we were trained in how to do that. That's why part of our vetting as observers is to look directly at the poll and make sure it's not trying to push one way or another.

1500 is not necessarily a too-small sample as long as you have a representative slice of the population. And they should be continually refreshing who the 1500 are so that two polls are derived from 3000, three come from 4500 etc.

 

[Reasonable]

This makes Trump look like a bigger joke than he already is. When the job gets too tough for him he does two things. Goes on a campaign rally or goes on his weekly $3 mil vacation.

 

[martybegan]

A more comprehensive poll would be nice, but again once you make the polling more complicated, how you ask the question, or even the tone of the question becomes far more of an impacting factor. What is the positive answer to the question, what is the negative? Is there a qualifying statement before the question?

You have a percentage of the population that just likes to agree to asked questions, which makes the positive/negative aspect important.

All of that, if it's a legitimate poll, is meticulously engineered in its language so as not to suggest one way or another and to be open-ended. Plus the questions are (should be) rotated so they never establish a pattern. I did that once upon a time and we were trained in how to do that. That's why part of our vetting as observers is to look directly at the poll and make sure it's not trying to push one way or another.

1500 is not necessarily a too-small sample as long as you have a representative slice of the population. And they should be continually refreshing who the 1500 are so that two polls are derived from 3000, three come from 4500 etc.

Yes, they should be doing that. The question is are they. How open are the methodologies of Pollsters? I'll get around to checking sooner or later.

 

[Reasonable]

"This is the most failed 100 days of any president." —Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley on Trump

 

[Pogo]

A more comprehensive poll would be nice, but again once you make the polling more complicated, how you ask the question, or even the tone of the question becomes far more of an impacting factor. What is the positive answer to the question, what is the negative? Is there a qualifying statement before the question?

You have a percentage of the population that just likes to agree to asked questions, which makes the positive/negative aspect important.

All of that, if it's a legitimate poll, is meticulously engineered in its language so as not to suggest one way or another and to be open-ended. Plus the questions are (should be) rotated so they never establish a pattern. I did that once upon a time and we were trained in how to do that. That's why part of our vetting as observers is to look directly at the poll and make sure it's not trying to push one way or another.

1500 is not necessarily a too-small sample as long as you have a representative slice of the population. And they should be continually refreshing who the 1500 are so that two polls are derived from 3000, three come from 4500 etc.

Yes, they should be doing that. The question is are they. How open are the methodologies of Pollsters? I'll get around to checking sooner or later.

I haven't clicked into this one (I did briefly but it looked like you have to subscribe) but when a non-serial poll comes out there's usually a link to the poll itself that in turn links to its methodology.

 

[Cellblock2429]

...on Gallup.

Gallup Daily: Trump Job Approval

For comparison to our last GOP disaster of a president, it took GW Bush until March of 2006 to hit 37%.

/---- the same poll that had Hildabeast up by 14 points Bwhahaha bwhahaha bwhahaha

 

[AntonToo]

...on Gallup.

Gallup Daily: Trump Job Approval

For comparison to our last GOP disaster of a president, it took GW Bush until March of 2006 to hit 37%.

/---- the same poll that had Hildabeast up by 14 points Bwhahaha bwhahaha bwhahaha

You are a feckless liar. Gallup never did 2016 presidential race polling.

 

[Faun]

...on Gallup.

Gallup Daily: Trump Job Approval

For comparison to our last GOP disaster of a president, it took GW Bush until March of 2006 to hit 37%.

/---- the same poll that had Hildabeast up by 14 points Bwhahaha bwhahaha bwhahaha

Others may have had Hillary up by 14 but Gallup never did. You read that on Infowars or WND? But Thanks for tacitly admitting you are a poster who can't be trusted to tell the truth.

 

[rightwinger]

Trump has 37% approval
Who cares?


Republicans trying to push through repeal and replace
Neil Gorsuch
Trump budget
Senators running for office in 2018

 

[rightwinger]

"This is the most failed 100 days of any president." —Presidential historian Douglas Brinkley on Trump

We thought Trump would be inept and he has done nothing to prove us wrong

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™

 

[depotoo]

50%. Awesome!

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™

 

[rightwinger]

When any Republican is in trouble

Its Rassmussen to the rescue!

 

[Pogo]

LOL

They predicted Hillary would win by 3.2 points and she won by 2.1 points. There is no "another 4%."

From one of your fellow travelers

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

Polling Data
Poll Date Sample MoE Clinton (D) Trump (R) Johnson (L) Stein (G) Spread
Final Results -- -- -- 48.2 46.1 3.3 1.1 Clinton +2.1
RCP Average 11/2 - 11/7 -- 45.5 42.2 4.7 1.9 Clinton +3.3

My mistake was using over-counted instead of under-counted. Clinton got 3% more than the polls figured she would, Trump 4%, so you have to account for their error with over-estimating Johnson/Stein support, and of course the undecideds right before the election (of which i was one of). Then you have to determine of the undecideds, how many voted and how many decided to just stay home.

All this leads to me continuing my disdain for polling in general unless it's like a 70-30 and above split.

LOLOL

No matter how you shake it .... the average of the polls predicted she would win by 3.2 points and she actually won by 2.1 points.

But she actually lost. Again, keep thinking hits win a baseball game.

Your senility is noted but I didn't actually say she won the election. What I did say is she won the popular vote by 2.1 percentage points and the polls, on average, predicted she would win it by 3.2 points. So the polls were not far off.

About the only poll that got it dead wrong was that LA Times poll that had Trump winning the popular vote. That was the poll that the nuts claimed was the most accurate one all through the campaign. Turned out to be the worst one.

Yeah now that you mention it I remember that specifically posted here. Good call.

 

[Pogo]

...on Gallup.

Gallup Daily: Trump Job Approval

For comparison to our last GOP disaster of a president, it took GW Bush until March of 2006 to hit 37%.

"Trump's approval plunges to 37%"
among wetbacks, weirdos, bottom feeders and criminals as they watch their anything goes free for all come to a close...It's time to pull your head from your ass and act right people. Ironic how all positive contributors and legitimate folks are extremely pleased with the Trump Administration. Don't be scared whackos, you too will eventually embrace a higher grade society.

^^ "wetbacks" and "higher grade society" in the same post

 

[Faun]

When any Republican is in trouble

Its Rassmussen to the rescue!

His average is still a dismal 43.6%

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Trump Job Approval