Why Do Democrat Commentators Keep Saying "Historically Low Approval Ratings"?,According To Who?

[Iceweasel]

historical

would
mean

according to History

it's simply a comparison of polling on a month to month basis of previous presidents...including this president

But polling has been proven to be way off so the statements mean nothing unless you are already a disciple.

Polls had Hillary ahead in the popular vote by 3.1% and she won by 2.1%: RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

I saw the polling at the time and they had often her up 13 points. You picked early November because you're a dishonest piece of shit. They had to get more realistic at the end to try to maintain some credibility. If you look at the chart down below where you got your snapshot you'll see what I mean. LOL, you thought you could get away with that? What a retard!

well duh.... she was way up in the polls until the Russians dumped the stolen podesta emails and trump and team coordinated and promoted them, endlessly.

Nonsense. You believe (or say) anything to support your political theology. Go ahead and be the first person to back up those wild claims. Those emails you are referring to are about democrat party corruption. Who didn't know? All the time libs were celebrating and mocking the right for the big dud the emails were.

 

[rightwinger]

Common sense will tell you that you can get a poll to indicate anything you want just by carefully phrasing the questions and selecting a demographic representation that generally gives answers that the pollster needs. Another way to rig a poll is to conduct it right after some incident when emotions are high. It's pretty ironic that lefties trusted the polls that said Hillary in a landslide right up to about 7 PM on election night. Where else do angry leaderless lefties in desperate need of therapy have to go except fake news and push polls?

Yes you can influence a poll

But what do you do when EVERY poll week after week shows Trump at historically low numbers?

 

[charwin95]

Name your poll
Even look at good ole Rassmussen. Trump sucks compared to other Presidents. It's not even close

If you don't like Polls.......find some other indicator that says Trump is popular

You can't

/---- Hildabeast up by 14 points bwhahaha bwhahaha bwhahaha

Trump beats Hillary in an embarrassing landslide,,his voters still love him. ]

A born idiot always and idiot. A born stupid always stupid.

 

[J.E.D]

Trump beats Hillary in an embarrassing landslide

yeah sure if you consider losing the popular vote by 3 million a "landslide"

 

[J.E.D]

The liberals forget all the electoral college victory dances they were doing here all through the elections.

The last time a Republican presidential candidate won the popular vote was Bush vs Kerry

 

[Care4all]

historical

would
mean

according to History

it's simply a comparison of polling on a month to month basis of previous presidents...including this president

But polling has been proven to be way off so the statements mean nothing unless you are already a disciple.

Polls had Hillary ahead in the popular vote by 3.1% and she won by 2.1%: RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

I saw the polling at the time and they had often her up 13 points. You picked early November because you're a dishonest piece of shit. They had to get more realistic at the end to try to maintain some credibility. If you look at the chart down below where you got your snapshot you'll see what I mean. LOL, you thought you could get away with that? What a retard!

well duh.... she was way up in the polls until the Russians dumped the stolen podesta emails and trump and team coordinated and promoted them, endlessly.

Nonsense. You believe (or say) anything to support your political theology. Go ahead and be the first person to back up those wild claims. Those emails you are referring to are about democrat party corruption. Who didn't know? All the time libs were celebrating and mocking the right for the big dud the emails were.

as we have discussed before, Trump alone used the podesta emails from when dumped the first week of October, conveniently the same day as Trump's grabbing ***** Access Hollywood tape dropped, over 160 times the last month, promoted every FALSE narrative the RUSSIANS created and spread through their bots and hired guns on Facebook and twitter, and all of Trump's campaign promoted the false Russian narratives as well and all of the right wing media regurgitated them as well.

PLUS, Comey dropped his bomb 2 weeks out, which he retracted only 2 days before the election.

SHE WAS WAY AHEAD OF HIM, until those 2 things happened.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

after about 18 or so months of fake polls and fake predictions {Yah,, Jebb Bush is gonna be the next President},,,no one with an IQ over 43.7 believes any polls coming from Liberal People and Networks

 

[bripat9643]

This is such Bullchit! It seems as if all Democrat guests on any cable news outlet are given their scripts ahead of time and being paid to press the fact that Trump has very very low approval ratings when any normal minded American thinks otherwise.
Did these paid commentators see the massive crowd last night in Pennsylvania? Maybe Razmuffin and Gallup should just go there and take a poll.
Can you imagine if all these pollsters polled every state except New York and California? you think the results would still be Trump at 47% ???

Because polls have never found approval so low for any other President in history. and you knew this, but you're playing dumb about it.

So the media spent 10 months villiying Trump in the most despicable ways imaginable, and we are dupposed to accept their polls as somehow credible? These are the same polling outfits that said Hillary was ahead by 15 poits.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[bripat9643]

historical

would
mean

according to History

it's simply a comparison of polling on a month to month basis of previous presidents...including this president

But polling has been proven to be way off so the statements mean nothing unless you are already a disciple.

Polling has never been 100% accurate...so even in the polling of previous Presidents they too are less than 100% accurate...

there is always a margin of error....

Polls have never been so wrong so consistently.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[bripat9643]

This is such Bullchit! It seems as if all Democrat guests on any cable news outlet are given their scripts ahead of time and being paid to press the fact that Trump has very very low approval ratings when any normal minded American thinks otherwise.
Did these paid commentators see the massive crowd last night in Pennsylvania? Maybe Razmuffin and Gallup should just go there and take a poll.
Can you imagine if all these pollsters polled every state except New York and California? you think the results would still be Trump at 47% ???

Because polls have never found approval so low for any other President in history. and you knew this, but you're playing dumb about it.

I don't think Lincoln was subject to daily polling. It only started recently, even W Bush wasn't polled that much. Polling has become a cottage industry and they are selling a product.

The purpose of fake news polls is not to learn what people think but to tell them what to think.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[bripat9643]

Common sense will tell you that you can get a poll to indicate anything you want just by carefully phrasing the questions and selecting a demographic representation that generally gives answers that the pollster needs. Another way to rig a poll is to conduct it right after some incident when emotions are high. It's pretty ironic that lefties trusted the polls that said Hillary in a landslide right up to about 7 PM on election night. Where else do angry leaderless lefties in desperate need of therapy have to go except fake news and push polls?

Yes you can influence a poll

But what do you do when EVERY poll week after week shows Trump at historically low numbers?

We ignore them because we know they are fake and wrong.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Iceweasel]

The liberals forget all the electoral college victory dances they were doing here all through the elections.

The last time a Republican presidential candidate won the popular vote was Bush vs Kerry

Uhm thanks Master JEDI, that was the president before the previous one. However you completely responded to a different point.

 

[Iceweasel]

But polling has been proven to be way off so the statements mean nothing unless you are already a disciple.

Polls had Hillary ahead in the popular vote by 3.1% and she won by 2.1%: RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

I saw the polling at the time and they had often her up 13 points. You picked early November because you're a dishonest piece of shit. They had to get more realistic at the end to try to maintain some credibility. If you look at the chart down below where you got your snapshot you'll see what I mean. LOL, you thought you could get away with that? What a retard!

well duh.... she was way up in the polls until the Russians dumped the stolen podesta emails and trump and team coordinated and promoted them, endlessly.

Nonsense. You believe (or say) anything to support your political theology. Go ahead and be the first person to back up those wild claims. Those emails you are referring to are about democrat party corruption. Who didn't know? All the time libs were celebrating and mocking the right for the big dud the emails were.

as we have discussed before, Trump alone used the podesta emails from when dumped the first week of October, conveniently the same day as Trump's grabbing ***** Access Hollywood tape dropped, over 160 times the last month, promoted every FALSE narrative the RUSSIANS created and spread through their bots and hired guns on Facebook and twitter, and all of Trump's campaign promoted the false Russian narratives as well and all of the right wing media regurgitated them as well.

PLUS, Comey dropped his bomb 2 weeks out, which he retracted only 2 days before the election.

SHE WAS WAY AHEAD OF HIM, until those 2 things happened.

I don't recall any such conversation with you or anyone else. First I've heard of it. How about something other than your OPINION? Comey was a hero for not coming down on Hillary like she was anyone else. You are a propagandist, pure and simple.

 

[AntonToo]

historical

would
mean

according to History

it's simply a comparison of polling on a month to month basis of previous presidents...including this president

But polling has been proven to be way off so the statements mean nothing unless you are already a disciple.

Polls had Hillary ahead in the popular vote by 3.1% and she won by 2.1%: RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

I saw the polling at the time and they had often her up 13 points. You picked early November because you're a dishonest piece of shit. They had to get more realistic at the end to try to maintain some credibility. If you look at the chart down below where you got your snapshot you'll see what I mean. LOL, you thought you could get away with that? What a retard!

Is there something you can say that DOESN'T involve an impossibly complex, reason defying, conspiracy?

If a polling organization could have a competetive edge by not being in on the MAKE-CLINTON-POLLING-LOOK-BETTER! conspiracy, why would it not take it? Why was in-Republican-pocket FOX in on it?

Polls said Clinton will win popular vote by 3%. AND SHE DID, by 2%. But it just so happens that Electoral College, which national polls DO NOT and CANNOT poll, deviated from popular vote result.

 

[Iceweasel]

historical

would
mean

according to History

it's simply a comparison of polling on a month to month basis of previous presidents...including this president

But polling has been proven to be way off so the statements mean nothing unless you are already a disciple.

Polls had Hillary ahead in the popular vote by 3.1% and she won by 2.1%: RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

I saw the polling at the time and they had often her up 13 points. You picked early November because you're a dishonest piece of shit. They had to get more realistic at the end to try to maintain some credibility. If you look at the chart down below where you got your snapshot you'll see what I mean. LOL, you thought you could get away with that? What a retard!

Is there something you can say that DOESN'T involve an impossibly complex, reason defying, conspiracy?

If a polling organization could have a competetive edge by not being in on the MAKE-CLINTON-POLLING-LOOK-BETTER! conspiracy, why would it not take it? Why was in-Republican-pocket FOX in on it?

Polls said Clinton will win popular vote by 3%. AND SHE DID, by 2%. But it just so happens that Electoral College, which national polls DO NOT and CANNOT poll, deviated from popular vote result.

Why come here to prove you're a dumbfuck? The chart posted on his source backs me up. It didn't get real until the end. No conspiracy there, it just requires more than a bowl of oatmeal with a handful of electrical contacts to see what was going on.

 

[AntonToo]

historical

would
mean

according to History

it's simply a comparison of polling on a month to month basis of previous presidents...including this president

But polling has been proven to be way off so the statements mean nothing unless you are already a disciple.

Polls had Hillary ahead in the popular vote by 3.1% and she won by 2.1%: RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

I saw the polling at the time and they had often her up 13 points. You picked early November because you're a dishonest piece of shit. They had to get more realistic at the end to try to maintain some credibility. If you look at the chart down below where you got your snapshot you'll see what I mean. LOL, you thought you could get away with that? What a retard!

Is there something you can say that DOESN'T involve an impossibly complex, reason defying, conspiracy?

If a polling organization could have a competetive edge by not being in on the MAKE-CLINTON-POLLING-LOOK-BETTER! conspiracy, why would it not take it? Why was in-Republican-pocket FOX in on it?

Polls said Clinton will win popular vote by 3%. AND SHE DID, by 2%. But it just so happens that Electoral College, which national polls DO NOT and CANNOT poll, deviated from popular vote result.

Why come here to prove you're a dumbfuck? The chart posted on his source backs me up. It didn't get real until the end. No conspiracy there, it just requires more than a bowl of oatmeal with a handful of electrical contacts to see what was going on.

You didn't answer the simple question I posed to you. So let me post it again:

Is there something you can say that DOESN'T involve an impossibly complex, reason defying, conspiracy?

If a polling organization could have a competetive edge by not being in on the MAKE-CLINTON-POLLING-LOOK-BETTER! conspiracy, why would it not take it? Why was in-Republican-pocket FOX in on it?

I think it is because your thesis is RETARDED and you know it.

Yes it actually IS reasonable that many people made up their mind on who, out of two unpopular candidates, to vote for in the final months of the campaign. Never-Trumpsters folded into Never-Clintonites eventually and it was close since September.

 

[Iceweasel]

You didn't answer the simple question I posed to you. So let me post it again:

Is there something you can say that DOESN'T involve an impossibly complex, reason defying, conspiracy?

I did answer you. Your oatmeal brain couldn't process it. Yep, they were way off in their polling. Millions of people didn't just flip.

 

[AntonToo]

You didn't answer the simple question I posed to you. So let me post it again:

Is there something you can say that DOESN'T involve an impossibly complex, reason defying, conspiracy?

I did answer you. Your oatmeal brain couldn't process it. Yep, they were way off in their polling. Millions of people didn't just flip.

So Never Trumpsters didn't vote for Trump?

And NO you did not answer why you think FOX news was in on a grand conspiracy to conduct false polling to make Clinton numbers look good before September.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

All kidding aside, what do you expect when you have TWO 24 hour "news" stations devoting nearly 100% of their air time to Trump bashing?? As well as 3 network stations devoting half or better of their time bashing the President?

At this point, you honestly have to question whether CNN is even a news organization anymore.

 

[Iceweasel]

You didn't answer the simple question I posed to you. So let me post it again:

Is there something you can say that DOESN'T involve an impossibly complex, reason defying, conspiracy?

I did answer you. Your oatmeal brain couldn't process it. Yep, they were way off in their polling. Millions of people didn't just flip.

So Never Trumpsters didn't vote for Trump?

WTF? Go feed your oatmeal.