Trump Approval / Disapproval - a fine point to watch

Are you referring to the national polling from 2016?

 

yes and i submit that i can make a poll say what i want it to say,all this quoting polls is nothing but snake oil

does it matter my point is anyone that knows how can make a poll say what they want,citing a poll with a sample of 1500 people out of 340 million is what,nothing.
the only poll that matters is the vote ,this quoting polls is a joke.

 

Just expressing my opinion about polls. That is the topic, right? Once again, my point with last years headlines is THEY WERE WRONG. What on earth makes anybody believe them now? They told you Hillary was going to win and now they're telling you Trump sucks. Might be music to your ears, but most folks arent that gullible. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.


Dont have to put me on iggy, I'll leave you alone.

 

Bye bye

 

That being the case, then the 2 polls you mean were wrong, because the national polls measured the NPV and Clinton won in the NPV, by +2.1%. Just to be crystal clear.

 

Just to put a little historical perspective into play here there is a precedent for this drop in approval ratings after losing the popular vote. In 2000 Bush jr was handed the election by the SCOTUS decision and the nation was divided. The nefarious actions of the Bush/Cheney regime then caused approval ratings to drop significantly.



It was only 9/11 that turned them upwards but by October 2003 they were back to where they were just before 9/11.

As the chart above shows the trend towards the 20 percent continued throughout the entire 2 terms.

What is notable about the BLOTUS is that he already down in the 30's and he hasn't even completed the first year yet. He could be in the 20's before the year is up unless something happens.

 

Today's weather forecast was a 60% chance of rain. It's didn't rain. Therefore weather forecasts are meaningless.

Seriously, there were errors made in the polling last year - and I think the biggest issue had to do with the unique coalition that voted for Trump. He received majority votes from groups that historically voted Democrat, which would lead pollsters to extrapolate incorrectly. I would expect this constituted a lesson-learned for pollsters - you learn more from your failures than from your successes.

Of course, those polls actually were generally within their margin of error, and the polling for the popular vote was pretty accurate.

 

Interesting posting, thanks for your input.
Three things:

1.) Weather forecasts are accurate up to 95% of the time. This is a proven fact.
2.) 47 of 50 state polling aggregates were on target. 3 were off. In almost every election year, one or two state aggregate can be off.
3.) and yes, the national polling aggregate was correct.

Your statement that he received majority votes from groups that traditionally vote DemocratIC, however, is not correct, not by a longshot.

 

President Reagan's polling numbers were very low his first two years in office due to the changes his administration introduced to revive the economy from years of high inflation and high unemployment.

Once his policies began to bear fruit, the economy bounced back strong and he became one of the most popular presidents in history.

Oh, and he helped win the Cold War.

 

And they were dancing in the streets last November.

 

St Reagan HATED nuclear weapons!

Your beloved BLOTUS is no Reagan!

Your BLOTUS is trying to start a nuclear WW3!

St Reagan would be APPALLED to see what your BLOTUS is doing to America!

 

Who is "they" and why are you referring to last November?
This thread is not about last November...

 

On please, you don't live in a bubble, do you? Okay, I'll play along

The "They" are the pollsters you consider infallible.

"Last November" was the Presidential election.that they got completely wrong.

Capisce?

 

This is what happens when you let an impressionable mind go wild.

 

The extremist alt right ignores the reality of St Reagan!

https://thinkprogress.org/7-things-...ked-to-learn-about-ronald-reagan-1a2ebad92b3/

 

Nuclear disarmament was a fine goal for any president. Reagan had to settle for the collapse of Communism and the Soviet Union instead.

Even though President Bush and six former Republican Secretaries of State favored the New Start Treaty, many arms control experts argued it would have reduced the US nuclear arsenal while not necessarily reducing the Soviet arsenal. It also gave the Soviets a 10-1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons over the US.

That would hardly create a world free of nuclear weapons. America's defenses would have been weakened.

Enough Republican Senators agreed.

<<MOD EDIT - Rule 4 - Removed baiting>> Lee S

 

Putting the arrogant and uninformed nature of your posting aside, first, this thread is not about me, so why you mentioned me at all is a mystery, for that has nothing to do with debate.

Second, I have never written that pollsters are infallible. I have, however, written that the aggregate more often than not is very close to reality, meaning, the actual result.

Third, your assertion about last November is false. The national (NPV) polling was correct: the aggregate showed Clinton +2.5 right before election night and indeed, she won in the NPV by +2.1. In the state polling, 47 of 50 state aggregates were absolutely correct, including Ohio, Iowa, Florida (showed a statistical tie, Trump won by +1) and North Carolina. In most every election cycle, one or two state aggregates are off. So, no, "they" did not completely get it wrong. Learn to use facts next time instead of simply attacking a member of PF. Thanks.

 

It is proofed by a mountain of evidences that Ronald Reagan was deeply involved in the Iran Contra affair!

For remembering:
USA made an official embargo towards Iran after the Shah was kicked off from power and the US embassy was stormed and members taken as hostage. Behind the scenes Reagan administration made a big secret weapon deal with Iran due to fact that they need for example much replacement and spare parts for the US stuff used in their Forces (for example the F-4 Phantoms and F-14 Tomcats). This deal was by his own embargo terms totally illegal in its own and anyone else making such a deal would be put to US court or if foreign, will earn US anger with heavy diplomatic consequences.
The made "black money" with this deal went directly to the support of the Contras in Honduras and their bloody fought and CIA supported civil war against socialist government of Nicaragua.

So ... even Reagan is of course dead, the US had nothing better to do as to name an Aircraft Carrier of Nimitz class after him and the righties cheer him as winner of cold war.... so, sorry to say, but this Saint Reagan blaming is well reasoned! Let this affair have done by an Democrat President and the righties here would cry havoc!

And really lame it is when the righties try to put this uncomfortable fact aside with "this was done by a former president".

 

Referring to the deceased as a saint is "name calling" according to the extremist alt right?

 

Spare me.

 

But he isn't working for them. His healthcare plan screws his base. His tax plan screws his base. The only sucess Trump has is the stock market and of course that does very little for his base. His base is gradually waking up to the fact that Trump is the swamp which is why the base is gradually eroding.

 

But he is a bloated fat pig . Even his girdle is starting to rebel.

 

Oh OK...'Blotus' exists in your head. Have fun...carry on.

 

Smug name calling is that last resort of a failed argument.

 

First of all trump has no healthcare plan

Laws are written by congress and signed by the president if the reach his desk and congress has failed to come up with any healhcare plan

Next you phony concern for trump's base is not welcome from the trump base

We can take care of ourselves without any handholding from you