It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fox News Poll: Storms erode Trump's ratings

page: 3
67
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Flash news! Trump ate some chimichangas and the "Gas" eroded his ratings.....




posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: manuelram16

I was going to start this thread yesterday, but after looking deeper into the backgrond data, it appears that the quality of the polling group is declining. The quality of respondents was low during 2016, and it has slipped even further.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: thesaneone


But, the polls weren't wrong. They were looking in the wrong direction, and didn't take into account the implication Electoral College in rural red states.



Seriously?

The EC is not a new thing.


True, however typically whoever wins the popular vote, takes the win. But of course that wasn't the case here, or in Al Gore's case, so obviously pollsters will have to be more mindful of that in future elections.

You can't help but wonder though, if Gore had taken the win, we would not have gone into Iraq and opened the can of worms we face today. I'll always wonder, should we have just listened to the people?



I keep forgetting that 3 states should speak for the whole country.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: thesaneone


Hillary was in the lead, and in fact, she won the popular vote by 3 million votes.



Congrats, you won a contest nobody was competing in.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12
You mean the polls that led Hillary to become president? Fools



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: HeadCrunchMcRockGroin


The polls had her ahead, and in fact, she was ahead. She did get more votes than Trump. If you're going to blame the polls, blame those which didn't include the Electoral College projection in gerrymandered districts.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 08:27 PM
link   
And I see threads regularly saying how "obsessed anti-Trump folks are," lol.

The number of "but Hillary's," is astounding haha.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: olaru12

Don't you people understand that polls are meaningless?


No. Because they're not.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: thesaneone


But, the polls weren't wrong. They were looking in the wrong direction, and didn't take into account the implication Electoral College in rural red states.



Seriously?

The EC is not a new thing.


True, however typically whoever wins the popular vote, takes the win. But of course that wasn't the case here, or in Al Gore's case, so obviously pollsters will have to be more mindful of that in future elections.

You can't help but wonder though, if Gore had taken the win, we would not have gone into Iraq and opened the can of worms we face today. I'll always wonder, should we have just listened to the people?



I keep forgetting that 3 states should speak for the whole country.


Thanks for your irrelevant non-sequitur.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: manuelram16
Flash news! Trump ate some chimichangas and the "Gas" eroded his ratings.....


I'm pretty sure that would improve his ratings.



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 02:25 AM
link   
But, the electoral college! But, She won the popular vote! nope, nothing new here either.



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 07:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: thesaneone


Hillary was in the lead, and in fact, she won the popular vote by 3 million votes.




Yeah, that and 5 bucks will get her a cup of coffee.




posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: thesaneone


Hillary was in the lead, and in fact, she won the popular vote by 3 million votes.



That and a buck fifty will buy her a cup of coffee in a truck stop.


lol!! Beat me to it!





posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 09:32 AM
link   
It must really disappoint cult45 that FOX NEWS is now actually fair and balanced and can see thru the Trump BS and is reporting it.


edit on 27-10-2017 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: loam
The left seems hellbent on repeating their mistake from the last election. Keep believing 2020 looks good for you. So far you have no message beyond anti-trump and resist. You have no leader, but the one who just lost and seems determined to remain relevant.

Yup. The polls look good for the left. Just like last time.


Seeing as how Trump won on being "not Obama" or "not Hillary" that seems like a pretty viable platform to run on.
edit on 27-10-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: thesaneone


But, the polls weren't wrong. They were looking in the wrong direction, and didn't take into account the implication Electoral College in rural red states.



Seriously?

The EC is not a new thing.


True, however typically whoever wins the popular vote, takes the win. But of course that wasn't the case here, or in Al Gore's case, so obviously pollsters will have to be more mindful of that in future elections.

You can't help but wonder though, if Gore had taken the win, we would not have gone into Iraq and opened the can of worms we face today. I'll always wonder, should we have just listened to the people?



I keep forgetting that 3 states should speak for the whole country.

This is so dishonest. I'm tired of seeing it myself. Just because the difference between Hillary's popular vote count and Trump's vote count can be summed up across 3 states does NOT mean that those 3 million people are actually from those states.



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
It must really disappoint cult45 that FOX NEWS is now actually fair and balanced and can see thru the Trump BS and is reporting it.



FOX News was never pro-Trump. Your spitefullness against them blinded you to that simple fact. Aside from Hannity and Fox & Friends, most of the network was pretty negative against him. If anything the network has softened their tone against him compared to the other networks who have doubled down the blind hatred.



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: thesaneone


But, the polls weren't wrong. They were looking in the wrong direction, and didn't take into account the implication Electoral College in rural red states.



Seriously?

The EC is not a new thing.


True, however typically whoever wins the popular vote, takes the win. But of course that wasn't the case here, or in Al Gore's case, so obviously pollsters will have to be more mindful of that in future elections.

You can't help but wonder though, if Gore had taken the win, we would not have gone into Iraq and opened the can of worms we face today. I'll always wonder, should we have just listened to the people?



I keep forgetting that 3 states should speak for the whole country.

This is so dishonest. I'm tired of seeing it myself. Just because the difference between Hillary's popular vote count and Trump's vote count can be summed up across 3 states does NOT mean that those 3 million people are actually from those states.


Clinton won California by 4.3 million votes. She beat Trump in the popular vote nationwide by 2.9 million votes. Simple mathematics, take California out of the picture and Trump wins the popular vote by 1,4 million votes.

Those 3 million people were actually from the state of California. If you're struggling with that fact and tired of hearing it, perhaps some a nice rest in a comfy chair with a statistics book in front of you will help the matter be resolved.



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Even simpler is to remind everyone there is no such thing as a national popular vote. Clinton won the popular vote in every single state she carried and Trump won the popular vote in every single state he carried.

Trump won more states than clinton did and by extension more electoral votes than Clinton did.

Any argument trying to use a "national popular vote" is invalid since it uses something that does not exist.

Just like the bs argument the Democrats used in the bush gore election where they falsely claim Florida tipped the balance when in reality it had nothing to do with the situation.

W. Virginia and its 5 electoral votes, which democrats assumed was a safe state, went for Bush, giving him the win. Had he not won W. Virginia (and still won Florida) Gore would have won.

New York and California dont get to override the votes of people from other states.
edit on 27-10-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword


Hillary was in the lead, and in fact, she won the popular vote by 3 million votes.



I don't think with only 28% of the vote it is considered a popular vote...lol

With Trump, as long as it is above the 27% that voted for him he is gaining non-voters and Hillary voters...good on him...




edit on 27-10-2017 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
67
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join