New CNN poll faulty as usual

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Clinton was frequently in the low 40s, high 30s during his first 2 years. Bush was until 9/11 brought a sense of national unity.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Clinton was dealing with a recession that he promised to turn around. Bush was dealing with the fallout from the Dot Com bubble. Not to mention the impeachment.

Trump has taken over one of the longest sustained periods of economic growth in US history.

If anything that makes Trump look even worse.

The pollsters don't know how to take into account the human factor, where most people who feel president Trump is doing a good job will not say so.

There was this same effect in 2016 when they ask if you're voting for candidate Trump. Many of those who planned on voting for him said that they were not. That is why there were so few Trump Pence bumper stickers last year.

originally posted by: olaru12
It's been reported that Trump is obsessed with his poll numbers. I'll bet he is crying in his sushi about now.

These reports wouldn't come from the same people that reported that Cl inton had a 90% chance of winning would they?

a reply to: carewemust

There's a bit of a difference between proudly flaunting a bumper sticker and responding to an anonymous poll.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: olaru12
It's been reported that Trump is obsessed with his poll numbers. I'll bet he is crying in his sushi about now.

These reports wouldn't come from the same people that reported that Cl inton had a 90% chance of winning would they?

Who cares about Clinton? She's a sick old woman, old news, gone, she lost, and has nothing to do with Trumps nose dive in the polls.

All this....."but, but Obama" and "but, but Hillary" is really reaching....failed attempts at foolish detraction from the subject at hand. fail!

Perhaps a review of this thread might be advantageous ......

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: olaru12
It's been reported that Trump is obsessed with his poll numbers. I'll bet he is crying in his sushi about now.

These reports wouldn't come from the same people that reported that Cl inton had a 90% chance of winning would they?

Who cares about Clinton? She's a sick old woman, old news, gone, she lost, and has nothing to do with Trumps nose dive in the polls.

All this....."but, but Obama" and "but, but Hillary" is really reaching....failed attempts at foolish detraction from the subject at hand. fail!

Perhaps a review of this thread might be advantageous ......

www.abovetopsecret.com...

A distraction like deflecting to baseless reports that Trump is obsessed with his approval ratings when the topic of the thread is faulty poll methodology? Nice try.

Said it before, will say it again...not sure if people who can’t avoid polling nuisance calls are the same people who even vote. And let’s face it, the only reason for the polling is for one political side to say they are doing better than the other.

Additionally, while 1000 seems a likely predictive sample in most things, when there are 320,000,000 People living in the US (not sure how many can legally vote; let’s say 250,000,000), I don’t think 1000 inputs is going to predict anything. Also, it can’t be accurate unless how many in each State were polled. The California/NY bias needs to be evened out...

Fine, here:

projects.fivethirtyeight.com...

All the polls to your delight, you can pick and choose which one you want to use to fit your narrative. For you Trump supporters it looks like the Rasmussen polls are your best bet, 43% approval rating. For you Trump haters you can go with the Pew polls which give him a 34% approval rating.

Or just ignore the polls and comfortably critique them from inside these forums.

originally posted by: Lab4Us
Additionally, while 1000 seems a likely predictive sample in most things, when there are 320,000,000 People living in the US (not sure how many can legally vote; let’s say 250,000,000), I don’t think 1000 inputs is going to predict anything.

I've always felt it was too small a sample size for a national poll as well, but they insist it's enough. The funny part is, when they do a state poll, they often poll around 900 or 1000 people then too. Why bother polling that many if 1000 is enough to sample the whole country? Seems like if that's accurate, you would be able to do a state poll with a much smaller sample size. Why all the extra work?

originally posted by: links234
Fine, here:

projects.fivethirtyeight.com...

All the polls to your delight, you can pick and choose which one you want to use to fit your narrative. For you Trump supporters it looks like the Rasmussen polls are your best bet, 43% approval rating. For you Trump haters you can go with the Pew polls which give him a 34% approval rating.

Or just ignore the polls and comfortably critique them from inside these forums.

Cool. Got anything that actually addresses the topic?

a reply to: face23785

Just because you say the CNN poll is faulty doesn't make it so.

Trump is unpopular. He was unpopular before the election. He was unpopular the day of the election (the only popularity poll that mattered was the election results), he was briefly popular after the inauguration but that lasted all of 2 weeks.

If you're not happy with ~1,000 people being polled then use the SurveyMonkey online poll of ~13,000: 41% approval.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: olaru12
It's been reported that Trump is obsessed with his poll numbers. I'll bet he is crying in his sushi about now.

These reports wouldn't come from the same people that reported that Cl inton had a 90% chance of winning would they?

Many of the same polls had previously reported that the lowest of the low favoured candidates were Clinton and Trump, trump being bottom...in Mackerel territory, yet funny enough they ended up being the 'chosen' candidates. Even then the campaign trail had one candidate barking at the Moon, and the other telling the Ruskies to hack into America, and who duly complied.
When it came to the crunch then, the electoral college caught a dose of the shiites, and decided that the Moon barker who did have most of the votes, would not look good as the people's chosen one, so they chose the Russian interloper/Mafia man with funny hair instead, weird innit?

And you wanna complain about pollsters representation being dodgy!