INCREDIBLE - With 90 Percent of Media Against President Trump - He Still Polls Higher Than Obama.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

The really funny thing is that you are so hung up on polls in the first place. I would have thought you'd have learned your lesson after Nov 2016.

But, hey, carry on with fivethirtyeight - who gave Trump a 23% chance of winning PA, a 21.1% chance of winning MI and a 16.5% chance of winning WI. I think it's reasonable to say that Nate Silver's methodology is about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that Rasmussen do indeed provide the detail of their methodology to the public.

Nate Silver was not wrong in any way. If I make a prediction that someone has a 70% chance to win, and they lose, I'm not wrong, its just the dice roll fell into the 30% category on that instance. You are conflating a 100% guarantee with an odds prediction.

Yes, his models are sh*t at predicting the odds.

Do you have anything to support that accusation or is that just how you feel?

Rasmussen is severely biased, not that polls matter to Trump supporters anyway, right?

Gallup is considered the most accurate poll and is neutral. Also they have been doing presidential polling for nearly a 100 years now so it is the most accurate for comparison with other presidents.

Here is the President's approval and disapproval rating since he took office:
Weekly President Poll

It seems he started at 43% approval when he took office and has dropped to about 39% approval. He got to 40% approval in February this year but generally stays under 40% approval. Disapproval rating is usually the one looked at more -- it seems in general 55-60% of people disapprove of him.

Now, if you look at how that compares with other US presidents in their first year in office:
First Year in Office

So far (things can always change), he will be remembered as by far the worst 1st year out of the last 10 presidents. He'd have to get 11 more points to poll as low as Clinton did, and almost 20 points to reach Obama.

The error margin for these polls is usually 3%, but I'm honestly not sure what it is on these ones I quoted -- I haven't had my coffee yet and that is priority.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

The really funny thing is that you are so hung up on polls in the first place. I would have thought you'd have learned your lesson after Nov 2016.

But, hey, carry on with fivethirtyeight - who gave Trump a 23% chance of winning PA, a 21.1% chance of winning MI and a 16.5% chance of winning WI. I think it's reasonable to say that Nate Silver's methodology is about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that Rasmussen do indeed provide the detail of their methodology to the public.

Nate Silver was not wrong in any way. If I make a prediction that someone has a 70% chance to win, and they lose, I'm not wrong, its just the dice roll fell into the 30% category on that instance. You are conflating a 100% guarantee with an odds prediction.

Yes, his models are sh*t at predicting the odds.

Do you have anything to support that accusation or is that just how you feel?

Yeah, I have the actual odds they gave the day of the election, which proved to be complete horsesh*t.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

The really funny thing is that you are so hung up on polls in the first place. I would have thought you'd have learned your lesson after Nov 2016.

But, hey, carry on with fivethirtyeight - who gave Trump a 23% chance of winning PA, a 21.1% chance of winning MI and a 16.5% chance of winning WI. I think it's reasonable to say that Nate Silver's methodology is about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that Rasmussen do indeed provide the detail of their methodology to the public.

Nate Silver was not wrong in any way. If I make a prediction that someone has a 70% chance to win, and they lose, I'm not wrong, its just the dice roll fell into the 30% category on that instance. You are conflating a 100% guarantee with an odds prediction.

Yes, his models are sh*t at predicting the odds.

Do you have anything to support that accusation or is that just how you feel?

Yeah, I have the actual odds they gave the day of the election, which proved to be complete horsesh*t.

They gave a 100% prediction on the day of the election that Hillary would win?

Remember, if Nate Silver (538) predicted Hillary would have a 71.4% chance to win, and Trump would have a 28.6% chance to win, that doesn't mean 538 was incorrect necessarily. As I've tried to explain above, the 'dice roll' landed on a number in the 28.6% range that time.

You could make the argument that the % skewed between the two was incorrect, but that would be a much more difficult angle to base your argument.

a reply to: Scrubdog

In terms of total popular vote, you make a good point. Democrats usually win the large cities due to several factors as those are the most heavily populated and more liberal in nature. Republicans usually win much of the larger total land areas that are not as heavily concentrated as we have seen and tend to be the more conservative. The independent middle grounders like myself, sprinkled throughout.

Now I do not mean to spark any massive debate about the electoral college, however this is one of the reasons why the electoral college was implemented in the first place. That being, so that you wouldn't effectively have certain small areas basically deciding the election process on their own. Using the current system, every vote still counts, it just uses more voices spread out over the entire area of the country.

I do realize the importance of 'total popular vote' and I do see where both sides are coming from. The current system is just how it always has been and it has worked just fine for the most part overall.

a reply to: UKTruth

Why do you guys conveniently always forget the reason Trump won was because the FBI came out days before the election that they had something on Clinton only to find out there was nothing to it after the elections.

originally posted by: UKTruth


Your post is idiotic.
It's not a poll of conservatives.

But it is a biased conservative polling site. Which is also why I said, if you include dem in the poll, his approval rating is lower than 51% amongst his base.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye



Because that's what Rasmussen did in the article from the OP.

They were comparing Obama's last term with Trump's.

Then the article is proving it is biased when it cherry picks data to compare in order to make Trump look good. If it were not biased, it would have been honest and compared Obama's 2nd year to Trumps 2nd year.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye


Honestly, I don't think comparing their approvals ratings is relevant, at all, really.

But, I also don't think there's any dishonesty to how Rasmussen pitched the comparison. They were up front about what they were comparing.

They may have been up front about their comparisons but they cherry picked what year to compare in order to make this fool look good.

In their new Daily Presidential Tracking Poll...they do not compare Obama's approval rating to Trumps...why..because they cannot find in all of Obama's 8 yrs where Trumps ratings are higher on April 6. It will change date by date...but I am going to guess the only time they compare is when Trump is ahead on that particular date.

originally posted by: frugal
It's really simple. The news media is owned by wealthy individuals who say and print what they like to control and manipulate the population to their own agenda.

I actually took a class in 1987 at Ohio State University for a BA/BFA in photography and cinema. These individuals try to control history and human behavioral actions to influence their other businesses. Its all about money, not reporting factual truths or reporting actual reality. The average person is dumbed down and duped daily.

The working hard person loves Trump! He is spanking all those people who take advantage. The media owners hate him. We need a society reset.

That is exactly what my Professor of Mass communication said about the media, he was a lefty but would be labeled a RIGHT winger by today's standards.

originally posted by: Scrubdog

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: 1337Kph

originally posted by: introvert
Yet you still tried to use an argument that the other member did not make or imply.

Using it as an argument would be me saying "You're probably one of those guys that..." or anything in that direction.
Getting pretty pointless there.

I see you have met the loony left on ATS and are very good at making them look foolish. The whole thing boils down to Trump spanked them state by state and only the brainwashed SJW states voted for more corruption with no care in the world that corruption was bad.

Off topic, your name 1337 Kph is 102 Kilometers Per Hour faster than the speed of sound! Making you a Mach 1 Poster? Too fast for them.

"Spanked state by state' is quite a way to characterize losing by 3 million votes and the victory came down to 77K votes spread throughout Penn, MI and WI www.weeklystandard.com...

You note "voting for corruption" and are ignoring the corruption going on right before your very eyes, I am positive that had Obama had an EPA administrator that was renting a room at $50 a night in a posh D.C. condo from a Riverkeepers lobbyist and had already made a decision in their favor, you'd say it was perfectly acceptable, or if Obama had made commercials for his properties abroad as president, you'd be fine with that.

We don't take "SJW" as a slur by the way, and I am not sure why "Social Justice" is something that makes the right wing recoil. Jesus spent his time on Earth fighting for social justice, but that no longer surprises that the idea is mocked. I guess what you're fighting for is social injustice, which would be cheering for those swamp monsters.

Trump lost the states that are doing the best in the new economy, the entire west coast, the northeast, etc. He won states run by Republicans, states that aren't doing as well, compare WI to MN - 2 near identical states, except one is thriving economically (MN) and one is quickly trying to become Kansas, a state that needed its Supreme Court to step in to fund its schools.

The left can be loony, I'll be the first to admit. I love it when we're quirky. But, we've always been for the little guy, Trump fed you a bunch of crap, can't keep anyone talented in the building with him, and is now getting us in a trade war - which, if you haven't noticed, is upsetting the markets and is about to start costing jobs across the Mid-West. Soy bean farmers will be pretty upset.

Anyhow, good luck. All that really matters is he told you he had no time for PC, and for people that think "social justice warrior" is a slur, that was just too good to pass up.

Yep, it does suck to be a liberal.... Spanked altogether when we take out the illegal voters and dead people who voted.

originally posted by: donnydeevil
a reply to: UKTruth

Why do you guys conveniently always forget the reason Trump won was because the FBI came out days before the election that they had something on Clinton only to find out there was nothing to it after the elections.

Why did you guys forget the Dem leadership and the Clinton's are flat out criminals that get a pass maybe for a little while longer? Karma is a byatch.

I believe both party's leadership is corrupt and they all cover for the other side of the aisle so I have been Libertarian and a bit R leaning. Because Trump wasn't neck deep with those Congress criminals and has been promising to clean them out is the only reason he won.

Failing to clean them out would have to be a blow to Trump voters. The bucket list with number 1 being cleaning house is what they are going to use when they decide to vote or not for DJT next time.

originally posted by: donnydeevil

originally posted by: MotherMayEye



Because that's what Rasmussen did in the article from the OP.

They were comparing Obama's last term with Trump's.

Then the article is proving it is biased when it cherry picks data to compare in order to make Trump look good. If it were not biased, it would have been honest and compared Obama's 2nd year to Trumps 2nd year.

Oh. Ok.

*eyeroll*

It's probably unheard of for a pollster to compare the approval ratings of the past and current president. So...cherrypicked. Most pollsters would skip a term and compare with where the country was eight years prior because it's more relevant than four years prior.

As I said pages ago...EVERYONE in this thread picks and chooses when it comes to polls or doesn't put any stock in them at all. Thanks for wrapping my point up nicely, 'donnydeevil.'

ETA: I am so glad it's settled that Democrats only discount polls that are not worthy of counting. Democrats are purely statistically and mathematically discerning...bias plays no role...no-sir-eee Bob. The commitment to objectivity is beautiful! Their minds don't work like republicans. They only see what is fair and just and never let bias cloud their opinions. NEVER!!!!!!

Gorgeous folks...those Democrats!

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Scrubdog

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: 1337Kph

originally posted by: introvert
Yet you still tried to use an argument that the other member did not make or imply.

Using it as an argument would be me saying "You're probably one of those guys that..." or anything in that direction.
Getting pretty pointless there.

I see you have met the loony left on ATS and are very good at making them look foolish. The whole thing boils down to Trump spanked them state by state and only the brainwashed SJW states voted for more corruption with no care in the world that corruption was bad.

Off topic, your name 1337 Kph is 102 Kilometers Per Hour faster than the speed of sound! Making you a Mach 1 Poster? Too fast for them.

"Spanked state by state' is quite a way to characterize losing by 3 million votes and the victory came down to 77K votes spread throughout Penn, MI and WI www.weeklystandard.com...

You note "voting for corruption" and are ignoring the corruption going on right before your very eyes, I am positive that had Obama had an EPA administrator that was renting a room at $50 a night in a posh D.C. condo from a Riverkeepers lobbyist and had already made a decision in their favor, you'd say it was perfectly acceptable, or if Obama had made commercials for his properties abroad as president, you'd be fine with that.

We don't take "SJW" as a slur by the way, and I am not sure why "Social Justice" is something that makes the right wing recoil. Jesus spent his time on Earth fighting for social justice, but that no longer surprises that the idea is mocked. I guess what you're fighting for is social injustice, which would be cheering for those swamp monsters.

Trump lost the states that are doing the best in the new economy, the entire west coast, the northeast, etc. He won states run by Republicans, states that aren't doing as well, compare WI to MN - 2 near identical states, except one is thriving economically (MN) and one is quickly trying to become Kansas, a state that needed its Supreme Court to step in to fund its schools.

The left can be loony, I'll be the first to admit. I love it when we're quirky. But, we've always been for the little guy, Trump fed you a bunch of crap, can't keep anyone talented in the building with him, and is now getting us in a trade war - which, if you haven't noticed, is upsetting the markets and is about to start costing jobs across the Mid-West. Soy bean farmers will be pretty upset.

Anyhow, good luck. All that really matters is he told you he had no time for PC, and for people that think "social justice warrior" is a slur, that was just too good to pass up.

Yep, it does suck to be a liberal.... Spanked altogether when we take out the illegal voters and dead people who voted.

It does suck to be a liberal in a land that is majority democratic and live under a Republican stronghold, Trump governing like he has some kind of mandate, yes, it truly does suck.

But, what sucks worse is seeing people like you, otherwise likely a good person, completely oblivious to facts "on the ground" as it were, telling us that it is only "illegals and dead people" that count for that 3 million more that voted for Clinton, that's irresponsibly stupid if you actually believe that - I suspect you don't, but your guy needs to say SOMETHING bc actually being the vote loser hurts his wittle big ego. There is basically no such thing as voter fraud: www.esquire.com...

Out of the 197 million votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted for voter fraud, according to a Department of Justice study outlined during a 2006 Congressional hearing. Only 26 of those cases, or about .00000013 percent of the votes cast, resulted in convictions or guilty pleas.

Or, you can listen to Fox News and learn the same thing, according to Fox News' (quoted in the article):

So far the White House has provided no evidence of any kind to back up these claims. Fox News is not aware of any reliable studies or information that suggests that there is widespread voter fraud anywhere in America.

Or you can tell me all about the voter fraud that the Voting Commission - chaired by Kris Kobach has uncovered? Can you tell me all about it? Because I haven't read much about all the voting shenanigans they have uncovered.

One thing we DO know that occurred with the vote was that Russian intelligence agents hacked into at least 27 voter databases, but we don't see a lot of movement on that issue, where the actual vote of actual Americans is threatened, do we now? www.theguardian.com...

Asked if he had been granted the authority by Trump to counter Russian cyber-attacks at source, Rogers said: “No, I have not.”

He added: “I need a policy decision that indicates there is specific direction to do that. The president ultimately would make this decision in accordance with a recommendation from the secretary of defense.”

So, we have "voter fraud" which actually doesn't exist, and yet we have a commission to "fight it," and need all that voter ID stuff, yet they disbanded the commission since it couldn't find any vote fraud, AND its main purpose was to gather voter information anyway, to make it easier to hack next time.

We DO have vote hacking by a foreign adversary that absolutely does exist and continues to exist, but the "president" won't do anything about it.

What's the link? Why do we ACT on nothing (voter Fraud) when we DON"T act on something (Voter Database hacking)

Both actions put party over country, as it always does when it comes to Republicans. Republicans love Republicans far more than loving the country, because your country has me in it. You disdain me as a liberal far more than you disdain a Russian who wants Trump to win.

But, keep telling us those 3 million were illegals and dead people, all I have left for entertainment is watching RWers make fools of themselves and forcing me to ask myself if you ACTUALLY believe it, or just say you do to be a good Republicans.

a reply to: Scrubdog

When you come out of that cloud your in, you are in for a big surprise.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: donnydeevil

originally posted by: MotherMayEye



Because that's what Rasmussen did in the article from the OP.

They were comparing Obama's last term with Trump's.

Then the article is proving it is biased when it cherry picks data to compare in order to make Trump look good. If it were not biased, it would have been honest and compared Obama's 2nd year to Trumps 2nd year.

Oh. Ok.

*eyeroll*

It's probably unheard of for a pollster to compare the approval ratings of the past and current president. So...cherrypicked. Most pollsters would skip a term and compare with where the country was eight years prior because it's more relevant than four years prior.

As I said pages ago...EVERYONE in this thread picks and chooses when it comes to polls or doesn't put any stock in them at all. Thanks for wrapping my point up nicely, 'donnydeevil.'

ETA: I am so glad it's settled that Democrats only discount polls that are not worthy of counting. Democrats are purely statistically and mathematically discerning...bias plays no role...no-sir-eee Bob. The commitment to objectivity is beautiful! Their minds don't work like republicans. They only see what is fair and just and never let bias cloud their opinions. NEVER!!!!!!

Gorgeous folks...those Democrats!

No, I put stock in polls, and I posted the daily average of all of them, as the best information, that Trump's approval rating is 40% and disapproval rating is 53%

I do the same thing when trying to understand what my alma mater's seed is going to be in the NCAA tournament. I don't look at one bracketologist, I look at bracket matrix all of them together averaged, as the most accurate.

I agree, though, that I have found Democratic women to be far more gorgeous. That is true.

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: Scrubdog

When you come out of that cloud your in, you are in for a big surprise.

Oohhhhh. I can't wait. I love surprises!

What a crock.

You can't refute a single thing I say so you slink away trying to sound important.

originally posted by: Scrubdog
No, I put stock in polls, and I posted the daily average of all of them, as the best information, that Trump's approval rating is 40% and disapproval rating is 53%

Don't worry. I noticed.

The OP cited an article from Rasmussen comparing Rasmussen's current Trump approval rating poll with their approval poll of Obama at the same time in his last term...

...and you "posted the daily average of all of them, as the best information, that Trump's approval rating is 40% and disapproval rating is 53%."

lol

Gotcha.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Scrubdog
No, I put stock in polls, and I posted the daily average of all of them, as the best information, that Trump's approval rating is 40% and disapproval rating is 53%

Don't worry. I noticed.

The OP cited an article from Rasmussen comparing Rasmussen's current Trump approval rating poll with their approval poll of Obama at the same time in his last term...

...and you "posted the daily average of all of them, as the best information, that Trump's approval rating is 40% and disapproval rating is 53%."

lol

Gotcha.

I think polling can have a positive roll in determining the country's mood and desires politically - the markets sure watch them. When I said that I look at the averaged lot of them, I said that as someone who thinks they matter whether they are for me or against me (as a democrat). I recall being worried when Obama hit 40$ mid-way though his second term. I know I heard from MANY Republicans when he hit 40% that it was like the Mendoza line.

I certainly DID want to punt the OP's message through the stratosphere, yep, I don't like Trump at all - no one who knows him does, why should I? And I have even less tolerance for the apology industry set up around him, people like you. That doesn't mean that I'll go "find" something official sounding just to make myself feel better or to try to alter reality. I don't know why you'd be so shocked that Dems are more objective their outlook, we tend to revere science and the scientific method.

It's not my fault he sucks, and most people know it.

But, I'm speaking to (wasting my time) with a guy who uses the space on his tag line to tell us that Obama's birth certificate is faked so - in this case as in many others, I do dearly have to consider the source.


You seem pretty impressed with yourself, though, so I'll leave you alone.

a reply to: Scrubdog

Ah, yes. When you have no debate...attack the source for having posted a well-researched thread on Obama's phony, fake, fraudulent birth certificate copy.

Makes sense.