His approval rate is actually at 46%.
Which polls got the election more or less correct? Those would be the ones to pay attention to, if you're going to pay attention to any at all.
The final polls showed the gap within or very close to their margins of error--Trump was clearly in "field goal range" of winning the election. That's what the numbers showed.
It was only very poor (hopeful?) interpretation that it wasn't called a "toss up."
I guess it would depend on your definition of "correct" wouldn't it? I personally think polls aren't worth anything because one minute later, one question asked differently and a whole host of other things and the poll results are totally different.
tulc(so "polls being correct" is sort of subjective)
Real Clear Politics, which was used in the post that I replied to, is a composite or average of all polls, the good as well as the bad, so that doesn't strike me as particularly meaningful.
And when was the last time (before your post now) that all the results were listed by the poster? Well, never or close to it.???
Real Clear Politics lists the results of all the individual polls, in addition to the average.
FredVB said:This is definite for what is current.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
Here it shows how low Donald Trump's approval as president really is now.
55.8% Disapprove, 38.3% Approve.
Albion said:His approval rate is actually at 46%.
mark46 said:You really should post sources when you argue with published numbers. See... the latest polls by 8 sources the average is under 40%; the highest is 45%. None are high as the 46% you posted.
Albion said:Real Clear Politics, which was used in the post that I replied to, is a composite or average of all polls, the good as well as the bad, so that doesn't strike me as particularly meaningful.
It was, apparently, my post that was replied to though, which didn't use Real Clear Politics. I don't see the basis to not trust the various polls put together, and why would some be bad but the poll you pick not be a bad poll?
Because a few bad polls can make the overall report appear to be other than the real situation is. For example, if one has the margin of victory at 15%, another at 5%, and a third at 5%, what's the composite show? It shows a victory approaching landslide proportions, but the truth is that, if something is amiss with the 15% poll, the result showing is only a couple of points outside the margin of error.
The problem there was not the numbers but their interpretation.
All the polls showed a clear trend of Trump closing the gap very rapidly. The final polls showed the gap within or very close to their margins of error--Trump was clearly in "field goal range" of winning the election. That's what the numbers showed.
It was only very poor (hopeful?) interpretation that it wasn't called a "toss up."
It is relatively easy for us to get trends and results right after the fact.
Folks doing and interpreting all the polls but one had Clinton winning. All but one who estimated the probability of winning had here as a huge favorite (75% or more).
In the end, what mattered was the turnout of various groups in PA, MI and WI. Hillary's campaign choices in the last week made the difference with regard to a lot of these voters. The huge Beyonce concert to show who her voters were didn't help with rural voters. A lot of Bernie's youngsters just didn't come out to vote. The vote was very close in all of these states.
What the pollsters got wrong is the turnout in various groups.
And yes, many folks warned Hillary (for many months) that the working class vote in the Mid-West was critical, and that she needed to campaign there. Hillary simply wouldn't listen to the unions there, to her husband or to Obama. Considering just how good her husband and Obama were at winning, one would think that she and her team would have had a bit more respect for their advice.
And yes, it strange, but likely true that if had held her final concert had been held in Madison WI and had included primarily country singers, she likely would have won.
Well, I personally realized all that prior to the election. I saw the trend and understood the warnings about those key states that she was not heeding. Clinton was in full feminism-driven hubris mode.
As I was taught: "Never fall in love with your own hypothesis. The hypothesis you love may fit the facts, but apply the facts to all possible hypotheses to determine the one that fits the facts best."
With regard to feminism, if she had gotten young women to come out to vote in greater numbers, she would have won easily. Many of these voters voted for Stein or stayed home.
.
FredVB said:This is definite for what is current.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
Here it shows how low Donald Trump's approval as president really is now.
55.8% Disapprove, 38.3% Approve.
Albion said:Real Clear Politics which was used ... is a composite or average of all polls, the good as well as the bad, so that doesn't strike me as particularly meaningful.
FredVB said:It was, apparently, my post that was replied to, which didn't use Real Clear Politics. I don't see the basis to not trust the various polls put together, and why would some be bad but the poll you pick not be a bad poll?
Albion said:Because a few bad polls can make the overall report appear to be other than the real situation is. For example, if one has the margin of victory at 15%, another at 5%, and a third at 5%, what's the composite show? It shows a victory approaching landslide proportions, but the truth is that, if something is amiss with the 15% poll, the result showing is only a couple of points outside the margin of error.
Rion said:Bombthrowers.com: Mainstream political polls commit fraud | McLaughlin & Associates
Dunno if I'd outright call it fraud, but it's definitely a stupid thing to do, as seen in the last election.
And who is it benefiting from Trump's changes since in office? Which group of people benefit? If any are said to benefit for their pursuits, it is large industries or businesses with those who own them or run them who get priority over others and the environments which lose out and the steps to diminish serious climate change, which then will bring distasterous results for future generations.
Its been a while since you wrote the above, but generalizations like that or the more recent claims about people being benefitted by unnamed changes do make any discussion difficult to sustain, as Mark indicated.The point is still that it can be seen Donald Trump's approval rating is low, the polls show it, and none were as high as you were claiming that it actually was. And it is a claim that a poll is bad without it shown that such particular poll actually is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?