Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In a new Quinnipiac survey out on Wednesday, only 42% of voters said they think Trump is a good leader, and 55% said he's not.
In November, shortly after the election, 56% of respondents told Quinnipiac they thought Trump was a good leader, and only 38% said he wasn't.
Is this the same type of math that resulted in democrats claiming Hillary won the popular vote via the majority of the nation?
I think we should round up all the progressives and put them in a FEMA camp where we force them to take courses in mathematics before they are released back to the public.
Is this the same type of math that resulted in democrats claiming Hillary won the popular vote via the majority of the nation?
I think we should round up all the progressives and put them in a FEMA camp where we force them to take courses in mathematics before they are released back to the public.
Sounds like a good idea.
They can bunk in some old mobile homes that were bought for Katrina (& were used only used for 60 days) & they can be taught on what the difference is between 20 Trillion (today's debt) and 10 Trillion. (the debt in early 2009).
As Nate Silver notes, Trump’s recent approval ratings vary from a high of 55 percent (with 45 percent disapproval) in the aforementioned Rasmussen poll to a low of 39 percent (with 56 percent disapproval) in a survey from Pew Research. The differences are most likely the result of a combination of sampling and survey techniques. Trump consistently does better with narrower samples. Rasmussen claims to be measuring likely voters, even though we are more than a year and a half away from the next national election. Pew is sampling all adults, a significantly larger universe than those who will ultimately vote in that next election. Rasmussen is also famously a robo-pollster, which means he’s only reaching the half of the electorate that has land lines. Pew utilizes a traditional live-interview methodology, which is generally thought to be more accurate, but that some theorize can be misleading with respect to highly controversial politicians like Trump.
The truth... a sample size of 1,000 people (or similar) does not extrapolate into representing the entirety of America.
That was written before these new polls were released considering the poll where he was the highest has dropped to 51% which as mentioned before was the poll that Trump supporters were happy with last week.
You're thinking with your "used to be that way" brain and not your "the way it is now" brain. A poll is only a snapshot of the people polled. We all have witnessed just how many of the polls were intentionally skewed.
All pollsters are honest and truthful... I read that on the internet too, so it must be true.
------
Here: Poll Blablabla goes out to NYC and polls 1000 people. Hillary Clinton will win by 27 points!
Apparently NYC doesn't represent the rest of the country... go figure
Not all polls are created equally. You should always be skeptical of polls, evaluate their methodology, and look at their sampling info (if available) to assess if they're a good representation of the overall population
Simply being a poll isn't enough to discredit it...after all, even the President will use polls (when it suits his argument, that is...).
As well, you should also look at how a poll compares to other polls out there. When you notice that more than one poll (or multiple polls) are showing similar data, that does improve your confidence of what you're seeing.
Most polls I've seen have been pretty close to one another when you look at their statistical error bars...Gallup, Pew have been on the lower end, Rasmussen on the upper end...truth might be somewhere in the middle.
Secondly, you're comparing an election prediction, which is a prediction of an electoral college vote, to an approval rating poll, which is simply a snapshot of the nation at that moment.
It's important to understand what national polling before the election got right (the national vote count), and what it got wrong (namely, state polling accuracy). This is important in a winner-take-all EC election where small marginal differences can be heavily exaggerated in the final EC vote count...(i.e. you might win every state by less than 1% of the vote, but your EC win is huge by comparison).
Many people most likely assume that any poll at the national level is forecasting the Electoral College outcome, which is actually not the case. National horse race polls predict the national horse race -- the popular vote. Given that in two of the last five elections the popular vote winner did not win the Electoral College (and the presidency), the distinction between national horse race polls and efforts to predict the Electoral College becomes more significant.
In terms of predicting the national popular vote outcome, the national polls did remarkably well in 2016. As was the case in 2012, the Democratic candidate's popular vote margin is growing as vote counting continues in the weeks after Election Day. As of this writing, Clinton is ahead of Trump by 1.5 percentage points (48.1% to 46.6%), representing the fact that she has received over 2 million more votes than Trump. The margin could grow to two points. Clinton will, therefore, win the popular vote by a larger margin than was the case for Al Gore over George W. Bush in 2000, Richard Nixon over Hubert Humphrey in 1968 and John F. Kennedy over Richard Nixon in 1960. Clinton will have won by a greater popular vote margin than two other candidates who won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College (Gore and Grover Cleveland in 1888), as well as five other candidates who won on both measures (Nixon, Kennedy, Cleveland in 1884, James Garfield in 1880 and James Polk in 1844).
The average "gap" estimate on the national popular vote as calculated by RealClear Politics prior to the election was 3.3 points. This means the national popular vote estimate will end up being significantly closer to the actual result than was the case in 2012, and well within the margin of error. To come within less than two percentage points on the gap is a remarkable polling achievement and should be applauded.
But, given that the Electoral College determines the winner, state-level polls are what matters for those interested in projecting the outcome of a presidential election. And projecting the Electoral College outcome using polling essentially comes down to the accuracy of polls conducted in a handful of swing states. The outcome in the vast majority of other states is predetermined in all but wave elections (the last wave election was in 1984).
This creates a paradox since state polls in swing states, in my judgment, are less reliable than national polls. This occurs for several reasons. State polls typically have smaller sample sizes, have more variable quality depending on what organization conducts the poll, are estimating an outcome that can shift more readily because the population is smaller, are often conducted further away from Election Day and are more dependent on precision in estimates of turnout by geography.
This latter point is critical. The voting choice of the population of most states can vary dramatically between big city/urban areas and outstate areas. Examples in swing states include Milwaukee and Madison versus outstate Wisconsin, Detroit and Ann Arbor versus outstate Michigan, and Philadelphia and Pittsburgh versus outstate Pennsylvania. Relatively small variations in the proportion of a state poll sample from the big city versus outstate in a swing state can shift the overall horse race values enough to move the winning margin from one candidate to the other.
The state poll averages in key states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania prior to the election pointed to a Clinton win in each state. Trump won each state (albeit apparently by a very narrow margin in Michigan). The final RealClear Politics average in Pennsylvania was Clinton +1.9. Trump won by 1.2. From a statistical perspective, this difference between poll average and outcome is within the margin of error. In Michigan, the final polling average was Clinton +3.4, and Trump at this point has a very small 0.3 average win. Wisconsin showed the biggest deviation, with the final poll average of a 6.5 Clinton win; Trump won by 1.0. But the four polls used in the Wisconsin average by RealClear Politics were completed on Oct. 27, Oct. 31, Nov. 1 and Nov. 2. The election was Nov. 8, meaning that the predictions in Wisconsin were based on data about a week or more old.
Lastly - predictions are just that: predictions. They have probabilities attached to them for a reason - specifically because they can be wrong. That doesn't invalidate their prediction - it just means that the thing that wasn't likely to happen based on the data actually did happen. We unfortunately don't have hundreds of elections to run in parallel worlds to test the reliability of the predictions...
A prediction being wrong doesn't mean the entire field is invalidated. You don't invalidate meteorology because the weather man was wrong. As my old academic adviser used to say, you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
You DO, however, go back and look at your models and try to understand why you were wrong...and I'm sure the field of polling science is learning a lot of strong lessons from 2016 (particularly in regards to building better state polling models).
Regardless, I imagine that these approval rating polls aren't as far off as you think they are.
He doesn't care; I don't care.
We're still going to stop illegal immigration, reduce corporate taxes, and repeal Obamacare whether 60% like it or not.
Then he's going to be re-elected in 2020, while his approval is still at 40%.
(Man, it just BITES being a Democrat, doesn't it?)
He doesn't care; I don't care.
We're still going to stop illegal immigration, reduce corporate taxes, and repeal Obamacare whether 60% like it or not.
Then he's going to be re-elected in 2020, while his approval is still at 40%.
(Man, it just BITES being a Democrat, doesn't it?)
Approval ratings can have real world effects if Congressional members stop supporting him (because they want to look out for their own well being, especially if they're up for re-election).
Drop below 30% or 25%, and a president can have issues pushing an agenda forward.
He doesn't care; I don't care.
We're still going to stop illegal immigration, reduce corporate taxes, and repeal Obamacare whether 60% like it or not.
Then he's going to be re-elected in 2020, while his approval is still at 40%.
(Man, it just BITES being a Democrat, doesn't it?)
You should care.
2018 is next year and you can bet that every Republican congressman up for re election is keeping a close eye on all the polls. If Trumps ratings drop below a certain number, they will begin distancing themselves from him faster than rats fleeing the Titanic. Nobody wants to be tied to an 'unpopular' president. If the Democrats manage to recapture a majority of seats, it could be troublesome for Trumps agenda (assuming he's still around).
........ Nobody wants to be tied to an 'unpopular' president. If the Democrats manage to recapture a majority of seats, it could be troublesome for Trumps agenda (assuming he's still around).
#1 Being tied to a popular president did not help Hillary.
#2. Did you just threaten The President?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
