Trump's approval plunges to 37%

[NYcarbineer]

Boy you are delusional!

Midterm Election years usually benefit the GOP except in the 2006 election.

Wrongo.

Mid-terms are almost always carried by whichever political party is not holding the White House. Since the Duopoly has existed there have been exactly three (3) exceptions. Since the Civil War. You could look it up.

In an average presidency that means Democrats should see considerable victories in 2018. With this kind of nosedive going on it's virtually guaranteed.

Try again and if you think your political party will win in 2018 when Democrats have more seats to defend in the Senate then you are delusional!

They will win the House if Trump is in the 30's and that stops the GOP legislative agenda cold.

Sure and Clinton won that landslide victory, right!?!

You have no clue how hard it will be to win in 2018 and believe that the House will fall.

Hell you believe the Democrats will retain all their Senate Seats, right!?!

And then sweep the House and believe Trump numbers will stay in the tank, right!?!

You're the one claiming YOU have a clue. Which even in a general sense is hilarious.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Boy you are delusional!

Midterm Election years usually benefit the GOP except in the 2006 election.

Wrongo.

Mid-terms are almost always carried by whichever political party is not holding the White House. Since the Duopoly has existed there have been exactly three (3) exceptions. Since the Civil War. You could look it up.

In an average presidency that means Democrats should see considerable victories in 2018. With this kind of nosedive going on it's virtually guaranteed.

Try again and if you think your political party will win in 2018 when Democrats have more seats to defend in the Senate then you are delusional!

They will win the House if Trump is in the 30's and that stops the GOP legislative agenda cold.

Sure and Clinton won that landslide victory, right!?!

You have no clue how hard it will be to win in 2018 and believe that the House will fall.

Hell you believe the Democrats will retain all their Senate Seats, right!?!

And then sweep the House and believe Trump numbers will stay in the tank, right!?!

The Democrats had to defend 17 seats in 2006. They held them all and picked up 6 more.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Boy you are delusional!

Midterm Election years usually benefit the GOP except in the 2006 election.

Wrongo.

Mid-terms are almost always carried by whichever political party is not holding the White House. Since the Duopoly has existed there have been exactly three (3) exceptions. Since the Civil War. You could look it up.

In an average presidency that means Democrats should see considerable victories in 2018. With this kind of nosedive going on it's virtually guaranteed.

Try again and if you think your political party will win in 2018 when Democrats have more seats to defend in the Senate then you are delusional!

They will win the House if Trump is in the 30's and that stops the GOP legislative agenda cold.

Sure and Clinton won that landslide victory, right!?!

You have no clue how hard it will be to win in 2018 and believe that the House will fall.

Hell you believe the Democrats will retain all their Senate Seats, right!?!

And then sweep the House and believe Trump numbers will stay in the tank, right!?!

You're the one claiming YOU have a clue. Which even in a general sense is hilarious.

That is rich coming from You!

When Republicans retain the House and Senate in 2018 what will be your excuse!?!

Gerrymandering!?!

Racism!?!

America is stupid outside New York, Chicago and California!?!

So tell me which seats will the Democrats win in Red and Swing States!?!

You know everything seeing you were so correct about the House, Senate and Oval Office turning blue, oh wait you were wrong!

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Boy you are delusional!

Midterm Election years usually benefit the GOP except in the 2006 election.

Wrongo.

Mid-terms are almost always carried by whichever political party is not holding the White House. Since the Duopoly has existed there have been exactly three (3) exceptions. Since the Civil War. You could look it up.

In an average presidency that means Democrats should see considerable victories in 2018. With this kind of nosedive going on it's virtually guaranteed.

Try again and if you think your political party will win in 2018 when Democrats have more seats to defend in the Senate then you are delusional!

They will win the House if Trump is in the 30's and that stops the GOP legislative agenda cold.

Sure and Clinton won that landslide victory, right!?!

You have no clue how hard it will be to win in 2018 and believe that the House will fall.

Hell you believe the Democrats will retain all their Senate Seats, right!?!

And then sweep the House and believe Trump numbers will stay in the tank, right!?!

The Democrats had to defend 17 seats in 2006. They held them all and picked up 6 more.

2006 is your example!?!

My God you are pathetic!

That year the nation was dealing with two wars, a Congress that wasteful spending and a President that you wanted impeached!

The only thing you have going for you now is Trump stupidity and that lost you the 2016 elections!

You should have won last year and blaming Comey and Russia is not going to work!

People might laugh at Trump but 2016 prove they still do not want those like you in charge!

 

[martybegan]

A lot of the State polls were way off as well....and those are the ones that mattered, Most national polls had her up 3-5%, and she won the national vote by around 2%.

And all these numbers are combinations of multiple polls taken in multiple places, with much higher sample counts, and a simple binary answer (who to vote for)

They don't include a "how you feel" question involving approval or how you think he's doing his job.

She won the popular vote by 2.1 percentage points and on average, the polls predicted she would win it by 3.2 percentage points. That's pretty damn close.Fro

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

They also over-counted the vote % for each of them by about 2% each, for another 4% of "meh"

LOL

They predicted Hillary would win by 3.2 points and she won by 2.1 points. There is no "another 4%."

From one of your fellow travelers

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

Polling Data
Poll Date Sample MoE Clinton (D) Trump (R) Johnson (L) Stein (G) Spread
Final Results -- -- -- 48.2 46.1 3.3 1.1 Clinton +2.1
RCP Average 11/2 - 11/7 -- 45.5 42.2 4.7 1.9 Clinton +3.3

My mistake was using over-counted instead of under-counted. Clinton got 3% more than the polls figured she would, Trump 4%, so you have to account for their error with over-estimating Johnson/Stein support, and of course the undecideds right before the election (of which i was one of). Then you have to determine of the undecideds, how many voted and how many decided to just stay home.

All this leads to me continuing my disdain for polling in general unless it's like a 70-30 and above split.

The polling average called the winner of the popular vote to just over a percentage point.

And missed by a lot more in several battleground states, hence why Hillary has an over 70% chance to win going into election night.

But keep arguing hits winning the game.

 

[martybegan]

A lot of the State polls were way off as well....and those are the ones that mattered, Most national polls had her up 3-5%, and she won the national vote by around 2%.

And all these numbers are combinations of multiple polls taken in multiple places, with much higher sample counts, and a simple binary answer (who to vote for)

They don't include a "how you feel" question involving approval or how you think he's doing his job.

She won the popular vote by 2.1 percentage points and on average, the polls predicted she would win it by 3.2 percentage points. That's pretty damn close.Fro

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

They also over-counted the vote % for each of them by about 2% each, for another 4% of "meh"

LOL

They predicted Hillary would win by 3.2 points and she won by 2.1 points. There is no "another 4%."

From one of your fellow travelers

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

Polling Data
Poll Date Sample MoE Clinton (D) Trump (R) Johnson (L) Stein (G) Spread
Final Results -- -- -- 48.2 46.1 3.3 1.1 Clinton +2.1
RCP Average 11/2 - 11/7 -- 45.5 42.2 4.7 1.9 Clinton +3.3

My mistake was using over-counted instead of under-counted. Clinton got 3% more than the polls figured she would, Trump 4%, so you have to account for their error with over-estimating Johnson/Stein support, and of course the undecideds right before the election (of which i was one of). Then you have to determine of the undecideds, how many voted and how many decided to just stay home.

All this leads to me continuing my disdain for polling in general unless it's like a 70-30 and above split.

LOLOL

No matter how you shake it .... the average of the polls predicted she would win by 3.2 points and she actually won by 2.1 points.

But she actually lost. Again, keep thinking hits win a baseball game.

 

[rightwinger]

Wrongo.

Mid-terms are almost always carried by whichever political party is not holding the White House. Since the Duopoly has existed there have been exactly three (3) exceptions. Since the Civil War. You could look it up.

In an average presidency that means Democrats should see considerable victories in 2018. With this kind of nosedive going on it's virtually guaranteed.

Try again and if you think your political party will win in 2018 when Democrats have more seats to defend in the Senate then you are delusional!

They will win the House if Trump is in the 30's and that stops the GOP legislative agenda cold.

Sure and Clinton won that landslide victory, right!?!

You have no clue how hard it will be to win in 2018 and believe that the House will fall.

Hell you believe the Democrats will retain all their Senate Seats, right!?!

And then sweep the House and believe Trump numbers will stay in the tank, right!?!

You're the one claiming YOU have a clue. Which even in a general sense is hilarious.

That is rich coming from You!

When Republicans retain the House and Senate in 2018 what will be your excuse!?!

Gerrymandering!?!

Racism!?!

America is stupid outside New York, Chicago and California!?!

So tell me which seats will the Democrats win in Red and Swing States!?!

You know everything seeing you were so correct about the House, Senate and Oval Office turning blue, oh wait you were wrong!

For all intents and purposes, Republicans should easily maintain the House and Senate in a non-Presidential election year

The wild card is Trump

We have seen him moving from one self induced crisis to another in only two months. As we saw yesterday, Team Trump is botching its response to the Russian investigation and is already circling the wagons of denial. At this point, they look worse than the Nixon forces did

If this and whatever new revelations that maypop up in the next two years, are not "handled" by Congressional Republicans, there can be a severe backlash

 

[Faun]

She won the popular vote by 2.1 percentage points and on average, the polls predicted she would win it by 3.2 percentage points. That's pretty damn close.Fro

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

They also over-counted the vote % for each of them by about 2% each, for another 4% of "meh"

LOL

They predicted Hillary would win by 3.2 points and she won by 2.1 points. There is no "another 4%."

From one of your fellow travelers

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

Polling Data
Poll Date Sample MoE Clinton (D) Trump (R) Johnson (L) Stein (G) Spread
Final Results -- -- -- 48.2 46.1 3.3 1.1 Clinton +2.1
RCP Average 11/2 - 11/7 -- 45.5 42.2 4.7 1.9 Clinton +3.3

My mistake was using over-counted instead of under-counted. Clinton got 3% more than the polls figured she would, Trump 4%, so you have to account for their error with over-estimating Johnson/Stein support, and of course the undecideds right before the election (of which i was one of). Then you have to determine of the undecideds, how many voted and how many decided to just stay home.

All this leads to me continuing my disdain for polling in general unless it's like a 70-30 and above split.

LOLOL

No matter how you shake it .... the average of the polls predicted she would win by 3.2 points and she actually won by 2.1 points.

But she actually lost. Again, keep thinking hits win a baseball game.

Your senility is noted but I didn't actually say she won the election. What I did say is she won the popular vote by 2.1 percentage points and the polls, on average, predicted she would win it by 3.2 points. So the polls were not far off.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They also over-counted the vote % for each of them by about 2% each, for another 4% of "meh"

LOL

They predicted Hillary would win by 3.2 points and she won by 2.1 points. There is no "another 4%."

From one of your fellow travelers

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

Polling Data
Poll Date Sample MoE Clinton (D) Trump (R) Johnson (L) Stein (G) Spread
Final Results -- -- -- 48.2 46.1 3.3 1.1 Clinton +2.1
RCP Average 11/2 - 11/7 -- 45.5 42.2 4.7 1.9 Clinton +3.3

My mistake was using over-counted instead of under-counted. Clinton got 3% more than the polls figured she would, Trump 4%, so you have to account for their error with over-estimating Johnson/Stein support, and of course the undecideds right before the election (of which i was one of). Then you have to determine of the undecideds, how many voted and how many decided to just stay home.

All this leads to me continuing my disdain for polling in general unless it's like a 70-30 and above split.

LOLOL

No matter how you shake it .... the average of the polls predicted she would win by 3.2 points and she actually won by 2.1 points.

But she actually lost. Again, keep thinking hits win a baseball game.

Your senility is noted but I didn't actually say she won the election. What I did say is she won the popular vote by 2.1 percentage points and the polls, on average, predicted she would win it by 3.2 points. So the polls were not far off.

About the only poll that got it dead wrong was that LA Times poll that had Trump winning the popular vote. That was the poll that the nuts claimed was the most accurate one all through the campaign. Turned out to be the worst one.

 

[martybegan]

They also over-counted the vote % for each of them by about 2% each, for another 4% of "meh"

LOL

They predicted Hillary would win by 3.2 points and she won by 2.1 points. There is no "another 4%."

From one of your fellow travelers

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

Polling Data
Poll Date Sample MoE Clinton (D) Trump (R) Johnson (L) Stein (G) Spread
Final Results -- -- -- 48.2 46.1 3.3 1.1 Clinton +2.1
RCP Average 11/2 - 11/7 -- 45.5 42.2 4.7 1.9 Clinton +3.3

My mistake was using over-counted instead of under-counted. Clinton got 3% more than the polls figured she would, Trump 4%, so you have to account for their error with over-estimating Johnson/Stein support, and of course the undecideds right before the election (of which i was one of). Then you have to determine of the undecideds, how many voted and how many decided to just stay home.

All this leads to me continuing my disdain for polling in general unless it's like a 70-30 and above split.

LOLOL

No matter how you shake it .... the average of the polls predicted she would win by 3.2 points and she actually won by 2.1 points.

But she actually lost. Again, keep thinking hits win a baseball game.

Your senility is noted but I didn't actually say she won the election. What I did say is she won the popular vote by 2.1 percentage points and the polls, on average, predicted she would win it by 3.2 points. So the polls were not far off.

The ones that mattered were.

 

[Faun]

LOL

They predicted Hillary would win by 3.2 points and she won by 2.1 points. There is no "another 4%."

From one of your fellow travelers

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

Polling Data
Poll Date Sample MoE Clinton (D) Trump (R) Johnson (L) Stein (G) Spread
Final Results -- -- -- 48.2 46.1 3.3 1.1 Clinton +2.1
RCP Average 11/2 - 11/7 -- 45.5 42.2 4.7 1.9 Clinton +3.3

My mistake was using over-counted instead of under-counted. Clinton got 3% more than the polls figured she would, Trump 4%, so you have to account for their error with over-estimating Johnson/Stein support, and of course the undecideds right before the election (of which i was one of). Then you have to determine of the undecideds, how many voted and how many decided to just stay home.

All this leads to me continuing my disdain for polling in general unless it's like a 70-30 and above split.

LOLOL

No matter how you shake it .... the average of the polls predicted she would win by 3.2 points and she actually won by 2.1 points.

But she actually lost. Again, keep thinking hits win a baseball game.

Your senility is noted but I didn't actually say she won the election. What I did say is she won the popular vote by 2.1 percentage points and the polls, on average, predicted she would win it by 3.2 points. So the polls were not far off.

The ones that mattered were.

Exactly how senile are you? We're not talking about the electoral college. We're talking about the accuracy of polling. As you were shown, the polls were, on average, about 1 point off in predicting Hillary would win the popular vote.

Now then, let's see if you're capable of staying focused....

 

[martybegan]

From one of your fellow travelers

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

Polling Data
Poll Date Sample MoE Clinton (D) Trump (R) Johnson (L) Stein (G) Spread
Final Results -- -- -- 48.2 46.1 3.3 1.1 Clinton +2.1
RCP Average 11/2 - 11/7 -- 45.5 42.2 4.7 1.9 Clinton +3.3

My mistake was using over-counted instead of under-counted. Clinton got 3% more than the polls figured she would, Trump 4%, so you have to account for their error with over-estimating Johnson/Stein support, and of course the undecideds right before the election (of which i was one of). Then you have to determine of the undecideds, how many voted and how many decided to just stay home.

All this leads to me continuing my disdain for polling in general unless it's like a 70-30 and above split.

LOLOL

No matter how you shake it .... the average of the polls predicted she would win by 3.2 points and she actually won by 2.1 points.

But she actually lost. Again, keep thinking hits win a baseball game.

Your senility is noted but I didn't actually say she won the election. What I did say is she won the popular vote by 2.1 percentage points and the polls, on average, predicted she would win it by 3.2 points. So the polls were not far off.

The ones that mattered were.

Exactly how senile are you? We're not talking about the electoral college. We're talking about the accuracy of polling. As you were shown, the polls were, on average, about 1 point off in predicting Hillary would win the popular vote.

Now then, let's see if you're capable of staying focused....

I'm talking about the polls in the swing states that got things all wrong.

Try to stay focused.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

No matter how you shake it .... the average of the polls predicted she would win by 3.2 points and she actually won by 2.1 points.

But she actually lost. Again, keep thinking hits win a baseball game.

Your senility is noted but I didn't actually say she won the election. What I did say is she won the popular vote by 2.1 percentage points and the polls, on average, predicted she would win it by 3.2 points. So the polls were not far off.

The ones that mattered were.

Exactly how senile are you? We're not talking about the electoral college. We're talking about the accuracy of polling. As you were shown, the polls were, on average, about 1 point off in predicting Hillary would win the popular vote.

Now then, let's see if you're capable of staying focused....

I'm talking about the polls in the swing states that got things all wrong.

Try to stay focused.

Ok, you're too senile to stay focused. No one here was talking about that. You're also apparently too deranged to comprehend why they're called, "swing states" in regards to polling -- because the polls reflect such states are too close to call for either candidate. So no, the polls were not off by much there either.

 

[Kirwood Derby]

Let it plunge all the way to the bottom of hell. That's where he is heading.

 

[martybegan]

But she actually lost. Again, keep thinking hits win a baseball game.

Your senility is noted but I didn't actually say she won the election. What I did say is she won the popular vote by 2.1 percentage points and the polls, on average, predicted she would win it by 3.2 points. So the polls were not far off.

The ones that mattered were.

Exactly how senile are you? We're not talking about the electoral college. We're talking about the accuracy of polling. As you were shown, the polls were, on average, about 1 point off in predicting Hillary would win the popular vote.

Now then, let's see if you're capable of staying focused....

I'm talking about the polls in the swing states that got things all wrong.

Try to stay focused.

Ok, you're too senile to stay focused. No one here was talking about that. You're also apparently too deranged to comprehend why they're called, "swing states" in regards to polling -- because the polls reflect such states are too close to call for either candidate. So no, the polls were not off by much there either.

Actually I'm just stringing this along because I'm bored.

I've started my issues with polls in general, in particular polls that are not the equivalent of a hard choice, i.e. "who you are voting for" vs. a soft choice, i.e. (is this guy doing a good job."

The main issue with the latter is people can be pissed at trump for not doing ENOUGH of what he is doing, thus skewing the disapproval numbers that mostly include people who think he is doing too much.

If it's even 5% who are mad at him for not being "burn government burn" enough, that changes things. If it is 10% that changes things a lot.

 

[basquebromance]

How can Trump's approval numbers be so low when consumer and investor optimism is off the charts?

they can't! they can't! THEY CAN'T!

 

[BrokeLoser]

...on Gallup.

Gallup Daily: Trump Job Approval

For comparison to our last GOP disaster of a president, it took GW Bush until March of 2006 to hit 37%.

"Trump's approval plunges to 37%"
among wetbacks, weirdos, bottom feeders and criminals as they watch their anything goes free for all come to a close...It's time to pull your head from your ass and act right people. Ironic how all positive contributors and legitimate folks are extremely pleased with the Trump Administration. Don't be scared whackos, you too will eventually embrace a higher grade society.

 

[Johann]

Can't fake this poll

 

[basquebromance]

I don't give a damn what polls say about Trump right now.

I want him to keep pushing his America First agenda.

polls are rigged just like before!

 

[Faun]

...on Gallup.

Gallup Daily: Trump Job Approval

For comparison to our last GOP disaster of a president, it took GW Bush until March of 2006 to hit 37%.

"Trump's approval plunges to 37%"
among wetbacks, weirdos, bottom feeders and criminals as they watch their anything goes free for all come to a close...It's time to pull your head from your ass and act right people. Ironic how all positive contributors and legitimate folks are extremely pleased with the Trump Administration. Don't be scared whackos, you too will eventually embrace a higher grade society.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^