Trump's Approval Rate

[homersapien 11,527]

Just about every public poll taken since the shutdown shows President Trump’s approval rate dropping. These surveys tell us a strong majority primarily blames him. The latest Post-ABC News poll drills down to ask what voters don’t like about him. The answer is: practically everything.

Nearly 6 in 10 say they have an unfavorable view of the president as a person. Similar majorities say they doubt his empathy, honesty and ability to make political deals, although on several of those attitudes, his ratings have not changed significantly during his time in office. ... Almost half of all Americans (48 percent) say they have no confidence in Trump’s future decision-making.

 

The Post-ABC poll indicates a huge difference between expectations when he first took office for Trump’s performance on the economy, health care and the debt and how voters now evaluate him on these issues.

More interesting perhaps for a president whose party proclaimed itself uninterested in character are the putrid ratings he gets on personal qualities. Sixty percent of registered voters view him negatively as a person, as do 63 percent of independents and 66 percent of women. A bare majority of registered voters (51 percent) think he isn’t a strong leader; again, he does worse with independents (55 percent) and women (59 percent). On honesty and trustworthiness, 60 percent of registered voters think he isn’t, including 73 percent (!) of independents and 71 percent of women. After two years of his presidency, 58 percent of registered voters (including 67 percent of independents and women) don’t think he has the temperament to be president. Sixty-five percent of registered voters don’t think he cares about people like them, including 68 percent of independents and 72 percent of women.....

Read the rest at:

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/28/trump-down-not-getting-back-up/?utm_term=.8429f593a288

[AUFAN78 3,943]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

Just about every public poll taken since the shutdown shows President Trump’s approval rate dropping. These surveys tell us a strong majority primarily blames him. The latest Post-ABC News poll drills down to ask what voters don’t like about him. The answer is: practically everything.

Nearly 6 in 10 say they have an unfavorable view of the president as a person. Similar majorities say they doubt his empathy, honesty and ability to make political deals, although on several of those attitudes, his ratings have not changed significantly during his time in office. ... Almost half of all Americans (48 percent) say they have no confidence in Trump’s future decision-making.

 

The Post-ABC poll indicates a huge difference between expectations when he first took office for Trump’s performance on the economy, health care and the debt and how voters now evaluate him on these issues.

More interesting perhaps for a president whose party proclaimed itself uninterested in character are the putrid ratings he gets on personal qualities. Sixty percent of registered voters view him negatively as a person, as do 63 percent of independents and 66 percent of women. A bare majority of registered voters (51 percent) think he isn’t a strong leader; again, he does worse with independents (55 percent) and women (59 percent). On honesty and trustworthiness, 60 percent of registered voters think he isn’t, including 73 percent (!) of independents and 71 percent of women. After two years of his presidency, 58 percent of registered voters (including 67 percent of independents and women) don’t think he has the temperament to be president. Sixty-five percent of registered voters don’t think he cares about people like them, including 68 percent of independents and 72 percent of women.....

Read the rest at:

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/28/trump-down-not-getting-back-up/?utm_term=.8429f593a288

Honestly can't recall all past polling data, but didn't this poll tell us Hilary would be president?

[homersapien 11,527]

14 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Honestly can't recall all past polling data, but didn't this poll tell us Hilary would be president?

Don't think so.  Are you trying to imply this poll is flawed?

[AUFAN78 3,943]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

Don't think so.  Are you trying to imply this poll is flawed?

You don't think so? I think so.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-vaults-double-digit-lead-boosted-broad-disapproval/story?id=42993821

[homersapien 11,527]

2 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

You don't think so? I think so.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-vaults-double-digit-lead-boosted-broad-disapproval/story?id=42993821

Well maybe they got it wrong again.  Time will tell.

Which poll is giving Trump the highest ratings?

Let's compare.

[TitanTiger 20,544]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

Don't think so.  Are you trying to imply this poll is flawed?

It's a standard tactic anytime a poll offers information that conflicts with the funhouse mirror reality inside their bubble.

[AUDub 11,204]

5 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

You don't think so? I think so.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-vaults-double-digit-lead-boosted-broad-disapproval/story?id=42993821

ABC’s tracking poll actually had Trump +1 fairly late. Their final poll was Clinton +4 with a MoE of 2.5. Result ended up being Clinton +2.1.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

5 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

You don't think so? I think so.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-vaults-double-digit-lead-boosted-broad-disapproval/story?id=42993821

Don't confuse the haters with facts. Both sides like polls that support their position.

[TitanTiger 20,544]

9 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Don't confuse the haters with facts. Both sides like polls that support their position.

At least here, I don't recall but one side doing that.  There's a side here that discusses polls like educated people - understanding modeling and margin of error and such, and then another side that immediately calls into question the reliability of any poll that doesn't say what they want it to.

[AUFAN78 3,943]

20 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

It's a standard tactic anytime a poll offers information that conflicts with the funhouse mirror reality inside their bubble.

Whatever. Their bubble? Simply laughable and ridiculous. 

My opinion of polling has not changed. Likely never will. That the point flew over ones head is not my concern.

[AUFAN78 3,943]

19 hours ago, AUDub said:

ABC’s tracking poll actually had Trump +1 fairly late. Their final poll was Clinton +4 with a MoE of 2.5. Result ended up being Clinton +2.1.

My point was not about a singular poll, but thanks.

 

9 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

At least here, I don't recall but one side doing that.  There's a side here that discusses polls like educated people - understanding modeling and margin of error and such, and then another side that immediately calls into question the reliability of any poll that doesn't say what they want it to.

More nonsense. Mine was a statement on polling inaccuracies in general. Sides are not in play.

[homersapien 11,527]

2 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Whatever. Their bubble? Simply laughable and ridiculous. 

My opinion of polling has not changed. Likely never will. That the point flew over ones head is not my concern.

You feel the same way about all science?

[AUDub 11,204]

2 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

My point was not about a singular poll, but thanks.

The one you cited as “wrong” is the one that I elucidated on, but go ahead and pick pretty much any of the national polls from the RCP average and my point still stands. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

The one you cited as “wrong” is the one that I elucidated on, but go ahead and pick pretty much any of the national polls from the RCP average and my point still stands. 

Polls close showing Hillary winning the popular vote by several points.  Actual voting bears that out.

"Them polls were wrong!"

[AUDub 11,204]

Just now, Brad_ATX said:

Polls close showing Hillary winning the popular vote by several points.  Actual voting bears that out.

"Them polls were wrong!"

This is 78. Has a bug up his butt about the science of polling for some reason. 

[DKW 86 7,485]

Trump and Congress are both seriously under water. now if we could just get rid of them both...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/207579/public-approval-rating-of-the-us-congress/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/666113/approval-rate-of-donald-trump-for-the-presidential-job/

December 2018

Congressional Approval 18%

Trump 39%

[DKW 86 7,485]

 

Quote

 

An Evaluation of 2016 Election Polls in the U.S.

About those predictions that Clinton was 90 percent likely to win... However well-intentioned these predictions may have been, they helped crystalize the belief that Clinton was a shoo-in for president, with unknown consequences for turnout. While a similar criticism can be leveled against polls – i.e., they can indicate an election is uncompetitive, perhaps reducing some people’s motivation to vote – polls and forecasting models are not one and the same. As the late pollster Andrew Kohut once noted (2006), “I’m not a handicapper, I’m a measurer. There’s a difference.” Pollsters and astute poll reporters are often careful to describe their findings as a snapshot in time, measuring public opinion when they are fielded (e.g., Agiesta 2016; Easley 2016a; Forsberg 2016; Jacobson 2016; McCormick 2016; Narea 2016; Shashkevich 2016; Zukin 2015). Forecasting models do something different – they attempt to predict a future event. As the 2016 election proved, that can be a fraught exercise, and the net benefit to the country is unclear.

 

I dont think that the polling was that bad in a 2000-2016 analysis, There were errors in the prediction models versus what actually happened. 

1) The Vote broke very late for Trump. Late voters that were undecided broke for Trump. The polling models did not account for this.

2) The pre-election polls were statistically heavy with college grads/HRC supporters. The pollster were having fits trying to adjust that and be reliable.

Adjusting for over-representation of college graduates was critical, but many polls did not do it. In 2016 there was a strong correlation between education and presidential vote in key states. Voters with higher education levels were more likely to support Clinton. Furthermore, recent studies are clear that people with more formal education are significantly more likely to participate in surveys than those with less education. Many polls – especially at the state level – did not adjust their weights to correct for the over-representation of college graduates in their surveys, and the result was over-estimation of support for Clinton.

3) Absolute Error in State by State polls was up almost 50%

[AUFAN78 3,943]

21 hours ago, AUDub said:

The one you cited as “wrong” is the one that I elucidated on, but go ahead and pick pretty much any of the national polls from the RCP average and my point still stands. 

And mine stands as well. Many errors/potential errors in polling. 

[AUDub 11,204]

2 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

And mine stands as well. Many errors/potential errors in polling. 

As I have said many times, all polls are wrong. It’s why MoE is a thing. The real question is, were they more wrong than usual, and the answer is no. 

[AUFAN78 3,943]

21 hours ago, AUDub said:

This is 78. Has a bug up his butt about the science of polling for some reason. 

No bug, I just see them for what they are.

[AUFAN78 3,943]

2 minutes ago, AUDub said:

As I have said many times, all polls are wrong. It’s why MoE is a thing. The real question is, were they more wrong than usual, and the answer is no. 

I think we actually agree on that point. 

[AUDub 11,204]

16 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

No bug, I just see them for what they are.

They are an indicator, and are actually pretty damn good at that the majority of the time. That includes 2016. More people should read Silver, who knows his s***. 

[AUFAN78 3,943]

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

They are an indicator, and are actually pretty damn good at that the majority of the time. That includes 2016. More people should read Silver, who knows his s***. 

And we mostly agree on this point. Twice in one night. I need a beer. 

[DKW 86 7,485]

The polling in 2016 had one vicious thing attached. Many on the left had bought in to the 90% chance of HRC winning. THAT one projection, see Maddow and several others on MSNBC for examples, was bought into hook line and sinker. That was why everyone in the US will remember that election. We had members of the press telling us that HRC was going to win. Go back and google Maddow. She gave every indication that HRC just could not lose. That was the memorable difference in 2016. 

[AUDub 11,204]

10 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

The polling in 2016 had one vicious thing attached. Many on the left had bought in to the 90% chance of HRC winning. THAT one projection, see Maddow and several others on MSNBC for examples, was bought into hook line and sinker. That was why everyone in the US will remember that election. We had members of the press telling us that HRC was going to win. Go back and google Maddow. She gave every indication that HRC just could not lose. That was the memorable difference in 2016. 

There's a lot of truth to this  Polling was fine, especially considering the nature of the election, but the conclusions drawn from them were the failure point. A Trump win was so utterly incomprehensible to folks on the left (and a lot of folks on the right), that it was thought to be a foregone conclusion. 

Except for Nate Silver, who ended up giving Trump the odds of a quality hitter to get a base hit. He was even attacked for it.