Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-03-2019, 08:48 AM
Hermitian's Avatar
Hermitian is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,568

Reason why Trump's approval ratings are falling?


I have noticed on fivethirtyeight that Trump's approval ratings (which have been remarkably steady through fiasco after fiasco), seem to be dropping a bit (and disapproval rising). It looks like it started about 40ish days ago.

Any thoughts why?

My best guess: People have been talking about a recession more recently. Maybe his popularity falls with the economy?

Or maybe it is just noise and/or small trends that don't really reflect much of anything.
  #2  
Old 09-03-2019, 08:55 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,547
It's happened before -- there was a pretty consistent 60 day drop at about day 700 (~Jan 2019). But it's only gone down a point or two in the last 40 days or so -- this doesn't look that unusual compared to the overall course of the chart.
  #3  
Old 09-03-2019, 09:09 AM
Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermitian View Post
Or maybe it is just noise and/or small trends that don't really reflect much of anything.
That would be my first guess. His trend line is drooping slightly at the moment, but it has done that many times before. I'd have to see a sustained drop over several months and one reaching down below previous lows to around 35% before I'd get mildly interested in it. Let alone excited.

Last edited by Tamerlane; 09-03-2019 at 09:10 AM.
  #4  
Old 09-03-2019, 09:38 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,647
Yeah while economic nervousness may play a part (and the economy is what supports his numbers above that 35ish floor) it is completely consistent with Brownian motion. Under 12 plus minus two is his norm.
  #5  
Old 09-03-2019, 10:04 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,231
One of my side projects is a Python script that pulls data from the 538 publicly available dataset everyday at 8:55am MT and computes the difference between Rasmussen and non-Rasmussen pollsters on Trump approval. It then plots the last 90 days of that data and Tweets out an image of that plot.

Here's the one form 5 minutes ago... link.

Almost all of the variation in the last 90 days or so has been due to Rasmussen.
  #6  
Old 09-03-2019, 10:08 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,676
Yeah I think Brownian motion pretty well sums it up. There are people that love him, they aren't going to change. There are people that hate him, we aren't going to change. Some minor fluctuation in the tiny group of people that have no set opinion of him is to be expected.
  #7  
Old 09-03-2019, 10:27 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
One of my side projects is a Python script that pulls data from the 538 publicly available dataset everyday at 8:55am MT and computes the difference between Rasmussen and non-Rasmussen pollsters on Trump approval. It then plots the last 90 days of that data and Tweets out an image of that plot.

Here's the one form 5 minutes ago... link.

Almost all of the variation in the last 90 days or so has been due to Rasmussen.
Wow. That's remarkable.
  #8  
Old 09-03-2019, 10:28 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It's happened before -- there was a pretty consistent 60 day drop at about day 700 (~Jan 2019). But it's only gone down a point or two in the last 40 days or so -- this doesn't look that unusual compared to the overall course of the chart.
But the January 2019 slump had a clear cause, the government shutdown. While it could be Brownian motion, it does appear to be a bit more consistent than drop than we usually see. I think the its likely the rumors about the weakening economy and the trade war. Since I don't think the economy will slide into recession in the next month or so, I expect that his numbers will probably come back to their previous level relatively soon.
  #9  
Old 09-03-2019, 10:36 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Wow. That's remarkable.
Thanks and thanks for following.

This robot has been running pretty much all through 2019, and this kind of thing happens a lot. Rasmussen swings hard enough to move the needle. If you're interested in a particular date just search my timeline.

e.g. March 21 - May 21, 2019... almost all variation due to Rasmussen.
  #10  
Old 09-03-2019, 10:39 AM
bump is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,418
What's this Rasmussen stuff you're talking about?
  #11  
Old 09-03-2019, 10:48 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,373
Yeah, I don't get it. Yes, the Rasmussen numbers have a lot more variation than the average of all the other pollsters, but I don't see why that proves that Rasmussen is responsible for all variations. Have you tried this with other pollsters who have a Dem lean, like Survey Monkey or something?

Last edited by CarnalK; 09-03-2019 at 10:53 AM.
  #12  
Old 09-03-2019, 10:48 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,231
Rasmussen Reports is a pollster that does a rolling three day presidential approval poll of likely voters. They are notable for their republican lean. When Trump Tweets about a poll it's a better than even money bet that it's a Rasmussen poll.
  #13  
Old 09-03-2019, 10:53 AM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,413
Perhaps Trump's recent feuding with Fox is having an effect among the people Rasmussen polls with.
  #14  
Old 09-03-2019, 10:53 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Yeah, I don't get it. Yes, the Rasmussen numbers have a lot more variation than the average of all the other pollsters, but I don't see why that proves that Rasmussen is responsible for all variations.
I showed you why. Did you click the link(s)?

All other pollsters combined are pretty steady over the last 90 days while Rasmussen shows a large decline. The 538 average that includes Rasmussen shows a small decline. That decline disappears if you exclude Rasmussen.

I've been tracking this for a year. It happens a lot.
  #15  
Old 09-03-2019, 10:57 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
I showed you why. Did you click the link(s)?

All other pollsters combined are pretty steady over the last 90 days while Rasmussen shows a large decline. The 538 average that includes Rasmussen shows a small decline. That decline disappears if you exclude Rasmussen.

I've been tracking this for a year. It happens a lot.
Of course I clicked on the links. It shows that the average of all pollsters is more steady than the numbers of one pollster.

Eta: if you want your graph to show what you want it to show, you should be plotting the combined average, not the difference between Rasmussen and the non-Rasmuseen pollsters. Then we could see how much effect Rasmussen is having.

Last edited by CarnalK; 09-03-2019 at 11:02 AM.
  #16  
Old 09-03-2019, 10:59 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,071
A more interesting question would be about those who disapprove: how many disapprove with a shrug, and how many totally hate his guts. Trouble being, how you could ask the question with a reasonable expectation of accurate results?
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
  #17  
Old 09-03-2019, 11:03 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Of course I clicked on the links. It shows that the average of all pollsters is more steady than the numbers of one pollster.
That is true, but Rasmussen puts out data at the rate of all other pollsters combined as well so the data sets can be compared apples to apples.

Rasmussen puts out a data point every single day except for a handful of holidays. That's comparable to the rate of all other pollsters in the 538 data set.

Compared to say CNN or Fox which polls around once every 3 or 4 weeks. That would not make a great comparison.
  #18  
Old 09-03-2019, 11:09 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Eta: if you want your graph to show what you want it to show, you should be plotting the combined average, not the difference between Rasmussen and the non-Rasmuseen pollsters. Then we could see how much effect Rasmussen is having.
Missed this edit in my first reply.

My graph shows what I want it to show. I want it tho show the difference between Rasmussen and the average of all other pollsters. If I wanted it to show something else I would have made a different graph.

It is not intended to show how much effect Rasmussen has on the overall average. However, when the average of all other pollsters is flat as a pancake a useful side effect is that the difference I'm showing reflects the effect of Rasmussen on the average.
  #19  
Old 09-03-2019, 11:19 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Missed this edit in my first reply.

My graph shows what I want it to show. I want it tho show the difference between Rasmussen and the average of all other pollsters. If I wanted it to show something else I would have made a different graph.

It is not intended to show how much effect Rasmussen has on the overall average. However, when the average of all other pollsters is flat as a pancake a useful side effect is that the difference I'm showing reflects the effect of Rasmussen on the average.
You are claiming it shows that Rasmussen is responsible for almost all variation in the average but you don't plot the average. It's reasonable to assume that there's plenty of pollsters whose variation is also not flat as a pancake like the average, so for me to see your point I need to see how much weight Rasmussen is actual throwing around in the combined average.

Last edited by CarnalK; 09-03-2019 at 11:23 AM.
  #20  
Old 09-03-2019, 11:22 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
You are claiming it shows that Rasmussen is responsible for almost all variation in the average but you don't plot the average. I'm sure there's plenty of pollsters whose variation is also not flat as a pancake like the average.
Here's what I took from the graph -- without Rasmussen, there would be no polling decline for Trump over the last ~40 days. It's only because of Rasmussen that 538 is tracking a polling decline, which has been consistent for ~40 days. And Rasmussen is not a well-regarded poll by Nate Silver.

That seems interesting to me, assuming I'm correctly interpreting the data.
  #21  
Old 09-03-2019, 11:27 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,373
Ok, so I should be combining this Turbo graph with the 538 graph to "get it"? I just don't see how the graph linked shows anything other than the average of all pollsters is more stable than one pollster.
  #22  
Old 09-03-2019, 11:30 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Ok, so I should be combining this Turbo graph with the 538 graph to "get it"? I just don't see how the graph linked shows anything other than the average of all pollsters is more stable than one pollster.
I think it shows that Rasmussen may be an outlier (i.e. they're the only one showing a consistent decline over the last ~40 days or so). To test this, we might have to see similar graphs for all pollsters with multiple polls over that period -- i.e. graphs for Harris vs all-non-Harris-polls, Monmouth vs all-non-Monmouth-polls, etc., which is likely too much to ask for right now. But if it does indeed show that Rasmussen is the only outfit showing a decline right now, then that's interesting and potentially useful information for evaluating whether there is indeed an actual polling decline going on.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 09-03-2019 at 11:30 AM.
  #23  
Old 09-03-2019, 11:40 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
You are claiming it shows that Rasmussen is responsible for almost all variation in the average but you don't plot the average. It's reasonable to assume that there's plenty of pollsters whose variation is also not flat as a pancake like the average, so for me to see your point I need to see how much weight Rasmussen is actual throwing around in the combined average.
I'm not claiming anything. I'm showing you what's in the data. My point is that this is what it looks like when you plot the difference between Rasmussen and the average of all other pollsters.

Here's code to grab the 538 data set and pull it into a dataframe. Feel free to copy it and adapt to answer the questions that you feel are important.

Code:
import pandas as pd
import datetime


url = 'https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-data/approval_polllist.csv'

df_raw = pd.read_csv(filepath_or_buffer = url, parse_dates = ['startdate', 'enddate'])

# Drop columns we don't need
df = df_raw.loc[:,['pollster', 'startdate', 'enddate', 'approve', 'disapprove']]
  #24  
Old 09-03-2019, 11:48 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,373
Looking at RealClear approval poll tracker Reuters has Trump at -14 on 8/26 down from -12 on 8/19. Politico has him at -15 on 8/23 down from -13 on 8/16. So Rasmussen is certainly not the only pollster showing dip at the moment.
  #25  
Old 09-03-2019, 11:52 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Looking at RealClear approval poll tracker Reuters has Trump at -14 on 8/26 down from -12 on 8/19. Politico has him at -15 on 8/23 down from -13 on 8/16. So Rasmussen is certainly not the only pollster showing dip at the moment.
Of course Rasmussen is not the only pollster showing dip at the moment. Nobody claimed that.
  #26  
Old 09-03-2019, 12:51 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,370
Lance Turbo, interesting chart and I appreciate the effort, and what it says about Rasmussen. But I would say, this alone does not show that "Almost all of the variation in the last 90 days or so has been due to Rasmussen." That may indeed be the case, but should you not also show each individual poll other than Rasmussen in a similar plot? If by chance other poll(s) are close to Rasmussen, then your conclusion isn't valid.
  #27  
Old 09-03-2019, 01:12 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Lance Turbo, interesting chart and I appreciate the effort, and what it says about Rasmussen. But I would say, this alone does not show that "Almost all of the variation in the last 90 days or so has been due to Rasmussen." That may indeed be the case, but should you not also show each individual poll other than Rasmussen in a similar plot? If by chance other poll(s) are close to Rasmussen, then your conclusion isn't valid.
I think I've found where folks are getting hung up. When I said, "Almost all of the variation in the last 90 days or so has been due to Rasmussen," I meant in my chart, not in the 538 chart. In my chart, there is a mostly flat line, a line with big swings, a line that is the difference between the two. Almost all the variation in the difference line is due to the wiggly line, not the flat line.

I was accurately describing my graph. It seemed relevant to the topic of the thread but was not meant as the final answer to the question posed in the thread title.

I wasn't making a scientific statement. I was describing a picture.
  #28  
Old 09-03-2019, 01:24 PM
scr4 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
It is not intended to show how much effect Rasmussen has on the overall average. However, when the average of all other pollsters is flat as a pancake a useful side effect is that the difference I'm showing reflects the effect of Rasmussen on the average.
But wouldn't any given poll show a greater variation than the average of all other polls?
  #29  
Old 09-03-2019, 01:31 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,231
To be clear, I think the big swing in Rasmussen is at least partially responsible for what we're seeing in 538's tracker, but since we don't have the full details of 538's algo we can't tell for sure.

But mousing over 538 we see a recent peak on 7/22 at 43.0% and a fairly steady decline to now on 9/3 at 41.4%. A decline of 1.6% or roughly a net approval decline of around 3.2% (-3.2 net net).

Now when I look at the Rasmussen and non-Rasmussen 14 day centered rolling averages for that period.

Rasmussen net 7/22: -1.6
Rasmussen net 9/3: -5.8
Net net: -3.2

non-Ras net 7/22: -10.1
non-Ras net 9/3: -9.1
Net net: +1.0

I don't calculate my averages the same way 538 does, and we don't know exactly how 538 does what it does, but I strongly suspect that in the alternate universe where Nate didn't include Rasmussen polls, Hermitian would not have had a reason to start this thread.
  #30  
Old 09-03-2019, 01:45 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
But wouldn't any given poll show a greater variation than the average of all other polls?
Maybe. Probably. Almost certainly.

However, Rasmussen is special here because it adds a data point every single day. In the last 14 days we have 14 Rasmussen data points compared to 49 for all other pollsters. So the added uncertainty of smaller sample size is still there for Rasmussen but not as big as for others (e.g. Morning Consult with 2 polls in the last 14 days, or Emerson with 1). Rasmussen always has a data point less than 24 hours old while most other pollsters do not.

I'm not just talking about noise though. There is basically no trend one way or the other with all non-Rasmussen polls, and there is enough data to show a large downward trend in Rasmussen polls.

Last edited by Lance Turbo; 09-03-2019 at 01:46 PM.
  #31  
Old 09-03-2019, 03:01 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermitian View Post
I have noticed on fivethirtyeight that Trump's approval ratings (which have been remarkably steady through fiasco after fiasco), seem to be dropping a bit (and disapproval rising). It looks like it started about 40ish days ago.

Any thoughts why?

My best guess: People have been talking about a recession more recently. Maybe his popularity falls with the economy?

Or maybe it is just noise and/or small trends that don't really reflect much of anything.
He's been erratic, such as the time when he looked to the heavens and claimed he was "the chosen one" to deal with China. I also think that he has pretty much lost center-right independents who switched between Obama and Trump, but that's not really eating into his base. I think what might be hurting him even more is that more and more members of the billionaires club are nervous that he's going to fuck it all up.

I don't care if a politician has a base: erratic rhetoric and behavior makes a leader look weak. And I think the Wall St Republicans are increasingly out of explanations and defenses for his 'deal making acumen'.

Now having said that, he could realize tomorrow that he's going to lose the trade war and strike a "deal" with China. The reason why I'm not sure he'll do that anymore is that he's going to have a recession no matter what, and he'll look even weaker if he gives in. So in a sense, he's screwed if he goes to the mat, and he's screwed if he doesn't. President Xi may be beginning to sense this, and if his own economy weren't in the dumps right now, I wouldn't put it past him to block Trump's off-ramp - but Xi needs a deal, too, so there will be some space for negotiation on his part. It's Trump who is now confronted with an increasingly complex set of circumstances that are of his own making.

Last edited by asahi; 09-03-2019 at 03:05 PM.
  #32  
Old 09-03-2019, 03:34 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,370
Quote:
I think what might be hurting him even more is that more and more members of the billionaires club are nervous that he's going to fuck it all up.
I would bet good money on this. Not my money, of course. But yours. I'd bet all of your good money on it.
  #33  
Old 09-03-2019, 04:35 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,071
Only kind of money I know about is "gone".
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
  #34  
Old 09-03-2019, 08:29 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
... It seemed relevant to the topic of the thread but was not meant as the final answer to the question posed in the thread title.

I wasn't making a scientific statement. I was describing a picture.
I'm sorry if this seems obtuse, and maybe I am missing something, but what relevance do you think it has?

A single pollster has much noisier data than the aggregation of all the others. Okay. Pretty much something everyone knows.

But I'm looking at your graph and seeing both Rasmussen and non-Rasmussen dropping from 7/8 to 7/29, and Rasmussen rising fairly steeply while non-Rasmussen dropped from 8/12 to 8/22.

During that ten day time of net approval dropping on the non-Rasmussen aggregate while rising on the Rasmussen one 538's tracker DROPPED, from -11.3 to -13.5.

This is very inconsistent with any hypothesis that any changes in the 538 tracker are due to Rasmussen results. It looks like instead Rasmussen has little impact on 538's tracker.

And expecting C+ rated Rasmussen to have an outsized impact on 538's tracker is inconsistent with what we do know of their algorithm. Not full details but enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 538
... we use almost all polls but weight them based on their methodological standards and historical accuracy. ... [C+ rated Rasmussen is thus weighted to have small impact]

... We adjust polls for house effects if they consistently show different results from the polling consensus. ... [Rasmussen has a known house effect that gets adjusted]

... The weights also account for how often a pollster measures Trumpís approval ratings. If it does so more often than about once per 20 days, each instance of the poll is discounted so that the pollster doesnít dominate the average just because itís so prolific. Daily tracking polls also receive special handling from the formula so that interviews are not double-counted ... [Preventing the "special" impact of Rasmussen adding a "data point every single day."]
Silver knows data analysis better than to have a tracker system that would result in a C+ rated house with a known house effect have outsized impact because they report every day.

I won't state with confidence that the tracker moving away from the highest numbers of his range (-9.7) in July (everyone going on about how high they were for him), to the portions more in the middle of his range now (-12.7), is not more than background farts ... it could be the start of a real collapse and in retrospect be real and not just noise. But I doubt it as much as I doubted the significance of those July numbers in the other direction.

These are quantum froth stochastic variations. Happy to see the random walk to this direction but way too small to read any meaning into it.

Get that net to a consistent under -15 (not just a few days) and you have real change to talk about. I hope we have that conversation!
  #35  
Old 09-03-2019, 08:40 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
A more interesting question would be about those who disapprove: how many disapprove with a shrug, and how many totally hate his guts. Trouble being, how you could ask the question with a reasonable expectation of accurate results?
Like how YouGov does? This 8/31 to 9/1 polling.

38% strongly disapprove
12% somewhat disapprove
19% somewhat approve
25% strongly approve
6% not sure

So roughly 3/4s of those who disapprove pretty much hate his guts. And fewer, but still a majority, about 57%, of those who approve pretty much love him to bits.
  #36  
Old 09-03-2019, 08:43 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
....These are quantum froth stochastic variations....
That was my first thought as well, of course.
  #37  
Old 09-03-2019, 09:37 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
All other pollsters combined are pretty steady over the last 90 days while Rasmussen shows a large decline. The 538 average that includes Rasmussen shows a small decline. That decline disappears if you exclude Rasmussen..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
I think I've found where folks are getting hung up. When I said, "Almost all of the variation in the last 90 days or so has been due to Rasmussen," I meant in my chart, not in the 538 chart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
To be clear, I think the big swing in Rasmussen is at least partially responsible for what we're seeing in 538's tracker, but since we don't have the full details of 538's algo we can't tell for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
I'm not just talking about noise though. There is basically no trend one way or the other with all non-Rasmussen polls, and there is enough data to show a large downward trend in Rasmussen polls.
Sorry, that sure looks like a lot of tap dancing to be on every side of the argument.
  #38  
Old 09-03-2019, 09:43 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Sorry, that sure looks like a lot of tap dancing to be on every side of the argument.
I accept your apology.
  #39  
Old 09-03-2019, 09:48 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,373
Well, I am somewhat sorry I wasted time on this but that wouldn't generally be considered an apology.
  #40  
Old 09-04-2019, 10:13 AM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
These are quantum froth stochastic variations.
I ordered one of those at Starbucks. Tasty, but a bit overpriced.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)

Last edited by CaptMurdock; 09-04-2019 at 10:14 AM.
  #41  
Old 09-04-2019, 11:26 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,647
Especially since it both is and is not in cup until you try to taste it. And then the foam collapses.
  #42  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:54 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
These are quantum froth stochastic variations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
I ordered one of those at Starbucks. Tasty, but a bit overpriced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Especially since it both is and is not in cup until you try to taste it. And then the foam collapses.
Stuff like this is what keeps me hanging around this place.
  #43  
Old 09-04-2019, 01:57 PM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,966
In response to the OP I don't think the rating has really fallen. The 538 approval is 41.4 which is around where it has been for 18 months. 538 has some nice charts comparing Trump's ratings with other Presidents and it's remarkable how stable they are. Possibly that is because they have always been on the low side thus having a large percentage of his solid supporters plus the fact that there hasn't been a truly major event like a recession or a war.

Just about the only change was from late 2017 to early 2018 where the rating went up from around 37 to 41.I have not seen a good explanation for why his rating went up around that period. I think figuring out who those 37-41 voters is an important and underexplored question. These may be voters who approve of him but could be persuaded otherwise, at least to not vote for him . Perhaps if the economy slows down, as many people expect, they will move away from him on their own. However a well-run Democratic campaign should examine this group and tailor at least a part of the campaign message to them.
  #44  
Old 09-04-2019, 02:34 PM
squidfood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 451
I noticed that the ratings took a dip in late August of all three years and wondered if that meant anything (just in terms of patterns in the noise or of poll seasonality) as I couldn't think of actual political reasons for that (and all three dips are really within noise bounds). My personal unscientific threshold for thinking "something's changed" in the last year of fivethirtyeight polls would be more than a week of either "above 43" or "below 41" which we haven't hit, but the movements that were traceable to events and not noise moved at least that much.

I think the "37 to 41" rise that Lantern mentions is due to the tax cut going through?
  #45  
Old 09-04-2019, 03:21 PM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,966
Yes the rise happened around the time of the tax cut but IIRC the tax cut was not all that popular so I wonder if it really caused just about the only permanent change in Trump's approval in the last 2.5 years. OTOH 4 points is not that much;perhaps it only seems significant because his ratings have otherwise been so remarkably stable.
  #46  
Old 09-04-2019, 03:39 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I'm sorry if this seems obtuse, and maybe I am missing something, but what relevance do you think it has?
I explained what relevance it had and what time period I was looking at in post 29. Here's an excerpt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
But mousing over 538 we see a recent peak on 7/22 at 43.0% and a fairly steady decline to now on 9/3 at 41.4%. A decline of 1.6% or roughly a net approval decline of around 3.2% (-3.2 net net).

Now when I look at the Rasmussen and non-Rasmussen 14 day centered rolling averages for that period.

Rasmussen net 7/22: -1.6
Rasmussen net 9/3: -5.8
Net net: -3.2

non-Ras net 7/22: -10.1
non-Ras net 9/3: -9.1
Net net: +1.0
Over the time period of the drop that inspired this thread, Rasmussen showed a significant drop, while the average of all other pollsters moved in the opposite direction.

I noticed this many times during the year I've had this Twitter robot tracking Rasmussen v the field. When people ask, "Why is Trump's favorability doing X?" I check my graph and frequently notice a very steep section on the Rasmussen line that matches the shift that led to the question.

e.g..

Check out 1/25 to 2/22. These are approximate from eyeballing the graph.

Rasmussen net 1/25: -10
Rasmussen net 2/22: 0
Net net: +10

non-Ras net 1/25: -14
non-Ras net 2/22: -12
Net net: +2

Now look at 538 for the same period.

538: -16.7
538: -10.3
Net net: +6.5

A huge shift in Rasmussen accompanied by a slight in shift in everyone else corresponds with a modest shift in 538's tracker.

Finally, of course a single pollster is noisier than the average of all other pollsters. However, Rasmussen polls 500 *likely voters every single day and reports a three day rolling average every day. My graph shows a 14 day centered rolling average of those 3 day averages.

In the graph I posted originally we see Rasmussen's Trump net fairly steadily go from +1 to -6 from mid-June to mid-August while the average of all other pollsters stays pretty much level over the same period. The explanation, "One pollster will always be noisier than the average of all other pollsters," is not even in the ballpark of being sufficient to explain this.


*Likely voters means that they poll more than 500 voters a day and throw some/many out depending on how strict their likely voter screen is.

Last edited by Lance Turbo; 09-04-2019 at 03:39 PM.
  #47  
Old 09-04-2019, 08:36 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,647
Lance Turbo, I will state this unapologetically. As Carnal K's excerpts of your posts makes clear your "point" has contradicted itself several times. In any case the data you present supports none of those positions.


How about we start with what we most likely agree on?

1) The true signal of Trump's net approval is very flat. 538's tracker is likely the best we can use as a gold standard and it has been within 2 of 12 one way or the other over 95% of the time for a very long time.

2) Individual polling houses will be noisy and aggregation cancels out much of the noise. This is true if the aggregation is all polls equally weighted, or filtering out a single house, or 538's more sophisticated method.

3) 538's more sophisticated method is not a completely black box. We know that it discounts results from houses that report prolifically (like Rasmussen) to a degree that they count no more than a similarly rated house that reports once every 20 days. We know that they discount poorly rated houses like Rasmussen (C+) and more heavily weight A to B+ ones, like IBD, Quinnipiac, Ipsos, CNN, Suffolk, Monmouth, NBC/WSJ, and Fox.


So far so good I hope.


Now let's look at those highly rated houses that are most heavily weighted in the 538 tracker, most recent to its next most recent, net approval changes. Time period for most is about a month some six weeks. As reported on 538.


IBD flat (A+)

Quinnipiac dropped 4. (A-)

Ipsos dropped 1. (B+)

CNN dropped 7. (A-)

Suffolk dropped 11! (B+)

Monmouth dropped 3. (A+)

NBC/WSJ dropped 2. (A-)

Fox dropped 8. (A)


Average of these highly rated houses that are weighted more highly in the 538 tracker was dropping about 4.5 over the 4 to 6 week period that is roughly concurrent with the 538 tracker going down by about 2.5, from top of the range back to lower middle.


The highest rated houses as a group dropping back to the mean clearly are what drove the drop in the 538 tracker. Softened some by the greater sophistication of that model than my crude averaging them alone and equally.

Rasmussen was immaterial and of very little input to that tracker as should be the case. None of us know what exact weight a C+ rated house gets but if it is not extremely light I'd be shocked.

Last edited by DSeid; 09-04-2019 at 08:38 PM.
  #48  
Old 09-04-2019, 08:45 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Lance Turbo, I will state this unapologetically. As Carnal K's excerpts of your posts makes clear your "point" has contradicted itself several times. In any case the data you present supports none of those positions.
I will state this unapologetically. You are incorrect.

My opinion is that a big Rasmussen swing can shift the 538 average. I have presented data that supports that, and shown that it is a recurring phenomenon.

You are free to disagree.
  #49  
Old 09-04-2019, 08:54 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,071
I rise to speak on behalf of the Board Committee for the Hopelessly Mathtarded. As fascinating as this conversation has been, we can't help but feel that it would be even more interesting if we had a clue. Any chance you guys could plaly this game "slow-pitch"?
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
  #50  
Old 09-04-2019, 09:00 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
I rise to speak on behalf of the Board Committee for the Hopelessly Mathtarded. As fascinating as this conversation has been, we can't help but feel that it would be even more interesting if we had a clue. Any chance you guys could plaly this game "slow-pitch"?
Sure. Look at the red and blue lines in this picture. The red line shows a large drop in Trump net job approval. The blue line does not. Is the opinion that red line was more responsible for the drop in Trump net approval than the blue an unreasonable opinion?

Last edited by Lance Turbo; 09-04-2019 at 09:01 PM.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017