I’m aware of where Trump’s approval rating stands compared to his predecessors.
You can point out whatever you want. I was pointing out that I feel that a more open and honest approach would be to use the aggregates of the polls, which show Trump in the neighborhood of 40% approval and 54% disapproval. Prattle on about 60% or two-thirds if you like, but I don’t think it’s a good way to be taken seriously.
Yeah, I haven’t really looked into polls on the AHCA.
If you really don’t know how poll aggregations works, I’d encourage you to read up on it. There’s a reason that Nate Silver and other widely-respected statisticians and prognosticators make use of the technique.
It is clear that you did not pay attention, many times I pointed that we only needed to convince a few more independents and moderate republicans to make a difference. The point stands whereas the disapproval by Americans is at 60% or 54%.
And the disapproval of the AHCA is worse, and so it will turn into disapproval of the congressional Republicans. As many pointed before to the Democrats then: not taking the disapproval of people to the ACA seriously was one reason the Democrats lost; and now the table has turned; as it turns out, people just began to support the ACA more when seeing that the Republicans also chose to ignore the opposition coming from the people to the AHCA. In reality a good number of the opposition to the ACA was that a plurality expected to see the law changed and improved. Not the abortion that the Republicans are trying to pass now.
And as I pointed already it is really underwhelming that you are trying to make it look good for Trump, it still does not.
I’m not trying to “make it look good for Trump”. If I were, I would have cherry-picked a few polls too. I’m trying to give a realistic view of the situation, which is that about 40% of the country approves of the overall job he’s doing and about 54% disapproves.
You act like if the point does not stand or that you said was not already included on what I’m telling you, realistically speaking the numbers show that the criticism that is coming from the left and independents and moderate Republicans is working to undermine not only the president, but items like the AHCA.
And historically speaking, Trump is bound to just keep those very disappointing approval numbers or to have even less support in the coming years.
Cite?
Since you claim to have such respect for Nate Silver, perhaps you’d be interested in his analysis of how these numbers you like to throw around compare with those of previous presidents. Silver analyzed the preceding 12 presidents, going back to Harry Truman. Trump has by far the worst record in his first 100 days of any of them. That seems to me a hell of a lot more significant than throwing numbers around without comparative context, or arguing about the difference between 54% and 60%, because it does not bode well for the future, if he even manages to summon the minimal level of competence to stay in office for the whole term.
The link that msmith537 made to 538. Shows what took place in the first 300 days for many presidents. For the complete administrations there are the charts almost at the middle of this:
It is interesting that a few did maintain a relative steady level, but most saw their numbers go lower the further they did go in their presidencies.
I don’t think that Trump will be as lucky as Roosevelt, so if this becomes like many others, Trump is bound to get lower numbers, and very consistently.
I don’t believe I have claimed to have “such respect” for Nate Silver. I invoked his name in way that some might assume I was lumping him in with “other widely-respected statisticians and prognosticators”. Personally, I don’t think too highly of his analysis (which is why I virtually always refer back to RealClearPolitics’ poll averages rather than his), but I know my audience, and I know that here on the SDMB there a bunch of liberal Nate Silver fan-boys.
I believe you’re referring to the same article that msmith537 referenced back in post #574. I responded to it in #579. And as a point of information, I believe the analysis was done by one of Mr. Silver’s colleagues, not Nate himself.
Actually the article I was looking at has more recent data, but supports the same conclusion: if judged by popular perception, despite the fact that he has a core base of brain-dead lunatics who support him precisely for being outrageous, hateful, and vulgar, this is the worst president in living memory and may turn out to be the worst president ever to hold office. Your “response” in #579 which basically says “I know what his numbers are” doesn’t seem to address or acknowledge this reality. It’s pretty sad when one considers that it might be a blessing that his sheer and utter incompetence and pathological dishonesty might drive him from office early, either voluntarily or through impeachment. Another sad observation, relevant to the subject of this thread, is that there is a large swath of Republicans who voted for this walking catastrophe because he ostensibly represents their values.
Actually, pretty well. Red state America has committed suicide, unfortunately they are trying to take the country with it. Red state voters will be the ones to suffer from Trump, I’ll be fine, I’m affluent, well educated and live in blue state America. What red America doesn’t understand is that we carry you. The redder the state, the more dependent it is on blue state tax dollars; soon red state America will realize that fed tax dollars were the ones deworming their children, helping get Jeeter off the meth again, and propping up their indolent lifestyles.
Red state America is our third world and they’ve voted to stay that way. What they never understood was we’ve been trying to save them from themselves since Nixon and now we’re done. Blue state America will visit red America, buy they’re crappy handicrafts out of pity and then go home to have a quite laugh at their expense while enjoying a higher standard of living and longer life span. There are a lot of third world countries out there more pleasant to visit than some shothole town with a confederate flag and a Dollar General on Main Street.
Meanwhile, red state America will continue to get distracted by Koch Brother financed racism and homophobia and wonder when the plant their grandfathers worked at is reopening.
Christ, how much elitist smug can be packed into one post?
FWIW, I think Nate’s analysis was probably among the best. There were individual calls that were more accurate in terms of getting closer to the actual results, but that was likely attributable to being a ‘homer’ and predicting that your team will win the Super Bowl even when all the odds indicate otherwise. Of course your team could still win but the data at the time suggested it wasn’t a likely outcome.
Nate made the most accurate call that could have been made at the time: Clinton was likely to win based on available polling data, but he also left open the possibility that Trump could win, which he ultimately did of course.
The media, and its based coverage and instant updates on what is sometimes fake news or merely just alleged news stirs the pot 24 x 7. It’s not healthy.
An independent fact oriented major news station is needed that treats both sides with class is badly needed.
Why does 60% against Trump stat suffer from aggregation errors, but 40% for Trump stat does not?
Not all media is created equal. Lumping Fox, Breitbart & RT in with BBC, CNN, WaPo, NYT, etc… may feel good but is not accurate and actually reveals a lack of ability or willingness to distinguish between biased news and fact-based news.
Quality, fact-based news reporting exists in abundance. The onus is on the consumer to seek it out and recognize the difference between biased spin and fact.
Just out of curiosity, have you read this Vox article yet? “Donald Trump and the rise of Tribal Epistemology”. It’s a bit of a long read, but it addresses this important issue, and I think you should really give it a read.
Thanks for that Vox link, BPC.