I was curious about who “McLaughlin & Associates” was. They’re apparently a tiny polling group (if they actually do polling of any kind which I doubt) because I can’t find any info about them not published by themselves.
But I believe it’s run by this guy:
https://x.com/jmclghln?lang=en
He’s worked directly for Trump since 2011. So any “poll” from them can be given the same weight as any social media post from Trump.
In other words, it’s just lies.
Yes, it would have looked immodest of Donald if his Approval rating hit the top of the chart.
Those are positively Soviet Union poll numbers. Even Putin knows to keep the range 93-95% because they live in a Parliamentary democracy.
This is why we can’t have modern conservatives on this board. It’s a political philosophy based entirely on lies.
Also look how “somewhat” appears twice in the results with different numbers. I wonder if someone asked an AI to generate a poll showing overwhelmingly favorable approval of Trump’s job performance.
And the random date range above it that’s not in chronological order and also has a date in August for no reason.
(Seriously, no joke, my theory is that this is what “McLaughlin & Associates” actually did.)
I read that as breaking down Approve into two sub-categories: Strongly and Somewhat; the same for Disapprove. The 99% Approve consists of 95% Strongly approve and 4% Somewhat approve responses. The 1% that Disapprove only do so Somewhat and none disapprove Strongly.
I want to know why they chose red and pink as the Approve colors. It seems like something a Communist would do.
Sorry for the confusion - we don’t do anything with opioid addiction, we have an accountant who manages several nonprofit accounts and one of them runs an opioid program, so she was talking about submitting justifications for another agency.
We operate an organization that provides multiple services to survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault, including a transitional housing program. On Thursday we were notified that we, too, must start submitting these justifications. So, our accountant has her hands full.
If that isn’t cruelty being the point, I don’t know what is.
Great Nigel poll, btw.
According to the article, it was a poll at CPAC poll from back in February before he started fucking the economy up with his tariff threats. So not exactly a representative sample, nor particularly relevant to today.
Seriously, do even care anymore about the word noises issuing out of this blortfest? If the Felon Administration makes a statement, just declare it bullshit deflection and go deal with shit that matters.
Here’s part of the rub, however: Hillary Clinton was not a very good Secretary of State, and Barack Obama wasn’t that great a President, both of which are part of what made Donald Trump’s ascension into the Oval Office possible, in the first place.
If it was in February then why are the dates:
2/17
2/18
3/19
2/20
2/21
2/22
8/22
3/23
2/24
2/25
But they are arranged like this:
Approve Strongly Smwt. Disapprove Smwt. Strongly Unsure
It makes no sense. It’s not arranged in a logical spectrum. Everything but “approve”, “disapprove”, and “unsure” is ambiguous.
And as previously pointed out, the upper bound of the scale is 120% when any result greater than 100 is impossible.
I don’t think a human made this. Even a biased poll would at least be presented in a logical manner. I seriously think an AI generated this and nobody bothered to do more than give a cursory glance before uploading it.
I’m not defending it; I’ve just seen enough data visualizations like that bar graph that I think I know what they were going for. Their Approve catagory is red then they shift to pink (or a lighter red) for the sub-catagories. It looks like Disapprove is blue but the bar just has a height of 1% so it’s hard to see its color. I would bet the disapprove Smwt. bar is colored light blue. I think they switched the order of the Disapprove sub-catagories to rank them highest to lowest going left to right (1% then 0%).
I think it’s a poorly done data visualization but not necessarily done by AI. For me, it’s more likely done by someone with natural stupidity.
To steal Deep Throat’s line about the Nixon admin and apply it to Trump, his admin, and his MAGA supporters in general: “these are not very bright guys”.
Don’t buy it for a second. I’ve dealt with graphs my whole adult life. Nobody arranges things like that.
That still doesn’t explain all the other discrepancies.
It’s possible that they outsourced it to someone who isn’t proficient with English, or maybe they were drunk, but we live in a world where even lawyers use AI for made-up stuff.
The AI explanation seems the simplest one given the laziness and greed of the people involved.
Well, we are talking Trump supporters here.
Yeah, it’s very possible.
You don’t necessarily need artificial stupidity when the real thing is right there.
Now now, it’s possible they think non-profits should not be funded by the government. That’s not explicitly “destroy the nonprofits” even if it is the outcome.
It’s more a game of “all these grants were awarded for dubious reasons like DEI, so our mandate is to make them justify their expenses”. Basically not caring how the system works, just defining it how they get to intrude.
“These were technically awarded by haven’t been paid, so we have the right to verify the expenses are legitimate by the new administration mandates.”
Yeah, it’s open hostility to these groups and agendas of these nonprofits and their grants, so the nonprofits failing may just be a “happy bonus” to not funding those activities.
Remember, this is all “waste, fraud, and abuse.” By their definition.
I can tell you, having been around then. The Protestant fear was that JFK would be taking orders from the Pope.
The only other Catholic to become a presidential nominee was Al Smith, the Catholic governor of New York, in the election of 1928.
“[He] lost disastrously in the midst of overt anti-Catholic campaigning,” O’Toole explains. “As soon as Smith was elected president, his opponent said [Smith] was going to build a tunnel between Rome and Washington so it would be easier for the pope to get his instructions to President Smith — preposterous of course…there were actually campaign flyers that said that that was, that was going to happen. And that was the kind of opposition that Kennedy faced when he first ran for president.”
…
But the anti-Kennedy, anti-Catholic wave continued. Protestant groups in Kentucky and Michigan announced their opposition to Kennedy. Methodist, Baptist, and Pentecostal ministers pledged to oppose the election of a Catholic to the presidency with all powers at their command.Kennedy couldn’t have been more pointed in response, when he spoke to a group of ministers in Houston that fall.
…
“I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic party’s candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me,” Kennedy told Greater Houston Ministerial Association.
'I Am Not The Catholic Candidate For President': How Faith Shaped JFK And His 1960 Campaign | WBUR News
That speech,
https://www.npr.org/2007/12/05/16920600/transcript-jfks-speech-on-his-religion
I now want to ask ChatGPT to answer in the style of a very drunk person.
Thanks for the entertainment!
I asked ChatGPT to make me a chart with those categories and values and I got a pie chart. Although it does work, I don’t think that’s the best representation of the data. Everyone knows that a truly accurate pie chart can only have two categories: 1) pie not eaten and 2) pie eaten.