Trump's one-month approval ratings are lowest ever

What does that matter? California has lots of people. Why does it need an asterisk? Texas has a lot of people too… does that mean Trump’s margin in Texas shouldn’t be counted? Ridiculous to pretend that certain margins are more or less important than others because the states or cities are large.

This is a different argument (which isn’t with me).

Someone pointed out that the election popular vote was, essentially, a secret anonymous poll (which you asked for), and Hillary “won” this poll. You then, for some reason, dismissed this because it included California and big cities.

And you’re still doing it. It’s nonsense. Californians and California count as much as any other state’s voters, when discussing the popular vote (or its relevance as a stand-in for an anonymous poll). No asterisk, no differing treatment, no such bullshit.

Are you still seriously thinking that Trump can somehow be “handled”? That he is capable at all of change or improvement?

Well, I admire your optimism in this regard. Let me know how that works out for you.

That actually was Trump’s campaign strategy - and it still is since taking office.

I’m not even sure what this is supposed to mean.

Since he won the secret anonymous poll in a few key Dem states…states…I’m not sure what your argument is.

That he won a secret anonymous poll of the whole country. Which you said would be “the only accurate poll”.

His twittering is down at least :stuck_out_tongue:

You want to ignore the states that voted for Clinton (you misspelled Hillary, by the way), because so many people there voted for Clinton? That argument makes sense to you?

The biggest different between Gallup and Rasmussen is that Gallup allows a “no opinion” response. Rasmussen requires you to choose at least “Somewhat approve” or “Somewhat disapprove”

Also Rasmussen did still have Obama at +15 at this point in his career. They have Trump at +2.

So you’re saying that some voters are more important than others.

Mi, Pa and Wi voters turned out to be and I’m a born and bred Californian.
The problem with the popular vote argument is that it is concentrated in one state and ignores the fact that Ms Clinton lost the popular vote in several states that she should have won.

It’s not concentrated on one state at all. That’s the benefit of talking about popular vote - every voter has the exact same influence.

It’s you who’s focusing on a state.

If California should have an asterisk, then why not Texas? Why not the deep south as a region? Why does California alone get this special treatment?

Wat?

The popular vote works like this: we take all the voters in the entire United States who voted for Clinton. And then we take all the voters in the United States who voted for Trum. And then we add them up. And then we throw out the votes from people who live in CA because so many of them voted for Clinton. And then Trump won. Math!

Because of the 3-5 million illegals who voted there. D’uh!

I’ll put our illegals against Texas’s any day!

No, it’s because Clinton won 61% to 31%, so the state clearly voted wrong and should be ignored.

South Dakota, by contrast, Trump won 61% to 31%, so the state clearly voted right and should be included.

Basically if you’re in a state that voted wrong you should feel embarrassed and your vote shouldn’t be counted. There’s too many people like you there, so you should all move.

The electoral college gig has the states elect the president, rather than the folks in NY and CA.
I think it is an effort to serve the interests of the people in each state, rather than the states that have the most residents.

I lived through Nixon and the Hushes, I’ll live through Trump.

From another thread:

If anyone can hit a new all-time low, it’s Trump! A couple more batshit-insane press conferences and the bottom’s the limit!

Clinton won New York City by 1.5 million votes. That half her popular vote total right there.

So what? Trump won Texas and the Deep South by a very large margin. Why does it matter?