r/politics collapses into fighting over what Trump's real approval rating is

24  2017-02-04 by Sardonic_Deity

19 comments

Neat.

Snapshots:

  1. This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp, ceddit.com, archive.is*

I am a bot. (Info / Contact)

I can't believe his approval rating is as high as it is. WTF America? Over 40% are looking at this clown show and thinking "he's doing great!"

Bitch 60% of the county voted for him just over month ago and you are shocked that he has a 45% approval rating?

He actually only won with 47% of the votes, and only 58% of Americans voted. So only really a quarter of the country voted for him so pretty surprised that his approval rating is so high!

That is pretty fucking sad. Democracy was a mistake.

Same polls that told you Hillary was going to win in a landslide?

Not one single poll said that.

98.2% Huffpo odds calculated from Polls

One poll said that. Ever heard of an outlier? I guess science is hard, huh?

God Bless Politics

CNN/ORC International poll

This sample includes 502 interviews among landline respondents and 500 interviews among cell phone respondents.

A total of 1,002 adults were interviewed by telephone nationwide by live interviewers calling both landline and cell phones. Among the entire sample, 29% described themselves as Democrats, 25% described themselves as Republicans, and 45% described themselves as independents or members of another party

/u/The_Reason_Polls_Didn't_Show_Trump_Winning

Except your argument doesn't make sense. A poll suggesting a high chance of a win doesn't suggest a high chance of a landslide.

You could have a high chance of a win by a very slim margin. Also - the Huffpost stuff was polls of polls iirc.

Except your argument doesn't make sense.

"my argument"

Everyone involved in the argument is retarded, that's why I'm posting it here.

No, they don't. But I remember most liberals declaring that the polls were obviously wrong in the other direction, that women were terrified to stand up to their husbands and vote for Hilldog, and that this would result in a blowout win for her.

It never made any sense. It was very obvious which candidate's approval was undercounted, and why. But it was a common argument among lefties.

before this conversation goes any farther, can we define the difference between polls and models because it's pissing me off.

You are asking for a high degree of nuance given the audience...

Polls don't predict winners, they just tell you how votes will likely fall. The polls said Hilary would get more votes and she did.

Actually all of her additional votes were in California, the polls had her winning state by state. There were sampling errors and probably a Trump equivalent of the shy-Tory effect.

In conclusion: Build wall!

Polls have difficulty in such granular issues. In broad strokes, they were correct. Don't over estimate them, don't undercut them, they were what they were.

The polls don't get that granular.

I'm glad I could show you that you're wrong.

Uh, yes they do. State by state polls are all anyone was tracking.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Many local polls were infrequent and... not great in their method.

Sorry you don't understand that.

The polls, but I just realized this is a reply from drama and not politics.

The jews manipulated the polls and all modern Academia is a remnant of a soviet propaganda program.