• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Quinnipiac poll: President Trump's job approval sinks to 33%

Mycroft said:
The fact is, the only indication we have of Trump's actual approval is the attendance at his rallies...though it's limited to specific localities. We have NO other reliable indicators.
Click to expand...

WOW... Just WOW

laughing-gifs-jonah-jameson.gif
 
Mycroft said:
The combination of over and undersampling gives a potential Democratic bias of 16%. That is a BIG bias. Such a poll cannot be considered representative of the population.

I've already explained why the Gallup Party Affiliation results has NO bias. Go back and read my post if you don't understand.

I've presented data. All you've presented is opinions and feeble excuses.

Look...obviously you won't change your mind since those bogus polls tell you what you want to believe. I prefer unbiased facts. I know you'll want your "last word". You can have it. I'm done with you.

You are dismissed.
Click to expand...

You have, yet again, failed to support the absolutely ridiculous claim of 16% Democratic overrepresentation. Combining your so called "Democratic overrepresentation" nets you eleven, not sixteen percent which would leave Trump's approval rating at 44%, assuming ofc that all underrepresented voters would have chosen Trump. You've undermined your own argument about my relying on "opinions" by saying that you know how many Democratic voters were oversampled by.

So far, you have utterly failed to rebuke my "feeble excuses." You've constantly shifted the goalposts throughout this debate to support your biased, unsupported view on "bogus" polls. Face it. You have no case, end of story. The only "bogus" thing here is your apparent claim to any knowledge of statistics. Come back with that and I might give you a second chance.
 
Casca XV said:
Quinnipiac was on of the polsters who said Hillary would win by a landslide.

Rasmussen was one of the most accurate of all the Mainstream pollsters. They consistently have President Trump at 45% to 50%. About the same as Obama and around 10% higher than Bill Clinton at this same time.
Click to expand...

Again, an election poll, particularly a US presidential election poll is extremely complicated and far more prone to error than opinion polls, which taken in aggregate give you a pretty good view of people's opinion. That said, the preponderance of US election polls had Hillary up 2-3% nationally, which was the final result.

Rasmussen is actually one of the crudest and most inaccurate of opinion polls for a variety of reasons. They only use telephone AND they only take Approve or Disapprove; they throw out the undecideds. If you look at Rasumussen over the past month there has been a 12% point swing (in one month) showing Trump approval from 38% on the low to 50% on the high. Sorry, but that defies common sense.

Trump Approval Index History - Rasmussen Reports™

Sorry, but that swing makes no sense.... especially since most polls have been far more consistent in showing Trump*s steady slide.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

The fact is that a super majority of American's do not approve of this president.

...and, while we are admonishing you for all your wrong impressions, let us also correct you that at this point in the Obama presidency, his approval rating was in the mid 50's. (you know, about as many people approved of Obama as now disapproves of Trump.)

Presidential Approval Ratings -- Barack Obama | Gallup Historical Data & Trends
 
upsideguy said:
Again, an election poll, particularly a US presidential election poll is extremely complicated and far more prone to error than opinion polls, which taken in aggregate give you a pretty good view of people's opinion. That said, the preponderance of US election polls had Hillary up 2-3% nationally, which was the final result.

Rasmussen is actually one of the crudest and most inaccurate of opinion polls for a variety of reasons. They only use telephone AND they only take Approve or Disapprove; they throw out the undecideds. If you look at Rasumussen over the past month there has been a 12% point swing (in one month) showing Trump approval from 38% on the low to 50% on the high. Sorry, but that defies common sense.

Trump Approval Index History - Rasmussen Reportsâ„¢

Sorry, but that swing makes no sense.... especially since most polls have been far more consistent in showing Trump*s steady slide.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

The fact is that a super majority of American's do not approve of this president.

...and, while we are admonishing you for all your wrong impressions, let us also correct you that at this point in the Obama presidency, his approval rating was in the mid 50's. (you know, about as many people approved of Obama as now disapproves of Trump.)

Presidential Approval Ratings -- Barack Obama | Gallup Historical Data & Trends
Click to expand...

Rasmussen crude? Sure, but because they only poll likely registered voters they were the most accurate of the MSM polls in the on the last election.

The polls that are hardest on Trump now were predicting Hillary Would win by a lot more than 2-3% and none said her entire lead would be from California. Considering what we now know of California voter registration its pretty obvious that she did not win an honest popular vote. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...d.html&usg=AFQjCNH-o33QTfvcKB2hyjNI9KcLTGIxzA

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...eport/&usg=AFQjCNG6kQLQjUrbrwI4PynzG6LmLJk6vA

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...e.html&usg=AFQjCNHOpfE88XJ-uLOyNgv4q4DKQQBAjQ

As I have said in other posts: Since 2010 Democrats have lost so many elections that they are the weakest they have been in almost 100 years. But the MSM polls during that time period were consistently predicted that this trend would be the opposite.

I have been a Political News Junkie for over 20 years. Aside from a couple of FOX news polls saying Romney had a small lead over Obama I have never seen an MSM poll that error-ed in favor of the GOP.

According to your own Gallup Obama's Average approval was 47.9%

Rasmussen daily tracking: Obama achieved 42% twice in 8 years, most of the time he was in the 20% and 30%. There was never a 12 point swing, there was seldom more than a 2 point swing see for yourself. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...istory&usg=AFQjCNHvicbDDVDpJw4ohznIb4BAvktzkg

several on line polls were actually more accurate that standard polls in the last election. As a result CNN refuses to do them any more. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...h-curl&usg=AFQjCNFoyqlKek-4iqnzUeZK-wNpqjYtLQ


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...564575&usg=AFQjCNGCCP_OyE87uq9SHcBK5ze6u2b5Ew

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...2.html&usg=AFQjCNFs64jLe5Jk5_eBS2d7PgswEXoAVw
 
Casca XV said:
Rasmussen crude? Sure, but because they only poll likely registered voters they were the most accurate of the MSM polls in the on the last election.

The polls that are hardest on Trump now were predicting Hillary Would win by a lot more than 2-3% and none said her entire lead would be from California. Considering what we now know of California voter registration its pretty obvious that she did not win an honest popular vote. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...d.html&usg=AFQjCNH-o33QTfvcKB2hyjNI9KcLTGIxzA

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...eport/&usg=AFQjCNG6kQLQjUrbrwI4PynzG6LmLJk6vA

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...e.html&usg=AFQjCNHOpfE88XJ-uLOyNgv4q4DKQQBAjQ

As I have said in other posts: Since 2010 Democrats have lost so many elections that they are the weakest they have been in almost 100 years. But the MSM polls during that time period were consistently predicted that this trend would be the opposite.

I have been a Political News Junkie for over 20 years. Aside from a couple of FOX news polls saying Romney had a small lead over Obama I have never seen an MSM poll that error-ed in favor of the GOP.

According to your own Gallup Obama's Average approval was 47.9%

Rasmussen daily tracking: Obama achieved 42% twice in 8 years, most of the time he was in the 20% and 30%. There was never a 12 point swing, there was seldom more than a 2 point swing see for yourself. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...istory&usg=AFQjCNHvicbDDVDpJw4ohznIb4BAvktzkg

several on line polls were actually more accurate that standard polls in the last election. As a result CNN refuses to do them any more. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...h-curl&usg=AFQjCNFoyqlKek-4iqnzUeZK-wNpqjYtLQ


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...564575&usg=AFQjCNGCCP_OyE87uq9SHcBK5ze6u2b5Ew

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...2.html&usg=AFQjCNFs64jLe5Jk5_eBS2d7PgswEXoAVw
Click to expand...

So you are using RT (a Russian News Agency) as a source for your position? Pretty uncredible. It supports delusional perspectives on America (such as suggesting the Clinton lost the popular vote). Moreover your written summary of the Rasmussen tables on Obama's results suggest you don't even know how to read a simple table. You appeared to have confused "strongly supported" with "supported". Let me help you: Obama's approval on the daily tracking during the first six months of his presidency (relevant to compare with Trumpty) was never below 47%. This compares to Trump who has never been (nor ever will be) above 47% (except in Rasmussen). Rasmussen is crude poll as evidenced by its on inconsistent results. There is no logical reason for a 12 point swing (up then down then up then down) one month. This is an inconsisten with EVERY other poll available, which has shown a reasonably consistent downtick in Trump*s approval.

Sorry pal, you have much to learn about intelligent debate, including how to appropriately source your information and soundly develop a logical argument. It appears you scour the Internet for political porn; stuff that titilates your active imagination.

Look me up when you improve your game.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
So you are using RT (a Russian News Agency) as a source for your position? Pretty uncredible. It supports delusional perspectives on America (such as suggesting the Clinton lost the popular vote). Moreover your written summary of the Rasmussen tables on Obama's results suggest you don't even know how to read a simple table. You appeared to have confused "strongly supported" with "supported". Let me help you: Obama's approval on the daily tracking during the first six months of his presidency (relevant to compare with Trumpty) was never below 47%. This compares to Trump who has never been (nor ever will be) above 47% (except in Rasmussen). Rasmussen is crude poll as evidenced by its on inconsistent results. There is no logical reason for a 12 point swing (up then down then up then down) one month. This is an inconsisten with EVERY other poll available, which has shown a reasonably consistent downtick in Trump*s approval.

Sorry pal, you have much to learn about intelligent debate, including how to appropriately source your information and soundly develop a logical argument. It appears you scour the Internet for political porn; stuff that titilates your active imagination.

Look me up when you improve your game.
Click to expand...

Pro-tip, if you want stop constantly getting beat by me or someone like me don't just discount the source, verify the info. Aside from maybe MSNBC there is no news source that has been more discredited than CNN. Yet if I can verify the Info I will use them from time to time. below are a half dozen sources that aren't RT

So you keep relying on landline polls from media that not only hates Trump but probably wont exist by his reelection. With an actual good economy after 8 years and a DNC with nothing good to offer he is going to get reelected.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...y.html&usg=AFQjCNFjV7IacuSrrgf3qmAiQCeJp05-TQ

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...oters/&usg=AFQjCNH338hvJ2tERBhNamhCk7RjU5Rv0g

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...eport/&usg=AFQjCNG6kQLQjUrbrwI4PynzG6LmLJk6vA

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...tizens&usg=AFQjCNGkjHnaIzCAeX44xjtgSPGzW1JcmQ

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...igible&usg=AFQjCNF8Q2dZk9ufyGuZItcWzoO15zqSXQ
 
Casca XV said:
Quinnipiac was on of the polsters who said Hillary would win by a landslide.

Rasmussen was one of the most accurate of all the Mainstream pollsters. They consistently have President Trump at 45% to 50%. About the same as Obama and around 10% higher than Bill Clinton at this same time.
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem to be true at all. Rasmussen has had Trump at 45% or higher exactly one day in the past month.

And while Rasmussen's national poll was accurate last year, with a Hillary +2%, their track record is pretty poor, being the among the worst overall in 2012 and 2010.

I don't like their tracking poll very much either. They don't give out their methodology so I can't pinpoint exactly what they do wrong, but it seems unlikely for instance that Trump was at -12% a couple weeks ago, -24% a week after, and -8% a week after that. It's been bouncing around unpredictably since Trump became president, although it has settled down somewhat at a -10% to -20% the last month or two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom