Fox News Poll: Trump approval down, voters support special counsel on Russial

[Conservative]

I just wonder where the "good" polls and reporting are going to come from, now that the alt-right's last MSM refuge is even sharing the bad news...

Rasmussen has a much better poll regarding Trump as most of the negative polls are ALL voters not registered voters and most of those people seem to be a lot like you, clueless about the legal aspects of this case as well as a lack of understanding of basic civics and the Constitution

 

[haymarket]

"American voters disagree with President Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey, think the dismissal was for self-serving reasons, and approve of a special counsel being appointed to investigate Russian government efforts to influence the election and the Trump campaign. In addition, a majority opposes the Republican plan to replace Obamacare.

That’s according to a new Fox News Poll of registered voters nationwide.

The last month took a toll on the president’s ratings. The poll finds 40 percent of voters approve of the job Trump is doing, down from 45 percent last month. Disapproval is up 5 points to 53 percent.

Some of the drop in approval comes from Republicans, as just 81 percent approve of the president. GOP approval had been between 84-87 percent during Trump’s first three months in office. Plus, his approval among whites without a college degree went from 62 percent last month to 53 percent now. Working-class whites were a key voting bloc for him in the election (66 percent backed Trump according to the Fox News Exit Poll)."

Source Article: Fox News Poll: Trump approval down, voters support special counsel on Russial

Source Poll: Fox News Poll: May 24, 2017

--

Despite the article's headline and the paragraphs I excerpted above showcasing the hot-button media topics de jour, there's actually a lot of interesting additional details in this article, possibly even more interesting considering it's a conservative pro-Trump source.

One that strikes me is the fall in the President's approval amongst non-college educated (working-class) Caucasians from 62% to 53%. Another, while still pretty solid, is a slip in the President's support from a high of 87% to a current 81% amongst Republicans.

Somewhat surprisingly to me, almost half of the Republicans (46%) approve of a special counsel to investigate Trump, but then surprising me in the other direction 56% believe Trump was reasonable in sharing intelligence with the Russians!

Also perhaps a sign of concern for the President's re-election prospects, the President's support amongst Indies fell from 42% to 34%. Trump received 46% of the Indie vote in 2016.

But there are some positives for Mr. Trump: 90% of the Trump supporters and 84% of the Republicans believe the current turbulence is "what change feels like".

There's also more in the way of general economics and foreign policy that's pretty interesting, showing that despite the media gloom & political brouhaha the mood of the country is getting more positive in general terms - particularly economically.

Enjoy!

but .... but .... but ..... what about Rasmussen?????? :shock:

I think they have Trump being approved by 134% of the public...... more or less. :mrgreen:

 

[Mycroft]

Shrug . . . you, Mycroft, do not accept the numbers, not because of the sampling, but because it slaps your confirmation bias in the face. The American people appear to be waiting for the other shoe to drop on Trump.

Why do you insist on making assumptions about me that are based on nothing?

Dude...you are new here, but you've already shown me...and others...that you have absolutely nothing to contribute to this forum.

You are dismissed.

 

[OlNate]

Rasmussen has a much better poll regarding Trump as most of the negative polls are ALL voters not registered voters and most of those people seem to be a lot like you, clueless about the legal aspects of this case as well as a lack of understanding of basic civics and the Constitution

Ah, Conservative, always great to talk to you, pal... I'm actually glad you came along, my self esteem was a notch and a half too high this morning, your random insults were just what I was hoping for. lol...

And I'm glad you were able to find a source that gave you the warm and fuzzies, as clearly your self esteem requires a little bolstering. Forgive me, though, if I don't share in the koolaid, when the first thing I find when I Google "Rasmussen bias" is:

"After the 2010 midterm elections, Silver concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver's model."

lol...but hey, whatever works!

 

[Praxas]

Rasmussen has a much better poll regarding Trump as most of the negative polls are ALL voters not registered voters and most of those people seem to be a lot like you, clueless about the legal aspects of this case as well as a lack of understanding of basic civics and the Constitution

Says the person who doesn't understand basic civics and said Obama lost the white house even though he was elected twice. Healer, heal thyself first before you start throwing stones Con.

 

[Conservative]

Ah, Conservative, always great to talk to you, pal... I'm actually glad you came along, my self esteem was a notch and a half too high this morning, your random insults were just what I was hoping for. lol...

And I'm glad you were able to find a source that gave you the warm and fuzzies, as clearly your self esteem requires a little bolstering. Forgive me, though, if I don't share in the koolaid, when the first thing I find when I Google "Rasmussen bias" is:

"After the 2010 midterm elections, Silver concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver's model."

lol...but hey, whatever works!

Cute retort but typical of a Progressive who puts their hopes that Trump will be removed from office because that is what you want to believe. Like many you buy the rhetoric and ignore the actual results. I know this is hard for you but Obama left us with a 1.6% GDP growth in 2016, a 9.4% U-6 rate, and a 19.9 trillion dollar debt. any idea what that number is today after the Trump EO's promoting business, removing regulations, and meeting with foreign governments? Of course not, you prefer to focus on media reports, trumped up charges that if that is all I would read i wouldn't support Trump either. The difference is I see the bigger picture and what is truly important, economic growth, jobs, and national security.

Whether you like it or not Trump is delivering on his promises 4 months into office. I call your attention to Obama's first four months in office or even his first two years in office with a Democratic Congress. you see, results are irrelevant to a Progressive for if they were you wouldn't be a progressive

 

[JamesBY]

Why do you insist on making assumptions about me that are based on nothing?

Dude...you are new here, but you've already shown me...and others...that you have absolutely nothing to contribute to this forum.

You are dismissed.

That you don't like the sampling does not mean it is nothing. I am here because some, such as you, wander aimlessly in the political wasteland, and you can use some help.

The fact is this: Trump stumbled out of the gate on Inauguration Day and has been slipping traction every day. The old saw, "things will get better", is not going to fit Trump or his supporters.

 

[Conservative]

Says the person who doesn't understand basic civics and said Obama lost the white house even though he was elected twice. Healer, heal thyself first before you start throwing stones Con.

Obama said it on the campaign trail that his legacy and record was on the ballot and thus he did lose the WH FOR THE DEMOCRATS

 

[Praxas]

Obama said it on the campaign trail that his legacy and record was on the ballot and thus he did lose the WH FOR THE DEMOCRATS

And he was incorrect because also on the ballet were Hillary's past, baggage as well as the DNC actions as well. But you like to leave those out because it doesn't go with your rhetoric. Fact is Obama one TWO terms for president and lost nothing. Learn basic civics unlike most Trumpbots before you start spouting off **** Con.

 

[Conservative]

And he was incorrect because also on the ballet were Hillary's past, baggage as well as the DNC actions as well. But you like to leave those out because it doesn't go with your rhetoric. Fact is Obama one TWO terms for president and lost nothing. Learn basic civics unlike most Trumpbots before you start spouting off **** Con.

I said the same thing about Bush but of course that is ignored. Both Presidents lost the WH for THEIR party although Bush never said his record and legacy were on the ballot. What you want to ignore are the Congressional elections on which your candidates ran on the Obama record and lost. Fact is Democrats ran on the Obama record and lost thus he lost the election for his party because of his record. Basic logic and common sense something you apparently don't understand

 

[OlNate]

Cute retort but typical of a Progressive who puts their hopes that Trump will be removed from office because that is what you want to believe. Like many you buy the rhetoric and ignore the actual results. I know this is hard for you but Obama left us with a 1.6% GDP growth in 2016, a 9.4% U-6 rate, and a 19.9 trillion dollar debt. any idea what that number is today after the Trump EO's promoting business, removing regulations, and meeting with foreign governments? Of course not, you prefer to focus on media reports, trumped up charges that if that is all I would read i wouldn't support Trump either. The difference is I see the bigger picture and what is truly important, economic growth, jobs, and national security.

Whether you like it or not Trump is delivering on his promises 4 months into office. I call your attention to Obama's first four months in office or even his first two years in office with a Democratic Congress. you see, results are irrelevant to a Progressive for if they were you wouldn't be a progressive

Actually, rabid, brainless Trump supporters are irrelevant...lol...

TRUMP'S FIRST 100 DAYS: How they compare with Obama, Bush, Clinton - Business Insider

Maybe if you got your stats correct, people would take you seriously. For example, Obama left you with a 4.7%, not a 9.whatever you said. I'm a numbers guy, so I am actually up on what those numbers are now. I'm also smart enough to know that the foundation for all of that was not laid by your pretender president...though he certainly has enjoyed taking credit for them.

 

[Praxas]

I said the same thing about Bush but of course that is ignored. Both Presidents lost the WH for THEIR party although Bush never said his record and legacy were on the ballot. What you want to ignore are the Congressional elections on which your candidates ran on the Obama record and lost. Fact is Democrats ran on the Obama record and lost thus he lost the election for his party because of his record. Basic logic and common sense something you apparently don't understand

Again, Obama one twice and was unable to run a third. Learn basic civics. Had Obama run a third term he would have kicked Trump's ass for a third term. The fact is Hillary and the Dems were the fault for Hillary losing. Your rhetoric is ignored because it ignores the fact that Obama couldn't run so he lost NOTHING.

 

[Conservative]

Actually, rabid, brainless Trump supporters are irrelevant...lol...

TRUMP'S FIRST 100 DAYS: How they compare with Obama, Bush, Clinton - Business Insider

Maybe if you got your stats correct, people would take you seriously. For example, Obama left you with a 4.7%, not a 9.whatever you said. I'm a numbers guy, so I am actually up on what those numbers are now. I'm also smart enough to know that the foundation for all of that was not laid by your pretender president...though he certainly has enjoyed taking credit for them.

Interesting again how BLS, BEA, and Treasury data don't matter but a partisan out of context article does. It surely is irrelative to you that we had 211,000 jobs created last month and the U-6 is at pre recession levels and the debt is 100 billion less than it was when Trump took office. Suggest you call your sources and tell them that out of context data is much better than actual fiscal data.

 

[Conservative]

Again, Obama one twice and was unable to run a third. Learn basic civics. Had Obama run a third term he would have kicked Trump's ass for a third term. The fact is Hillary and the Dems were the fault for Hillary losing. Your rhetoric is ignored because it ignores the fact that Obama couldn't run so he lost NOTHING.

Yep, same as Bush but of course that doesn't matter and you are making a mountain out of a mole hill because you have nothing else. You know exactly what I meant but want to make an issue out of it

 

[OlNate]

Interesting again how BLS, BEA, and Treasury data don't matter but a partisan out of context article does. It surely is irrelative to you that we had 211,000 jobs created last month and the U-6 is at pre recession levels and the debt is 100 billion less than it was when Trump took office. Suggest you call your sources and tell them that out of context data is much better than actual fiscal data.

Hey, I totally get that you like BLS, BEA, and Treasury data - they're just numbers, with no context or explanation, allowing you to create your own. I like them for that reason too...I was just looking for a summary article, because there's a limit to the amount of research I'm willing to do for this conversation, you being so sure of yourself and all.... But if you think you're going to convince me that Trump has actually done anything but reap the rewards of the dividends Obama's policy and foundation building has given him, you're underestimating your audience....lol...

 

[Conservative]

Hey, I totally get that you like BLS, BEA, and Treasury data - they're just numbers, with no context or explanation, allowing you to create your own. I like them for that reason too...I was just looking for a summary article, because there's a limit to the amount of research I'm willing to do for this conversation, you being so sure of yourself and all.... But if you think you're going to convince me that Trump has actually done anything but reap the rewards of the dividends Obama's policy and foundation building has given him, you're underestimating your audience....lol...

There is total context in those numbers but you wouldn't know that unless you did research and you prefer someone else giving you data you want to believe. You think Trump's 32 EO's had any benefit to the economy and call that a negative?

I know I will never convince you because you don't want to believe the actual data plus the fact that he has only been in office 4 months. In four months Obama got his stimulus passed and took employment from 142 million to 139 million two years later. Of course that doesn't resonate and isn't in the article. What is in the article is approval rating and if I paid any attention to the media I wouldn't like Trump either but I research and I will hold him accountable for the issues that matter most, economic growth, economic job creation, national security, and debt management.

I will give Obama credit though for giving us Trump as his 1.6% GDP growth in 2016, 9.4% U-6 rate, 9.4 trillion added to the debt, consumer confidence, number of people dependent on the govt. and of course ACA and that incredible national security record. You see you buy headlines and ignore context because the negative headlines are what you want to believe

Put some context into your summary article and get back to me. Again what were the Trump EO's and is that a bad thing?

 

[OlNate]

There is total context in those numbers but you wouldn't know that unless you did research and you prefer someone else giving you data you want to believe. You think Trump's 32 EO's had any benefit to the economy and call that a negative?

I know I will never convince you because you don't want to believe the actual data plus the fact that he has only been in office 4 months. In four months Obama got his stimulus passed and took employment from 142 million to 139 million two years later. Of course that doesn't resonate and isn't in the article. What is in the article is approval rating and if I paid any attention to the media I wouldn't like Trump either but I research and I will hold him accountable for the issues that matter most, economic growth, economic job creation, national security, and debt management.

I will give Obama credit though for giving us Trump as his 1.6% GDP growth in 2016, 9.4% U-6 rate, 9.4 trillion added to the debt, consumer confidence, number of people dependent on the govt. and of course ACA and that incredible national security record. You see you buy headlines and ignore context because the negative headlines are what you want to believe

Put some context into your summary article and get back to me. Again what were the Trump EO's and is that a bad thing?

sigh...ok, man, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt...let's discuss context. First of all, if you want me to take you seriously, you at least have to acknowledge that Obama took over during the worst economic crisis since the Stock Market crash in the 20's, from another GOP president who's Mensa invitation must have gotten lost in the mail. Blaming Obama for that is like blaming Bush for Katrina (the storm, not the aftermath, that was on him). He also inherited a garbage war that should never have been initiated. Compared to that, Trump inherited a vanilla chocolate sundae with whipped cream and a cherry on top. Can we at least begin with that as being mutually understood?

 

[Conservative]

sigh...ok, man, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt...let's discuss context. First of all, if you want me to take you seriously, you at least have to acknowledge that Obama took over during the worst economic crisis since the Stock Market crash in the 20's, from another GOP president who's Mensa invitation must have gotten lost in the mail. Blaming Obama for that is like blaming Bush for Katrina (the storm, not the aftermath, that was on him). He also inherited a garbage war that should never have been initiated. Compared to that, Trump inherited a vanilla chocolate sundae with whipped cream and a cherry on top. Can we at least begin with that as being mutually understood?

Yes, he took over an economy that he and his fellow democrats helped create and it was TARP that recapitalized the banks and brought us out of the recession. If you bothered to got to any reputable site the economy started improving AFTER TARP but not after the Obama stimulus

https://www.forbes.com/sites/merril...cause-of-congressional-deadlock/#7b4b8f697154

Apparently you lack basic understanding of leadership and how this was the worst recovery of any recession in history showing Obama's lack of leadership. You see actual results don't support your position including an 842 billion dollar stimulus enacted when employment was 142 million and went to 139 million two years later. Discouraged workers increased, part time for economic reasons increased and the fact remains it was an opportunity lost by Obama who lost the House on 2010 because of the economy, failed to regain it in 2012, and then lost the Congress in 2014. That speaks volumes about the Obama legacy and results.

 

[Chomsky]

One of the biggest reasons for the drop is independents. At the end of January independents approved of Trump 40/34 with the rest in the unsure or undecided column. Today using RCP averages, not just one poll those numbers have dropped to 36/48 approval/disapproval among independents. This doesn't surprise me. It should have been expected by all.

I think the high approval numbers at the end of January were nothing more than the non-affiliated giving Trump a chance. Even then 26% of independents were on the fence, unsure, undecided. Today 16% are undecided. Trump never had independents, they never liked him to begin with. Sure, Trump won the independent vote last November 46-42 over Clinton. But 54% of all independents disliked both major party candidates. 67% of all independents disliked Trump while 70% disliked Clinton. So Trump won the independent vote, not that they liked him or wanted him to win. Trump was just a bit less disliked than Clinton. Without Clinton around, the dislike factor is coming back into play and is beginning to show up in the polls in the disapproval numbers of Trump. Watch for them to go higher and higher as more independents come off the fence.

I think this is pretty accurate.

Also the turnout last year was moderate over-all in general, whereas the subsegment of Trump's supporters were highly motivated. This essentially means the Trump segment were over-represented at the voting booth - this time. As you said, next time if the Dems happen to run a popular candidate the Trump supporters will have a tougher hoe to row.

 

[Chomsky]

but .... but .... but ..... what about Rasmussen?????? :shock:

I think they have Trump being approved by 134% of the public...... more or less. :mrgreen:

Yes, but we have some here like Vesper rightly pointing-out that Rasmussen was the most accurate major polling organization in the 2016 cycle. I think that's a counter argument worth exploring.

But after examining that argument, it becomes clear Trump has fallen by 12 points in Rasmussen's own polling. So Rasmussen is seeing the same trends as the rest of the polls, but they assign Trump a better absolute quantitative value. That ameliorates some of the other polls' doom and gloom, but does not change the basic premise of Trump's decaying situation.

But I do think we have to accept the possibility of Rasmussen's validity, due to their successful track record concerning Trump.

 

[JamesBY]

This is hard for you, Conservative, but BHO is not President.

BHO "took over an economy that he and his fellow democrats helped" the GOP majority to create. The Tarp and the Stimulus (both together) helped get the economy going.

Now Trump wants to add 10 trillion to the deficit.

You want Trump to be like Obama.

 

[OlNate]

That speaks volumes about the Obama legacy and results.

But not the 4.7% unemployment rate and rebounded economy (even at a lower GDP % growth than standard) he handed over to your lord and savior donald trump... Ok, so no to the reasonable discussion, I guess, as apparently you aren't interested in hearing anything but the echo of your own voice, and lack basic understanding of manners or how to have a conversation without hurling insults. From what I can see, the only legacy Trump has created so far is embarrassing himself and America, and working on his golf swing. Any economic wins would be on the shoulders of Obama. I know that's difficult to accept, but while there's been plenty of huffing and puffing, Trump hasn't manage to come anywhere close to blowing Obama's house down.

Keep hoping, though...I'm sure he'll have plenty of time to "make America great again", while fighting off scandal, the general and growing voter disgust, impeachment efforts, ally distrust and....well, ya, keep hoping.

 

[JamesBY]

Why do you insist on making assumptions about me that are based on nothing? Dude...you are new here, but you've already shown me...and others...that you have absolutely nothing to contribute to this forum. You are dismissed.

Your writings, as Sherlock says, define you. You are old here, and you have shown me that you should pay more attention.

 

[Mycroft]

Your writings, as Sherlock says, define you. You are old here, and you have shown me that you should pay more attention.

I wasn't going to respond to you, since I've already dismissed you, but I thought I'd set you straight about my name. It has little to do with the Sherlock Holmes novels...but everything to do with Heinlein. As does my sig line and my avatar.

However, if my name WAS derived from the Sherlock Holmes novels, I would not be impressed by the writings of my younger brother...since I'm smarter than he is.

 

[JamesBY]

I wasn't going to respond to you, since I've already dismissed you, but I thought I'd set you straight about my name. It has little to do with the Sherlock Holmes novels...but everything to do with Heinlein. As does my sig line and my avatar.

However, if my name WAS derived from the Sherlock Holmes novels, I would not be impressed by the writings of my younger brother...since I'm smarter than he is.

Sure. But you respond very quickly to one who you say you won't respond to. The point is this: uncommon outliers do give Trump, at rare times, 45 to 48%. In fact, almost all of the time, he rests at 37 to 40%. The American people, at this point, are waiting to see if the bottom falls out for Trump. He is doing well on the foreign policy tour, although he bowed his head to the Pope, but the investigations here hungrily await his return.