I'm not. Approval ratings/polls are essentially surveys. Not every member of the country is surveyed when conducting these and the demographic of each one differs too, to even further muddy the waters. That's why I'm against getting giddy over these latest numbers.
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
I'm not. Approval ratings/polls are essentially surveys. Not every member of the country is surveyed when conducting these and the demographic of each one differs too, to even further muddy the waters. That's why I'm against getting giddy over these latest numbers.
No one has suggested getting giddy. They do however suggest a trend to the downside for Trump.
Re: the discussion on polling, one of my favorite sites that does good statistical analysis had a good article on how and why the polling of the US President election was off last year. Perhaps even more intertesting was that even the futures markets were off
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...rump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...rump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/
Sorry, but I don't think you understand the methodology behind polls with regards to sample sizes, demographics etc. It's a proven science and can't be dismissed with rubbish like "but they didn't survey every person". You've just dismissed polls and surveys as a concept in general with that statement, which is mental.
Also don't think you understand how to read polls.
I guess a good benchmark would be how has the approval ratings of the last few presidents faired around a year after the election?
Gut feel most will have seen a slump as it's harder to win over those that didn't vote for you than it is to piss off some of those that did as let's be honest most politicians can't deliver on what they promised
I tend to agree. Based on what we learned recently, you need to wait about nine years for your approval ratings to go up. It works for war criminals, after all...
The art of the Con-way
It varies and can obviously be massively affected by certain events: Bush's popularity for example skyrocketed in 2001 post-9/11, for example.
Unlike a lot of Presidents though Trump never had an initial upturn and started out with a fairly low approval rating. Most Presidents have a certain level of popularity when they step into office due to their freshness etc but that wasn't the case with Trump. To the contrary though...the extent to which he polarises people means he's still got a pretty dedicated base there which will make any falling approval rating gradual.
There's a thread for this. Actually, two or three threads. You can go to the election one, the "what went wrong for Hillary" one or even the Dems one.
I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd stop rehashing stone cold dead topics that belong elsewhere. Thanks.
Edit: and pleeeeease don't claim that this is all somehow relevant to Trump's latest numbers. It aint. Move on.
This Whitefish Energy contract smells. Very fishy to put language into the contract that forbids anyone to audit the cost and profit elements and had PREPA waive Claim to any delays in completion of the work.
Who got a kickback here? Zinke? PR Governor? PREPA?
Who got a kickback here? Zinke? PR Governor? PREPA?
They've got links to Trump haven't they?
They're from the small hometown of the Secretary of the Interior.
Incredibly, they had TWO employees when the contract was awarded(!)
Plot!
For a moment I thought that you made a mistake and wanted to write WTO.
WOT?
It's like War Dogs but with electricity!
A good benchmark is historically low numbers by every measurable standard by this point in time.
Ok Johnnowhite of the Liberals, provide 10 from verified sources.
Beats me how they can be in double figures at this point in time.
Didnt Zinke have some dodgy personal expense report/accounting practises when he was in the services?
Not sure. He has used his SEAL career to build his political profile and has exaggerated/inflated his roles in the SEALS, and has supposedly claimed to have been awarded bronze medals for valor in combat.
His former CO wasn't too fond of him. Disclaimer: this may have been a paid for hit piece, like the Swift Boat crap.
https://themontanapost.com/2014/05/...navy-seal-career-and-defective-moral-make-up/
Admirals over Zinke nailed his ass on the travel expenses and effectively ended his career as a Naval officer.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/us/politics/ryan-zinke-navy-seal.html
I read similar reports. Have seen TV interviews of him giving his opinions as though he was some experienced operator and not the desk jockey that he was.
The lowest Nixon ever reached was mid twenties.
Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that a football fans' forum draws out such tribalism. But still, it's quite remarkable.
Is there anything at all that Trump has done that has been good for America? (Please don't say 'the firing of xyz' because I'm sure that's beneath you and you can do so much better, surely.)
Is there anything at all that Trump has done that has been good for America? (Please don't say 'the firing of xyz' because I'm sure that's beneath you and you can do so much better, surely.)
Pulling you out of the Paris Accord.
It fecks the world at large, especially those pesky Chinese currency manipulators and Muslims but on the whole when we are being pan-fried in the future the US will stay relatively fine and dandy (except for Miami).
For comparison..
This Politico article outlines the thinking within the Clinton camp prior to the election: they placed an unreasonable amount of faith in data and let that dictate their campaign strategy. We'll get to why that's a preposterous plan later and why polling numbers are usually skewed.
Huffington Post tweet the day before voting, based on polling numbers, placed Clinton's chances of victory at 98%. They also claimed that Clinton would get 323 Electoral Votes based on the data.
A Princeton Election Consortium survey, again based on polls (where this entire argument started yesterday) nationwide, placed her probability of victory at 99%. This Stanford projection, again based on polls nationwide, stated Clinton had a 99% chance of victory. The New York Times Upshot, a supposed major source for accurate projections, suggested Clinton had a 91% chance of winning. Even supposed rock solid sources like Five Thirty Eight had the Electoral Vote numbers completely in reverse with Trump projected to get only 235 to Clinton's 302. This Reuters poll suggested Clinton had a ~90% chance of success and signalled something similar with Electoral Votes heavily in Clinton's favour, with the complete role-reversal on actual Election Day. CNN allowed data from internet users to suggest Clinton had a 91% chance of winning last November (admittedly not a poll per se, but an example of restrictive data being distorted to suit an agenda).
My point about demographics never being equal so the waters are always muddied in polls, intentional or otherwise, still stands. For example, CNN polls (flick to their 'Methodology' section on page 19 of the document to see the breakdown) regularly oversample Democrats in their polls, sometimes by ~1/3 compared to Republicans (in this case 32% identified as Democrat and 24% Republican).
Overall, and my point from the beginning, is that failed predictions based purely on numbers suggest the rush to exploit data may have outgrown the ability to recognise its limitations.
Last edited:
They could have put the odds on a Democratic victory at 99.999999% and it still doesn't preclude the possibility of a Republican win. Leicester winning at 5000-1 odds doesn't mean the odds were necessarily wrong.
Literally 3 people mentioned earlier that you don't know the difference between polls and probabilities, and then you go and do this
Edit: it goes without saying perhaps, but naturally none of what you've written here proves what you were supposed to be trying to prove
Last edited:
He did sign this, which goes against the authoritarian style of his presidency. Asking what Trump has done well is a bit like asking what Moyes has done well... After all, even Moyes did pronounce 'Manchester United' correctly...
Any statistician worth their salt will understand that surveys are rarely, if ever, without some sort of selection bias; hence, they will apply weights to account for under/over representation so that the overall results are not biased towards any of the groups.
He was dishonest. Trump is dishonest - and racist, and misogynist, and entirely self-centred, and just plain batshit-crazy. I really and truly worry about the overall mental health of the citizens of the USA. Don't get me wrong - there is much to love about our American cousins - but how they can decide upon an electoral system that narrows their choice of leader down to Trump or Hillary, allows ridiculous levels of gun crime to go virtually unchallenged, allows 200,000 children to marry in the last 15 years, well, these things and more really are cause for concern.
Last edited:
Freedom!
Some of the state polls were wrong though. Michigan poll in democratic primary itself had a 20 percent swing in favour of Bernie in terms of its difference with actual result. Same goes for state specific polls in GE when it came to Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida. Clinton was leading in polls across these states and hence why predictors of all outlets predictor her to win the electoral college too. Just saying that polls got the popular vote right is a bit of a cop out since getting so many individual states' call wrong is also a big failure.
- Status