R
- Status
D
dvdjs
Guest
Trump behind trails BHO by 6.3 points in today’s 538 Aggregate.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
That is GREAT NEWS!!!
D
dvdjs
Guest
but FAKE …
H
HarryStotle
Guest
What is interesting, whether you declare it fake or not, is that virtually every president since Truman had a downward trend line in approval through their presidencies, except G.H.W. Bush and Eisenhower. Same thing if you look at the disapproval ratings comparing Trump with past presidents, where Trump does not have the spiking disapproval rates most of the others did.
Trump has remained pretty stable despite the ruthless and consistent attacks by the media, the entertainment industry and much of academia.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Thread title from robermidwest:
many differing approval questions and differing time frames.
(See the appeal here)
(See the meta data poll here–thanks for providing the link HarryStotle)
dvdjs then follows his study from 538 (which does not purport to compare exact methodology to the Rasmussen study). Which would be fine . . . EXCEPT . . .
Except dvdjs conflates multiple studies all together (of 538) wrongly thinking it undoes the Rasmussen poll.
(The same 538 pollsters that dvdjs kept alluding to had a big lead for Hillary heading into the 2016 election . . . that turned out to be wrong there too.)
It is a wrong comparison.
robertmidwest compared a Rasmussen poll to a Rasmussen poll using the same questions and same time frame.
You on the other hand dvdjs compared a Rasmussen poll to MANY non-Rasmussen polls using many differing questions and differing time frames.
Which is WHY of course this metadata appeal from dvdjs is comparing apples to oranges.
And it will always be apples to oranges unless the pollsters are asking the same identical questions.
Since pollsters design their own polls they don’t ask the same questions. And the polls certainly were not in the same time frames because Rasmussen is the ONLY polling source that does daily polls. I agree they were approximations, but that is the best they are.
Also I think you should link to your 538 poll if you are going to bring it up here.
7_Sorrows pointed out how this is . . .
dvdjs reply?
Sounds like your conclusions concerning 538 are mixed up dvdjs and your “FAKE” comment was wrong.
It looks like to me anyway dvdjs, the only “FAKE” numbers here so far have been wrongly derived by you (in your incorrect application of those numbers).
dvdjs then appeals to an irrelevant metadata poll which tracks approval ratings with
many differing approval questions and differing time frames.
(See the appeal here)
(See the meta data poll here–thanks for providing the link HarryStotle)
dvdjs then follows his study from 538 (which does not purport to compare exact methodology to the Rasmussen study). Which would be fine . . . EXCEPT . . .
Except dvdjs conflates multiple studies all together (of 538) wrongly thinking it undoes the Rasmussen poll.
(The same 538 pollsters that dvdjs kept alluding to had a big lead for Hillary heading into the 2016 election . . . that turned out to be wrong there too.)
It is a wrong comparison.
robertmidwest compared a Rasmussen poll to a Rasmussen poll using the same questions and same time frame.
You on the other hand dvdjs compared a Rasmussen poll to MANY non-Rasmussen polls using many differing questions and differing time frames.
Which is WHY of course this metadata appeal from dvdjs is comparing apples to oranges.
And it will always be apples to oranges unless the pollsters are asking the same identical questions.
Since pollsters design their own polls they don’t ask the same questions. And the polls certainly were not in the same time frames because Rasmussen is the ONLY polling source that does daily polls. I agree they were approximations, but that is the best they are.
Also I think you should link to your 538 poll if you are going to bring it up here.
7_Sorrows pointed out how this is . . .
.
dvdjs reply?
.
Sounds like your conclusions concerning 538 are mixed up dvdjs and your “FAKE” comment was wrong.
It looks like to me anyway dvdjs, the only “FAKE” numbers here so far have been wrongly derived by you (in your incorrect application of those numbers).
Last edited:
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
I won’t take your word that it is fake.
D
dvdjs
Guest
You don’t have to.
I have posted the information from 538 which aggregates data from all of the major pollsters and report that Trump trails BHO by 6.3 points in approval at this point in the their respective Presidencies. This is not my word; it is the data.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
I guess I can choose to believe whichever data I choose to believe.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Since her response quoted the OP and the Rasmussen poll, it seems clear that it its the outlier poll that she took as news that is great, the the 538 aggregate.
Tracking the Rasmussen polls results, 538 gives ita middling grade for reliability. In loking over all major polls 538 gets a superior result that undercuts Rasmussen’s.
In fact, 538 analysis was going into the election was noteworthy as being the one that gave Trump that best odds of a win, ashas been pointed out many times
T
truthnlife
Guest
598 days and we’ll see who is right
D
dvdjs
Guest
The observation of a typically general downard trend over the first couple of years in a Presidencyis is correct. Mostly it is a slow trendnot a spike. Trump, before leveling off and enjoying some modest gains, also dropped over 10 points in his first 11 months. He reached his bottom core faster than most others, apart from, of example, Ford and Trump - the latter of whom had started a substantial recovery by this point.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
dvdjs . . .
Because you are comparing a current Rasmussen poll, with a conglomeration of old Rasmussen polls mixed in with a multitude of other polls that in many cases don’t even measure the same question parameters . . . You end up comparing apples and oranges.
I am not saying 538 is wrong in its prediction (I am not saying they are right either).
But you don’t compare apples to oranges, and say someone who is comparing an identical data set to an identical data set (in poll questions and relative time-frame) is “FAKE” while pretending a comparison of differing data sets is not “FAKE”.
.
That doesn’t follow in calling 7_Sorrows comment alluding to the Ras. Poll “FAKE”.
It is a non sequitur fallacy.
The irony here in making your argument, it was you (not 7_Sorrows or anyone else here) that had to venture into “FAKE” information analysis.
No it is not clear at all.
Because you are comparing a current Rasmussen poll, with a conglomeration of old Rasmussen polls mixed in with a multitude of other polls that in many cases don’t even measure the same question parameters . . . You end up comparing apples and oranges.
I am not saying 538 is wrong in its prediction (I am not saying they are right either).
But you don’t compare apples to oranges, and say someone who is comparing an identical data set to an identical data set (in poll questions and relative time-frame) is “FAKE” while pretending a comparison of differing data sets is not “FAKE”.
.
It’s not “superior” if you are not comparing the same thing and pretending it is comparing the same thing.
So what?
That doesn’t follow in calling 7_Sorrows comment alluding to the Ras. Poll “FAKE”.
It is a non sequitur fallacy.
The irony here in making your argument, it was you (not 7_Sorrows or anyone else here) that had to venture into “FAKE” information analysis.
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
It is crystal clear that the news that wasd being termed great was the Rasmussen poll. That is what is quoted in the post.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Except, his “bottom core” was nowhere near the fall that virtually all of those presidents including Obama suffered, and this is despite an overwhelmingly hostile press bent on his destruction and a special counsel invoked to bring him down that has actually uncovered zilch.HarryStotle:
The observation of a typically general downard trend over the first couple of years in a Presidencyis is correct. Mostly it is a slow trendnot a spike. Trump, before leveling off and enjoying some modest gains, also dropped over 10 points in his first 11 months. He reached his bottom core faster than most others, apart from, of example, Ford and Trump - the latter of whom had started a substantial recovery by this point.
It will be interesting when Spygate is completely uncovered and the real motivation behind the “Russia Collusion” narrative comes to light. We’ll speak again when that transpires!
D
dvdjs
Guest
His bottom core is similar. Others fell further because they fell from the approval levels over 60%.
Thrump’s high never met 50%.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
dvdjs . . .
And that wasn’t “FAKE”.
- Status