Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nevada Convert

Trump Back Up To 51% Job Approval

Recommended Posts

On 4/7/2019 at 3:46 PM, CPslograd said:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

No, it looks pretty much the same.

I know it kills you, but Obama and Trumps approval ratings were pretty damn close at this point.  The average I pulled had Trump at 44 and Obama at 46 in March three years in.

I'm sorry, but I believe in normalized instead of raw numbers. You have to be able to put the raw numbers into context and normalize them. That's just basic statistics. 

Look at Rasmussen's polling criteria as compared to other polls. They only call landlines... I haven't had a damned landline phone in 15+ years. Hell, the only people that I know that have landline phones are my parents. My 85 year old GRANDMA doesn't even have a landline anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, retrofade said:

I'm sorry, but I believe in normalized instead of raw numbers. You have to be able to put the raw numbers into context and normalize them. That's just basic statistics. 

Look at Rasmussen's polling criteria as compared to other polls. They only call landlines... I haven't had a damned landline phone in 15+ years. Hell, the only people that I know that have landline phones are my parents. My 85 year old GRANDMA doesn't even have a landline anymore. 

Dude, it's not legal to call cell phones, polling is considered spam. And even if you did, there are blockers that block spam/pollsters calls from even ringing the cell phone. So it's not possible to do legitimate research on cell phones. Duh! 

If you're going to mock Rasmussen, you're barking up the wrong tree. They've been able to find the newer Trump voters that have never voted before, and their 2016 election results prove it as they were one of the very best. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nevada Convert said:

Dude, it's not legal to call cell phones, polling is considered spam. And even if you did, there are blockers that block spam/pollsters calls from even ringing the cell phone. So it's not possible to do legitimate research on cell phones. Duh! 

If you're going to mock Rasmussen, you're barking up the wrong tree. They've been able to find the newer Trump voters that have never voted before, and their 2016 election results prove it as they were one of the very best. 

So wait... every other poll is illegal then? Good God, you're a bigger moron than I thought, and that's saying something. Phone polling has about a 6% response rate, so they've been shifting online. Because Rasmussen only dials landlines, and landlines are disproportionately kept by the boomer and older generations who skew conservative, then Rasmussen is going to skew conservative. 

I know, I know... normalization and contextualization of raw numbers distresses and confuses you, but it'll be okay, just admit that science and technology have passed you by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nevada Convert said:

He goes for the left wing activist polls that are garbage. 

53% yesterday.  The Dems are building up the guy they're trying to tear down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, pokebball said:

53% yesterday.  The Dems are building up the guy they're trying to tear down.

image.jpeg.0ab2443593982392e242897d8309e7e5.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2019 at 12:29 PM, Nevada Convert said:

Only a geek would know that. 

Or perhaps somebody who actually closely follows legitimate news rather than simply an occasional peek at Sean Hannity and His Merry Band of Idiots.

BTW, it wasn't called the Arab "Spring" just accidentally and I thought I remembered that coincided with the pinnacle of power for the Freedom from Brains Caucus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

Or perhaps somebody who actually closely follows legitimate news rather than simply an occasional peek at Sean Hannity and His Merry Band of Idiots.

BTW, it wasn't called the Arab "Spring" just accidentally and I thought I remembered that coincided with the pinnacle of power for the Freedom from Brains Caucus.

Why do you always lie? I’ve stated countless times what my news viewing habits are, and certainly Hannity isn’t a show I watch when I tune into Fox. I check out CNN and MSNBC which these days is always a good laugh. I read some of the WSJ, Washington Post, Washington Times, and a few net outlets like The Hill. 

I know how extraordinarily left wing you are, and you probably see MSLSD as a right winger outfit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Nevada Convert said:

Why do you always lie? I’ve stated countless times what my news viewing habits are, and certainly Hannity isn’t a show I watch when I tune into Fox. I check out CNN and MSNBC which these days is always a good laugh. I read some of the WSJ, Washington Post, Washington Times, and a few net outlets like The Hill. 

I know how extraordinarily left wing you are, and you probably see MSLSD as a right winger outfit.

 

Scrolling past a WaPo article on your facebook newsfeed isn't "reading some". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Nevada Convert said:

Why do you always lie? I’ve stated countless times what my news viewing habits are, and certainly Hannity isn’t a show I watch when I tune into Fox. I check out CNN and MSNBC which these days is always a good laugh. I read some of the WSJ, Washington Post, Washington Times, and a few net outlets like The Hill. 

I know how extraordinarily left wing you are, and you probably see MSLSD as a right winger outfit.

To think FoxNews is FOS does not mean that one is "extraordinarily left wing." Indeed, it doesn't mean one is left win in the slightest.

If you don't watch Hannity at all, that's good. Because, for example, he strategizes with the president which is something forbidden for any legitimate journalist. To my knowledge the number of news show hosts on Fox, CNN and MSNBC who have done that during their history is absolute zero. But then how would a guy whose formal education ended when he graduated from a seminary prep school know how inappropriate that is? And how many of his viewers know that? My guess is somewhere around 1%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, happycamper said:

Scrolling past a WaPo article on your facebook newsfeed isn't "reading some". 

Why do you lie?

I don’t use Facebook much, and I never use Facebook to access news. The Washington Post is a more liberal paper and the Times more conservative. The Washington Examiner is conservative. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

To think FoxNews is FOS does not mean that one is "extraordinarily left wing." Indeed, it doesn't mean one is left win in the slightest.

If you don't watch Hannity at all, that's good. Because, for example, he strategizes with the president which is something forbidden for any legitimate journalist. To my knowledge the number of news show hosts on Fox, CNN and MSNBC who have done that during their history is absolute zero. But then how would a guy whose formal education ended when he graduated from a seminary prep school know how inappropriate that is? And how many of his viewers know that? My guess is somewhere around 1%.

Let me break some news to you, Media 101. There is objective hard news that you would find on the front page of a paper such as the LA Times, and there is subjective opinion news as you would traditionally find on the opinion/commentary pages much further into the paper. Sadly, the trend has been the opinion pieces merging with hard news. And when Trump was elected, that exploded with blatant resistance activism in hard news. 

Fox News has just a little bit of hard news with Bret Baier doing some of it, Chris Wallace does some and his interviews with both sides are usually blistering. 

Most of cable news is news with bias and opinion by design. So a guy like Hannty helping the president is completely legal and ethical. Hannity isn’t trying to say that he does objective hard news, and everyone knows he’s a Trump cheerleader. He’s not trying too fool anyone. The same applies to CNN when you have guys like Chris Cuomo saying that they did all that they could to help Hillary get elected. He came right out and said it. These guys aren’t even trying to hide it. Sadly, CNN has opinion all over it’s hard news, and THAT is the real danger. Hidden agenda’s are dangerous. 

It’s funny how most everyone that smears Fox News doesn’t ever watch it to make a legit  analysis. Instead they learn about it by watching their left wing opinion shows such as Maddow that spins the shit out of anything to make it back up her crazy conspiracy narratives. You also hear about how awful Fox is from late night talk shows and even Hollywood TV shows and movies. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Nevada Convert said:

Why do you lie?

I don’t use Facebook much, and I never use Facebook to access news. The Washington Post is a more liberal paper and the Times more conservative. The Washington Examiner is conservative. 

A little razzing about you not reading is "lying"?

Convert, do you know what words mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Nevada Convert said:

Let me break some news to you, Media 101. There is objective hard news that you would find on the front page of a paper such as the LA Times, and there is subjective opinion news as you would traditionally find on the opinion/commentary pages much further into the paper. Sadly, the trend has been the opinion pieces merging with hard news. And when Trump was elected, that exploded with blatant resistance activism in hard news. 

Fox News has just a little bit of hard news with Bret Baier doing some of it, Chris Wallace does some and his interviews with both sides are usually blistering. 

Most of cable news is news with bias and opinion by design. So a guy like Hannty helping the president is completely legal and ethical. Hannity isn’t trying to say that he does objective hard news, and everyone knows he’s a Trump cheerleader. He’s not trying too fool anyone. The same applies to CNN when you have guys like Chris Cuomo saying that they did all that they could to help Hillary get elected. He came right out and said it. These guys aren’t even trying to hide it. Sadly, CNN has opinion all over it’s hard news, and THAT is the real danger. Hidden agenda’s are dangerous. 

It’s funny how most everyone that smears Fox News doesn’t ever watch it to make a legit  analysis. Instead they learn about it by watching their left wing opinion shows such as Maddow that spins the shit out of anything to make it back up her crazy conspiracy narratives. You also hear about how awful Fox is from late night talk shows and even Hollywood TV shows and movies. 

I won't take issue with most of what you've said except your comments about Hannity.

You're correct that the guy's shtick is "completely legal" but you're quite INcorrect in asserting it's "ethical." At least to my knowledge and feel free to link something to educate me to the contrary if you have it, nobody but nobody acting as the representative of one of the major news organizations except Hannity has ever acted as an adviser to the President of the United States. When it comes to Hannity, "Fox News: Fair and balanced" is a total crock of shit and during his show the crawler at the bottom of the screen should say "Disclosure: Sean Hannity acts as an adviser to President Trump and his comments about Mr. Trump should be viewed from that context." Because I'm sure a sizable percentage of viewers are ignorant of the degree of Mr. Fair and Balanced's bias. (The "fair and balanced" motto is also a crock and note that CNN and MSNBC don't have such a disingenuous slogan.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, happycamper said:

A little razzing about you not reading is "lying"?

Convert, do you know what words mean?

He borrowed that one from BR, who is the last person anyone aspiring to a modicum of objectivity should be emulating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

I won't take issue with most of what you've said except your comments about Hannity.

You're correct that the guy's shtick is "completely legal" but you're quite INcorrect in asserting it's "ethical." At least to my knowledge and feel free to link something to educate me to the contrary if you have it, nobody but nobody acting as the representative of one of the major news organizations except Hannity has ever acted as an adviser to the President of the United States. When it comes to Hannity, "Fox News: Fair and balanced" is a total crock of shit and during his show the crawler at the bottom of the screen should say "Disclosure: Sean Hannity acts as an adviser to President Trump and his comments about Mr. Trump should be viewed from that context." Because I'm sure a sizable percentage of viewers are ignorant of the degree of Mr. Fair and Balanced's bias. (The "fair and balanced" motto is also a crock and note that CNN and MSNBC don't have such a disingenuous slogan.)

Hannity is one of the few that got the Mueller report right! :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pokebball said:

Hannity is one of the few that got the Mueller report right! :) 

I wouldn't gloat just yet if I was the Seanster. It still hasn't been released to anybody on the outside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×