Trump Approval Rating

[Sandy]

What facts? Jon's alternative facts, or the real ones?

The polls were impeccably accurate. They predicted a Hillary popular vote win by almost the exact percentage that she won by. The top polls, including NBC news, bTW, had every state well within the margin of error. Only Fox News and Rassmussen missed the calls. The difference between a Trump win and a HIllary win was less than a quarter of a percent of the vote in three states, essentially a margin of 50,000 out of 12 million. No poll would have ever been that accurate. The conservative polls were the laughing stocks.

The evidence is out there, clearly enough for the special counsel to place Trump under direct investigation today. His tweets are proof that there is plenty of evidence, but clearly, there is enough to warrant a full investigation. You keep saying it isn't there, but you are clearly wrong. Trump and his campaign insisted there was "clear evidence" in the Clinton email investigation, because why would the FBI investigate if there wasn't? Can't deny that, he's on record, though most of his core supporters don't pay any attention to his inconsistency, or his total contempt for their intelligence. Aside from the fact that there is indeed some political satisfaction in seeing Republicans squirm, and to enjoy the difficulty they are having with all of their words about the FBI and its investigation of Hillary Clinton. There probably isn't a Republican in Congress now who publicly stated something on a news program about that investigation who doesn't wish they'd just kept quiet back then. Oh, how the tables have turned! And as far as the Nixon comparisons go, well, Nixon was a good guy compared to the Donald. As James Clapper said, this is far worse than Watergate. The political consequences of a failure of the GOP to bring appropriate charges when the investigation concludes will be monumental, if they already aren't going to be.

Any conservative who gripes and whines about all of this is a hypocrite, given all of the screeching, finger pointing and holy horror that the Republicans spewed out over the Clinton email investigation. They insisted that there had to be evidence, or there wouldn't have been an investigation. They squawked like plucked chickens over the airport meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton, and made accusations about the justice department that they were sure wouldn't take action even if the investigation did conclude otherwise, in spite of assurances that would not be the case. Peddling "alternative facts" just underlines the hypocrisy.

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

Up to 38% probably due to deal with Chuck and Nancy

[Haruo]

Yeah, I know several people who don't particularly like him and/or are convinced he's loony, but who have expressed admiration for his deal with the Dems. As long as it didn't drive off an equal number of supporters, I can see how that could generate a bump up.

[Jim]

[Sandy]

Trump won the electoral votes that put him over the top in just three states--Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, by a little less than 50,000 votes combined, after the provisional ballots were counted. That's a fraction of a percentage of the total vote in each state, less than half of one percent. Most polls have a five point margin of error, and wouldn't you know it, the composite figures were well within that margin of error in virtually every poll used by RCP, except the conservative media polls. They had Clinton with about a two point difference in the popular vote, which was right on target, predicting she would pick up about 3 million more votes than Trump, and she got exactly that. And they pegged virtually every state well within the margin of error. On election day, they had her up by 1.5% in Michigan, 1% in Wisconsin, and 2% in Pennsylvania. So any poll, especially one with the accuracy record of Gallup, that measures Trump's job approval is most likely accurate to well within the margin of error.

[William Thornton]

[Sandy]

[JE Pettibone]

Ed: As I have said many times a poll that does not at least give me a link to their methodology is useless.

Here is a link to what I believe is an excellent explanation of the term "margin of error" http://people.howstuffworks.com/political-polling2.htm

[William Thornton]

Sandy, no one here or anywhere in the MSM was expecting anything but a Clinton win. After all, the primaries were rigged in her favor and she had an early anointing from dems and MSM.

[Sandy]

Early anointing from Dem leadership, yeah, I can go along with that. MSM? Not really. If there was any kind of bias among the MSM, it was toward Sanders, not Clinton, among the Democrats, and it was Trump that got all of their attention, as he wanted it. It was very clear, early on in both the Benghazi hearings and the FBI email investigation that the facts were going to exonerate Clinton in both cases, but they kept the stories driving. When Trey Gowdy announced the results of his investigation, from an obscure location, it didn't even get live coverage. And every time there was a wikileaks dump, or fake news, they jumped on it. The Democratic primaries are much more fair and evenly balanced than the Republicans with their "winner take all" primaries. Democrats split the delegates by the vote. The "superdelegates" favored Hillary, no doubt, but that's probably the only real "early annointing" of her that there was.

[Dave Roberts]

Reading poll numbers, I am always reminded of the quote from British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli: "There are lies, damnable lies, and statistics."

[Jim]

Much is made of the 3-million-vote (or was it 5-mil) Clinton plurality in 2016. According to the Philadelphia Tribune of 12 November 2016, black votes totaled just over 15 million. Eighty-eight percent, or some 13,200,000, went for Hillary. This explains the plurality far more than the paltry five million that Hillary actually won by, according to those still suffering everything from heart-burn to Post Traumatic Election Stress Disorder (PTESD). When this is considered in light of the MSM and the pollsters, they look even worse than self-serving. They were unbelievably incompetent in 2016 and certainly not to be trusted now any more than then.

[Sandy]

So, Jim, you're saying black votes don't count? That only the opinion of white voters matters? That the opinions and perspectives of African American voters are not as significant as those of white voters? Wow, if that's the case then you are showing your true colors here, and it has zapped any credibility that you had, if you ever had any.

[Jim]

[Sandy]

Jim's despicably racist remark aside, the polls were well within their margins of error on election night, and I think Gallup actually had Clinton's margin at a percentage that would work out to just about the 3 million votes by which she won the popular vote, which is not, in presidential electoral politics, a "paltry margin." Their job approval ratings of Presidents have been right on target pretty much since they've been doing them, so if they say 34%, then that's pretty close to what it is.

[KeithE]

[Jim]

[Sandy]

If you weren't inferring that Blacks shouldn't have as much of an impact as they do, then you shouldn't have mentioned it. It's a non-factor. The fact that she got three million more votes than Trump certainly has traumatized him, to the point of psychotic obsession with it. If it could be so easily and blithely dismissed, as you've done, then he wouldn't be so touchy about it.

[Jim]

[Jon Estes]

Approval ratings mean nothing at this point except to build someone up or tear someone down.

Look - see how many people like him...

I told you so.... See how many people hate him...

Bottom line - DJTrump is the President of the United States.

ALso true... HRClinton is not...

I am considering buying her book to see if she blames bl.com for her loss. Might as well, she is blaming everyone else who had nothing to do with her loss.

Wish I had enough money to send cheese to all those who have a boatload of whine. It would probably cost millions just for the few here on bl.com

[Sandy]

Right. That's why Trump spends so much of his time tweeting about them. He doesn't care, and they don't mean anything at this point, but he's sure willing to send the message that they mean everything to him. And the RNC is certainly willing to cite it in every fund raising appeal they send out.

I don't see that anyone said this had anything to do with Hillary Clinton. What it has to do with is that two thirds of the electorate doesn't think Trump is worth a tinker's dam. It sure means something to the RNC, which has sent out a plethora of emails about it, and which is attempting to use it to whip up support for their senate and congressional candidates who are in trouble because of it. I've seen it cited in at least a dozen emails from the PA Republican party, bemoaning it and attempting to use it to raise money.