Trump's approval reaches 50%
- Thread starter FistOH
- Start date
T
Why would you discount their poll numbers now??
the final Rasmussen poll the day before the election had clinton by 2 percentage points which was the closest of all of the 9 major polling firms to actual election results
Why would you discount their poll numbers now??
We all know polls mean squat. The only poll that counts are the one's that happen at the polls. 2018 will be the next test.
The mainstream press outlets were going on two weeks ago about how the special election in kansas was a referendum on Trump, then it went Republican and not a peep from them
Today is special election in Georgia and they are again saying how its a referendum on Trump and a foretelling of the 2018 elections. After their democratic wonder boy gets his butt kicked there, you also wont hear another word about it from the liberal pundents.
If you look at the actual nationwide vote totals from 2016 Radmunson was pretty much dead on
Last edited:
Not true but, they went on and on about how close it was for days and even now, but go on with your alternative facts KellyAnn. By the way what does any of your post have to do with polls being right or wrong or for that matter my post? Guess you just needed to get some of your sadness of your boy off your chest.
Approve of Trump's what? I'm sure a large percentage of voters approved of sending the missiles into Syria. That does not mean they approve of the overall job Trump is doing.
It's not so much if these people win, it's the fact that these races shouldn't even be close. It's not that current Trump supporters won't still support Trump in 2020. It's a matter of IF the gems get the kind of turnout they had in the Obama election years. It's a pretty sure bet turnout for the dems will be up in 2018, and 2020. If elections are close a little more turnout by the side out of power can make a HUGE difference. It ain't like Trump won by a landslide like he always claims. He lost the popular vote nationwide and in the 3 states that put him over the top in the EC he won by a total of 77,000 votes. It doesn't take much to overcome that with better turnout.
You are correct about a better turnout possibly changing things, but that works both ways. We currently have two parties that are only interested in power and not in actually solving any of the problems this nation faces. Until we find some real leadership that is not going to change. The establishment politicians in both parties need to go.
Rasmussen has a terrible track record of inaccuracy.
You can't cherry pick one poll (the 2016 election) and ignore all of their other polling. Especially when it would have been very easy for them to massage their final election poll to come in close to the average of all of the other polls out there.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/voters/ This is roughly where Trump is on the average
You can't cherry pick one poll (the 2016 election) and ignore all of their other polling. Especially when it would have been very easy for them to massage their final election poll to come in close to the average of all of the other polls out there.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/voters/ This is roughly where Trump is on the average
How much did Trump beat Hillary by in this district? If Trump is so unpopular, it shouldn't even be close.......Dem win.
They were very good, even one of the best, in 04, 08, and 16. It isn't one poll.
I'd bet the black/minority voter turnout will be better if Trump is running again. Probably a LOT better.
They were generally bad relative to other major pollsters https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
You are citing 3 presidential elections. There are loads of other races that matter! For example, they polled plenty of states. You aren't citing those.
That sort of thing
Do you think they really like Trump? We'll see who runs on the dem side but I'm betting the dems turnout over all will be better in 2020 and I hope it's better in 2018.
The difference is TURNOUT! They didn't turnout in big numbers in 2016, I'm still betting they will turnout better in 2020 and maybe 2018. If Trump does all the things he promised they might turnout for him, but he's finding out he is NOT the CEO. He has congress to deal with and he can't just say "you're fired" and do whatever he wants anyway.
Cause he doesn't promise them free sh!t like the dems do.
To be fair about this, all politicians play to their base and unfortunately give away "something". You don't get 20 trillion in debt on funded liabilities and 200 trillion on unfunded liabilities by being fiscally responsible.
Someone needs to step up to the plate and be a leader before this ship goes down from our massive debt.
Someone needs to step up to the plate and be a leader before this ship goes down from our massive debt.
Universal health care and a $7 trillion tax cut while proposing massive increases in defense and infrastructure spending, plus Mexico is going to pay for the wall. Compare this to Clinton's campaign. The R candidate in 2016 was pretty clearly the candidate of free stuff.
Even Bernie Sanders admits he needs tax revenue to fund his liberal utopia.
We have a party that funds their spending. You vote for the other party. Talk is cheap.
We already have healthcare and a tax cut could easily be done if it were not for all the free handouts. If we didn't give all the handouts, money would be available for increased defense and infrastructure spending, plus Mexico could sure enough pay for the wall through taxing incoming product. Still don't see where he promised everybody free stuff like the dems do.
An r candidate running on the idea of universal health care was revolutionary.
How could you fund universal health care out of the current budget?
How much does the government spend on free handouts? Be specific.
The idea that the defense budget is in dire need of funding is just silly. It's full of mismanagement. And trump generally pushes for the dumbest spending - more capital goods to fight the wars of 1950.
The fundamental promise of free stuff is that he intends to run massive budget deficits. Giving people a massive deficit financed tax cut is just as much a free lunch as increased government spending is. The average person does just fine from the fed govt overall since the spending tilts towards the middle class.
How could you fund universal health care out of the current budget?
How much does the government spend on free handouts? Be specific.
The idea that the defense budget is in dire need of funding is just silly. It's full of mismanagement. And trump generally pushes for the dumbest spending - more capital goods to fight the wars of 1950.
The fundamental promise of free stuff is that he intends to run massive budget deficits. Giving people a massive deficit financed tax cut is just as much a free lunch as increased government spending is. The average person does just fine from the fed govt overall since the spending tilts towards the middle class.
I don't know how much the government spends on free handouts, it is a lot.
Welfare, food stamps, college grants, wic programs, free and reduced lunch programs, etc. I won't attempt to tally the cost.
Is it your official stance that a Republican administration offers more freebies than a Democrat administration?
Welfare, food stamps, college grants, wic programs, free and reduced lunch programs, etc. I won't attempt to tally the cost.
Is it your official stance that a Republican administration offers more freebies than a Democrat administration?
It's almost certainly a lower percentage of the Federal budget than you would guess.
Rs like free stuff too. They just focus it on different things. E.g. did spending grow faster under Reagan and Bush II or Clinton and Obama? What happens to the budget deficit under Rs vs Ds? Ds focus more on anti poverty programs, sure, but Rs have their pet programs as well. The last R President passed an unfunded entitlement for old people and significantly boosted education spending while passing large tax cuts.
Rs used to be the party of fiscal responsibility, but that went away in the 1980s when they started pretending that tax cuts paid for themselves.
http://www.redstate.com/diary/JSobieski/2017/02/24/republicans-need-daddy-party/ This sort of thing is very true in 2017. Trump ran more on rainbows and puppies than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama ever did.
Hillary was pretty clearly the smaller government candidate among the two major parties - a major shift from the way the world has historically worked.
Last edited:
This perception that the Rs have any sort of commitment to cutting spending and to cutting the budget deficit is totally detached from how they have governed since at least 2001, if not back to 1981. The party has zero commitment to smaller government, and its figurehead has no real commitment to fiscal responsibility.
If we tax the stuff the we get from Mexico a bunch you can bet the price of that stuff will to up match to the tax increase. Thus WE still pay for the wall!
You are missing my point. I don't want them "funding" their spending.....I want them to follow the constitution and stop their spending. When they "fund" their spending they take money from us they have no constitutional right to take.
Have you actually read the constitution? It's very clear in there that they have the right to levy taxes. There's an entire amendment dedicated to the income tax.
Excuses. Veer is laughing his head off at your excuses for supporting the biggest government party there is in the US
