christiefan915 (05-06-2019)
A new Gallup poll shows Donald Trump’s presidential job-approval rating hitting a new high of 46 percent.
On the other hand, Barack Obama’s job-approval rating was 44 percent in Gallup polling at the same point in his presidency (April 2011), and he still managed to find a way to win re-election in 2012.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...of-46-percent/
https://news.gallup.com/poll/249344/...ains-high.aspx
Suck on some China cock Libs!
christiefan915 (05-06-2019)
Earl (05-06-2019), Grokmaster (05-06-2019), Stretch (05-06-2019)
Isn't it fascinating that Trump is so incredibly disliked, that 46 is a HIGH that his drones are bragging about? I mean, with any other president in history, 46 would be an embarrassment -- a sign that something had gone badly wrong and needed to be remedied. With Trump, it's as good as it gets.
As for the idea that Obama's approval was this low at the same time:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/116479/...-approval.aspx
As you can see, in this week of Obama's presidency, he was at 51%. Nobody was bragging about it at the time, since Obama was a guy who'd been as high as 67% and would be in the high 50s again. 51% was seen as underwhelming, back then. But with Trump, even 46% looks decent, since typically only about 40% approve of him.
Earl (05-06-2019)
domer76 (05-06-2019), Jade Dragon (05-06-2019)
Polls are meaningless... period.
Except they don't think he is honest or trustworthy.
WK1 3/28-/4 _Cases 301k--Dead 18.1k Lethality 2.72%
WK2 4/5-/13 _Cases 555k--Dead 22.1K Lethality 3.9%
WK3 4/20-/21 Cases 774k -Dead 37.2K Lethality 4.8%
WK4 4/22-/29 Cases 1M --Dead 58.8K Lethality 5.9%
WK5 5/1-/8__ Cases 1.3M -Dead 75.7K Lethality 6.1%
WK6 5/9-16__Cases 1.4M --Dead 85.8K Lethality 6.1%
WK7 5/17-24_Cases 1.7M - Dead 97.6K Lethality 5.9%
WK8 5/28 Cases 1.7M - DEAD 101.2K - Same
Earl (05-06-2019)
but yet he's going to win again, doesn't that stick in your nappy craw
attn. snowflake
if you're looking for honest and trustworthy, go to your local church, and be picky
usually the guy with the white collar, or the little old ladies with the long black robes maybe, but not a sure thing
This just In::: Trump indicted for living in liberals heads and not paying RENT
C̶N̶N̶ SNN.... Shithole News Network
Trump Is Coming back to a White House Near you
christiefan915 (05-06-2019)
anonymoose (05-06-2019), Earl (05-06-2019), Truth Detector (05-06-2019)
TRUMP WILL TAKE FORTY STATES...UNLESS THE SAME IDIOTS WHO BROUGHT US THE 2020 DUNCE-O-CRAT IOWA CLUSTERFUCK CONTINUE THEIR SEDITIOUS ACTIVITIES...THEN HE WILL WIN EVEN MORE ..UNLESS THE RED CHINESE AND DNC COLLUDE, USE A PANDEMIC, AND THEN THE DEMOCRATS VIOLATE ARTICLE II OF THE CONSTITUTION, TO FACILLITATE MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL, UNVETTED, MAIL IN BALLOTS IN THE DARK OF NIGHT..
De Oppresso Liber
Truth Detector (05-06-2019)
christiefan915 (05-06-2019), domer76 (05-06-2019), JPF (05-07-2019)
Truth Detector (05-06-2019)
That statement makes exactly as much sense as if I were to say "it's really even worse than 46%, when you consider he's at 10% in California."
California is part of the US. In fact, it's the state where the most Americans live. If Trump is THAT wildly unpopular there, that's a real disgrace for him.
Better for what? Predicting presidential election outcome? Yes, then. Because we have a dark-ages election system that effectively disenfranchises three-quarters of American voters (since we're in non-competitive states), Trump's popularity in places like California or Texas matters hardly at all, for presidential election purposes, since they're only likely to be in play in the next election if the overall vote's going to be a landslide one way or the other, anyway. But if we instead look at approval ratings not as a predictor of election outcome (which they'd be really, really crappy at this far out), but rather as a gauge for how well the president has been doing in serving the people he's been elected to serve, Trump's been a disaster. There's literally been no president in the history of polling who has been as CONSISTENTLY unpopular as Trump.Come to think of it, a better sample would be from Fl, OH, and those blue states Trump barely won.
Jade Dragon (05-06-2019)
anonymoose (05-06-2019)
What data are you using to support that statement?
In 2016, the Democrats put up a very strong candidate -- in terms of a candidate who had been thoroughly vetted for many years without any wrongdoing being found, as well as in terms of being smart, hard-working, and highly experienced. Unfortunately, the media really had it in for her. She did quite well when she was able to bypass the corporate media filter and appeal more directly to the people. When she basically had access to a large audience without the filter, as during the convention or later the debates, her poll numbers surged. But outside of those times, the media spent most of their time covering Trump, and when they covered Clinton it was never about policies she was championing, but rather about trivia like her email habits or even just Republican-generated memes, like her supposed health problems. Then her polling numbers would fall to within the margin of error of Trump's. What can the Democrats do to avoid having to campaign against both Trump and the corporate media filter in 2020? I'm not sure. Was this media handicap specific to Clinton? I hope so.Put up a better candidate in 2020.
Zombies? We're not talking about the walking dead with CA and NY. We're talking about two states with some of the more productive and educated citizens. If you want zombie states, look to those that have been shambling along aimlessly for decades, like West Virginia or Mississippi.
Bookmarks