Harvard Poll: Trump's Approval Rating at Almost Record High

artichoke

Verified User
The lying demagogue scam-artists of the left are failing and their blind rage extremism is backfiring almost as horribly as their obsession with persecuting Trump and endlessly re-litigating the 2016 election (sorest losers in history)...Trump Approval Rating Hits Highest Level In Two Years

The driving force behind all of this success in the polls (other than Democrats making themselves look like petty partisan bullies, fascists, and psychopaths): As always, it's the economy, stupid...

"Fifty-nine percent of respondents said they approve of Trump’s handling of the economy, while a record 62 percent said they approve of his approach to employment. A stunning 71 percent of voters viewed the economy as “strong” or “very strong.”"

So by all means, keep all your attention on impeachment while the rest of the country unites behind a thriving economy. :laugh:

thumbnail
 
Last edited:


Agreed. Polls said Hillary had a 97% chance of winning the election. But liberals are gullible, unscientific, and childish enough to believe in them, so it's worth it just to watch them struggle with it.

thumbnail

The polls were correct.

Trump's win was an anomaly aided by Russian interference that the polls didn't take into account.

Congratulations on being made a chump out of and being manipulated by Russian propaganda.

If you don't feel stupid, you're even more brainless than I thought you are.
 
The polls were correct.

Trump's win was an anomaly aided by Russian interference that the polls didn't take into account.
Congratulations on being made a chump out of and being manipulated by Russian propaganda.
If you don't feel stupid, you're even more brainless than I thought you are.

The polls were right but all that stuff about Russian interference is BS

The RealPolitics average of major polls showed Clinton-Trump at 46% v. 44%. The final result was 48% v. 46%--very close and well within the +/- 3% margin of errors.

What pundits did with these polls to predict Hillary to win by 97% is not the fault of the pollsters. The function of the polls was to show the national popular vote total on the day the poll was taken. Polls were not designed to predict the winner of the election.
 
The polls were right but all that stuff about Russian interference is BS

The RealPolitics average of major polls showed Clinton-Trump at 46% v. 44%. The final result was 48% v. 46%--very close and well within the +/- 3% margin of errors.

What pundits did with these polls to predict Hillary to win by 97% is not the fault of the pollsters. The function of the polls was to show the national popular vote total on the day the poll was taken. Polls were not designed to predict the winner of the election.

That's not what the polls or the pundits did or attempted to do.

It was statisticians like Nate Silver at 538, who used an aggregation of all of the national polls at each polling cycle to create a statistical probability, which is the most accurate tool at our disposal.

Your tired old harping about "the pundits" (aka the "fake news" media) is evidence that Trump still dictates what you think and say.

And the "stuff about Russian interference" is not BS. I understand how embarrassed you all are to know that you got taken in by a Russian con game and voted for the choice of an enemy nation, but denying it won't make it go away.

You'll just have to learn to live with your shame.

If you ever happen to develop a sense of it.
 
That's not what the polls or the pundits did or attempted to do.

It was statisticians like Nate Silver at 538, who used an aggregation of all of the national polls at each polling cycle to create a statistical probability, which is the most accurate tool at our disposal.

Your tired old harping about "the pundits" (aka the "fake news" media) is evidence that Trump still dictates what you think and say.

And the "stuff about Russian interference" is not BS. I understand how embarrassed you all are to know that you got taken in by a Russian con game and voted for the choice of an enemy nation, but denying it won't make it go away.

You'll just have to learn to live with your shame.

If you ever happen to develop a sense of it.

You are making unwarranted assumptions. I said nothing about fake news or the media or Trump. In fact, I said the polls were correct. What people like Silver did with the polls to predict a winner did not show the polls were wrong but that Silver took them beyond their intended purpose. To predict a statistical probability of 97% when the polls were only 2% apart was poor math on his part.

The Yale(?) professor used a more accurate model which showed the Republican more likely to win because after 8 years of rule by one party the probability is higher the other party will win plus the state of the economy (deducting points for Trump's negative rating)

Those polls in the swing states like WI showed the election was too close to call which also turned out to be accurate and went to Trump. I did not vote for Trump and have never said anything in support of him. However, I am going to challenge silly claims such as Russia swung the election when you have absolutely no evidence of any votes being changed.

What the polls could not take into account was the low turnout among many traditionally Democratic voters in swing states or the 7-8 million Obama voters in 2012 who voted for Trump in 2016.
 
Record high for who, for Bill Buckner? For Charlie Manson?


Thread Topic : Trump in competition with himself for the least worst moments in his own presidency
has hit some high point today!
 
You are making unwarranted assumptions. I said nothing about fake news or the media or Trump. In fact, I said the polls were correct. What people like Silver did with the polls to predict a winner did not show the polls were wrong but that Silver took them beyond their intended purpose. To predict a statistical probability of 97% when the polls were only 2% apart was poor math on his part.

The Yale(?) professor used a more accurate model which showed the Republican more likely to win because after 8 years of rule by one party the probability is higher the other party will win plus the state of the economy (deducting points for Trump's negative rating)

The previous two elections were called by Nate Silver with nearly perfect accuracy, so there's nothing wrong with Silver's math. There was no way to predict that 77,000 low IQ fucktards in three states would throw a temper tantrum and vote for Dump.

It was so close in those three states, it could easily have gone the other way.

In short, it was just dumb luck that the Yale(?) guys prediction prevailed.

Those polls in the swing states like WI showed the election was too close to call which also turned out to be accurate and went to Trump. I did not vote for Trump and have never said anything in support of him. However, I am going to challenge silly claims such as Russia swung the election when you have absolutely no evidence of any votes being changed.

Nobody claimed the Russians changed votes after they'd been cast. What they did was mount an unprecedented propaganda onslaught using social media to puke lies. Similar to what Trump's Pecker buddy over at the National Enquirer did with his fake, bullshit anti-Hillary cover stories, while burying the sex payoff stories and running pro-Trump garbage.

That shit influenced votes.

The Mueller Report as well as our top intelligence officials state that Russia did, beyond a shadow of any doubt whatsoever, interfere in and influence the 2016 election and they did so to help and favor their choice for our President, Donald J. Trump.

You can twist and squirm and shit your pants in denial over it until you drop dead in a shed, it makes no difference to me.

The FACT is that Trump was aided and abetted by the Kremlin, and every moron who voted for him was at least partially taken in by their scam.

Don't believe it? Need to deny it in order to save face?

Knock yourself out.

The right always deflects and muddies the waters with garbage like "the Russians didn't affect the election because they didn't change any votes" crap, when we all know damned good and well it was PEOPLE'S MINDS that they changed.

What the polls could not take into account was the low turnout among many traditionally Democratic voters in swing states or the 7-8 million Obama voters in 2012 who voted for Trump in 2016.

Fine. I'll give you that about the polls, but it was still the less than 1% margin in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that handed it to Trump.

How many of that tiny fraction had their minds changed by Russian propaganda?
 
The previous two elections were called by Nate Silver with nearly perfect accuracy, so there's nothing wrong with Silver's math. There was no way to predict that 77,000 low IQ fucktards in three states would throw a temper tantrum and vote for Dump.

It was so close in those three states, it could easily have gone the other way.

In short, it was just dumb luck that the Yale(?) guys prediction prevailed.



Nobody claimed the Russians changed votes after they'd been cast. What they did was mount an unprecedented propaganda onslaught using social media to puke lies. Similar to what Trump's Pecker buddy over at the National Enquirer did with his fake, bullshit anti-Hillary cover stories, while burying the sex payoff stories and running pro-Trump garbage.

That shit influenced votes.

The Mueller Report as well as our top intelligence officials state that Russia did, beyond a shadow of any doubt whatsoever, interfere in and influence the 2016 election and they did so to help and favor their choice for our President, Donald J. Trump.

You can twist and squirm and shit your pants in denial over it until you drop dead in a shed, it makes no difference to me.

The FACT is that Trump was aided and abetted by the Kremlin, and every moron who voted for him was at least partially taken in by their scam.

Don't believe it? Need to deny it in order to save face?

Knock yourself out.

The right always deflects and muddies the waters with garbage like "the Russians didn't affect the election because they didn't change any votes" crap, when we all know damned good and well it was PEOPLE'S MINDS that they changed.



Fine. I'll give you that about the polls, but it was still the less than 1% margin in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that handed it to Trump.

How many of that tiny fraction had their minds changed by Russian propaganda?

Actually I predicted Trump would win those states.

So............
 
The polls were right but all that stuff about Russian interference is BS

The RealPolitics average of major polls showed Clinton-Trump at 46% v. 44%. The final result was 48% v. 46%--very close and well within the +/- 3% margin of errors.

What pundits did with these polls to predict Hillary to win by 97% is not the fault of the pollsters. The function of the polls was to show the national popular vote total on the day the poll was taken. Polls were not designed to predict the winner of the election.

No one I have ever met has ever been consulted for one of these polls or even known anyone who was ever consulted for them. That tells me something right there, but additionally, the polls leading up to the election consistently wildly over-sampled Democrats, and it seemed deliberate. I pointed it out over and over every time they breathlessly announced her increasing lead. Always look at the methodology, and 99% of the time, you'll find the entire poll is entirely made up of manipulative bullshit.

The wording also dictates everything...

thumbnail


 
The polls were correct.

Trump's win was an anomaly aided by Russian interference that the polls didn't take into account.

Congratulations on being made a chump out of and being manipulated by Russian propaganda.

If you don't feel stupid, you're even more brainless than I thought you are.

Is that the excuse you're now using since your bitch got her political ass kicked by someone you lefties think is stupid?
 
Record high for who, for Bill Buckner? For Charlie Manson?


Thread Topic : Trump in competition with himself for the least worst moments in his own presidency
has hit some high point today!


The only record you should be concerned with is the one you continue to break every time you kiss Obama's black asshole, boy.
 
The right always deflects and muddies the waters with garbage like "the Russians didn't affect the election because they didn't change any votes" crap, when we all know damned good and well it was PEOPLE'S MINDS that they changed.
:rofl2::rofl2::rofl2:
 
Reuters, released a day before Harvard, shows that Harvard is a mistaken outlier. Trum is right at 43%, nothing new.

Polling Data
Poll Date Sample
Approve
Disapprove
Spread
RCP Average 5/16 - 5/30 -- 43.1 53.8 -10.7
Harvard-Harris 5/29 - 5/30 1295 RV 48 52 -4
Reuters/Ipsos 5/28 - 5/29 984 RV 42 56 -14
Rasmussen Reports 5/28 - 5/30 1500 LV 48 51 -3
Economist/YouGov 5/26 - 5/28 1120 RV 44 52 -8
The Hill/HarrisX 5/24 - 5/25 1001 RV 44 56 -12
CBS News 5/17 - 5/20 1101 A 41 52 -11
Monmouth 5/16 - 5/20 719 RV 41 52 -11
Quinnipiac 5/16 - 5/20 1078 RV 38 57 -19
Politico/Morning Consult 5/17 - 5/19 1995 RV 42 56 -14
 
Back
Top