Trump hits 50% approval in Rasmussen poll
It’s not the first time, but it’s the first time in a while (see this chart). For most of the year he’s been moving around in the high 40s, after many months in the low-to-mid 40s during much of the last half of 2017.
It’s not the highest he’s ever been, though. For the first week of Trump’s presidency, his approval was in the high 50s. Then, for the month of Feburary, 2017, it dropped to the low-to-mid 50s. But in March of 2017 it dropped below 50 and stayed in the low-to-mid 40s for the rest of the year, even dropping as low as 39 in early August of 2017, a year ago. It stayed in the low 40s until 2018, when it graduated to mid 40s. It’s been hovering in that mid-to-high 40s range ever since, with occasional forays into 50 territory.
What does it all mean? There are those who completely discount polls; I’m not one of those people, although I am very skeptical of polls. But I think they do tend to reflect general trends over time, and the trends here are pretty clear.
How this will translate to the 2018 mid-terms—and if it will translate to them at all—is anyone’s guess.
I’m not about to spend hours and hours of tracking what each of these ups and downs reflect, but my guess is the economy is a biggee. But there’s also a role for the waxing and waning in the intensity of the Russian collusion coverage. For example, what was happening in August of 2017 in the MSM, when Trump’s approval was in the 39 cellar? A full bore press on the Donald Trump Jr. meeting with the Russian lawyer, that’s what.
If you think the MSM doesn’t affect public opinion, I beg to differ with you. A lot of people are highly influenced by it, whether they say they distrust the MSM or not.
The MSM definitely is the source of ‘news’ for a large majority of the public. I think the economy and djt’s strong stance on the invasion coming across the southern border benefit him in this Rasmussen poll. The midterms will be determined by those parameters, I hope. We’ll see.
Exactly, it is all noise until the midterm elections come in and then, if things work out the way I hope, the lefties will spend twice as much and still come up short in most of the elections. Old guys like me have not responded to polls for the last several decades but we turn out a vote every time.
In a rare moment of on-air candor, some NYT or WaPo bigshot some years back said the media’s slanted coverage provided the left with about a 15 point advantage. Currently the MSM is accurately defined as straight up batchsh*t crazy against the President, so taking that 15 point advantage into account it’s astounding he’s reached the 50% approval level.
In those unusual moments when a civil discussion can be engaged with someone on the other side, it’s interesting to steer the discussion toward whether we are a nation of laws or men. Illustrate the current state of affairs (economics, unemployment, foreign affairs) compared to the last administration and it occasionally gets interesting. Obama was suave and debonair (nation of men) while Trump is, well, a New York real estate guy – but his policies are overall working pretty well. While it is the policy that really counts, they can’t see beyond the man. And anyone who places their faith in the cult of personality (on either side of the political spectrum) is a fool.
But most of the time they’ve just got their go-to talking points.
Also, based on absolutely nothing but a remote knowledge of Trumps ‘Art of the Deal’ mentality, I won’t be at all surprised that 15 years from now we learn that all along it was a staff member doing all the tweets, just trolling the media. Who knows…
As Trump himself has mentioned, you need to add 12 to any poll about Trump’s favorability.
The polls massage public opinion. In this case, the approval rating is set to how much negative press Trum got. People are very predictable. They will believe what their social circle says and talks about, so if it is negative, they transfer this to the subject.
For those bean counters who think Trump’s policies and popularity will help Republicans get reelected this November:
https://moneymaven.io/mishtalk/economics/hey-mr-juncker-about-that-bean-order-XBprnZAw3EChzPYTEMC-4A/
Japan, China, and India, plus maybe some African nations, can buy up those beans.
In fact, the consumers may actually prefer foreign importations. It is a dramatic market upset, of course, for someone with a 25% market share in bean exports/imports to adapt to, but the material can store for awhile and it is a good opportunity to branch out into new foreign markets. A 25% market share is more than enough to capitalize the expansion into foreign markets. Food is something of a luxury in Europe but a necessity in the other spheres. Especially Japan, as it has little farmland and must import pretty much everything, which is why tariffs exist to protect local livestock and beef.
The world is being shaken up and forced to develop towards spiritual and human benefit. Not merely for capitalistic profit, as that is being destabilized as a trade off. This will only get worse regardless of who the world thinks is the US leader, or what happens in wars, or what policies nations adopt.
ymarsakar: Your last paragraph makes it sound as though capitalism and spirituality are mutually exclusive. No economic system in the history of mankind has lifted more people out of poverty than capitalism. Sounds pretty straightforward to me.
I believe it’s Dennis Prager who postulated that The Modern Left is the logical end to a life without a spiritual center. This hollowness is anathema to the human spirit, so it seeks meaning in silly / meaningless things like ‘saving the planet / whales / seals’, or evil things like socialism / central planning. It’s been said the inevitable misery produced by the latter isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. The do gooders have only our best interest in mind that if we’d only follow their dicta (because they’re so smart / noble / enlightened) our lives will be grand, but we always seem to fall short – while they get filthy rich (The Castros, Chavez’s daughter, Putin, Mao, Kim Jong Un).
The polls are decidedly iffy right now. I’m sure they are capturing some reality, but exactly how much, I don’t know. Nate Silver famously predicted the 2012 election almost flawlessly, but Romney was/is almost the Central Casting ideal of an Establishment Republican Candidate, he fit the pollster’s mental and math models perfectly.
Matters are complicated this year by the not-so-secret loathing of the President on the part of the GOP leadership in Congress. It’s no great secret that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell almost certainly would have preferred Hillary to Donald, and they really don’t want to limit immigration or restrict foreign trade at all.
Given their choice, the GOP leadership in Congress would focus on tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts, and the business agenda, and drop the rest, but the GOP voters are almost 180 degrees out of phase with that.
The GOP voters have become even more hostile to much of the traditional GOP economic agenda than Dem voters are, but the donor class is just as hostile to the social and nationalist agenda that animates much of the base.
I believe polls are important in describing trends, but a daily or weekly poll is meaningless. In Trump’s case, the revelation that he may have paid off a few more women beyond Stormy to keep quiet before the election might give a down number for a week or two after but it’s a blip. For the hardcore conservatives backing him it’s to be ignored, for the other side it’s @MeToo with no change in minds.
Gallop and Rasmussen probably have a normal error of +- 3.5%. Gallop has never had Trump’s approval above about 43-44 % (using the error, that’s 46.5 to 47.5% on the up) and Rasmussen has had a high of 51% (that’s 47.5% on the down). IOW, Gallup and Rasmussen aren’t actually in much or any disagreement at any one time if you consider the error. The number in the center is just the number in the center, it’s not a real number. Using it as one is wrong. The real ‘number’ is a range.
However, what is really important is the trend created by those ranges, and that is where that center number comes into play. Gallup’s trend chart of their center number shows Trump’s trend since Jan 2017 as slightly negative, see https://news.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx. Just scanning the Rasmussen numbers, they show either a flat or slightly positive trend. You can choose either as is your particular need, but there was no breakthrough where suddenly Trump became beloved.
The Fallacy Files (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive072018.html#07062018) gives a clear explanation as to why thinking that center number as meaningful is, well, a fallacy.
Parker, it’s not an invasion. It’s illegals (I am not PC over that issue, they are committing a misdemeanor first time over) coming here when our economy is good and leaving when it isn’t, all trying to make a better life for them and their families.
Mexicans, Central Americans, and South Americans are hard workers, tend to be conservative Catholics, and aren’t trying to invade our country. That fear-ridden connotation of Other that I think you have blinds you to that reality.
The Irish came here when there were no immigration laws, but they still invaded. The Italians came here legally in the early 1900s but still invaded. The joke in Arizona is that no one cares about illegal Canadians unless they speak French.
We created our nation with a concept that the Americas were a different place that should be free of European deceits and conceits. Then immediately embraced them in our dealings with anyone not an English speaker.
The population of the Americas is near a billion. The GDP is over 21 trillion (before you go that’s almost all the USA, understand that the numbers have a time stamp, I’m using 2016). Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Canada, and Mexico have a combined GDP of 5.17 trillion with a population of 433 million (Canada, Chile, and Argentina are the bigger performers by population and in that order). It’s not the best, but then that economic powerhouse south and north of their borders keeps thinking that the concept of the Americas only applies when the Falkland War happens.
The EU is the largest economy in the world. Sorry, it is. The AU could swamp them, and China and India, and we could avoid all the bureaucratic nonsense because we can learn from the mistakes of the EU. But first we would have to accept the New World as not the Old World, then that there are four language groups, then four cultures with different ways of doing things, and then dump all the prejudices.
We need new thinking about the Americas. We haven’t had a Congress or President in my lifetime that has done that but one time, the Clinton Administration. We now have a President and Congress doing the old brown hordes coming from the south thinking, which you embrace. A country called Switzerland can survive and prosper with four languages, but two frigging continents can’t. The idiocy of the most exceptional country amazes me.
I believe polls are important in describing trends, but a daily or weekly poll is meaningless. In Trump’s case, the revelation that he may have paid off a few more women beyond Stormy to keep quiet before the election might give a down number for a week or two after but it’s a blip. For the hardcore conservatives backing him it’s to be ignored, for the other side it’s @MeToo with no change in minds.
Gallop and Rasmussen probably have a normal error of +- 3.5%. Gallop has never had Trump’s approval above about 43-44 % (using the error, that’s 46.5 to 47.5% on the up) and Rasmussen has had a high of 51% (that’s 47.5% on the down). IOW, Gallup and Rasmussen aren’t actually in much or any disagreement at any one time if you consider the error. The number in the center is just the number in the center, it’s not a real number. Using it as one is wrong. The real ‘number’ is a range.
However, what is really important is the trend created by those ranges, and that is where that center number comes into play. Gallup’s trend chart of their center number shows Trump’s trend since Jan 2017 as slightly negative, see https://news.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx. Just scanning the Rasmussen numbers, they show either a flat or slightly positive trend. You can choose either as is your particular need, but there was no breakthrough where suddenly Trump became beloved.
The Fallacy Files (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive072018.html#07062018) gives a clear explanation as to why thinking that center number as meaningful is, well, a fallacy. It serves well when the actual range doesn’t.
Ariel said:
“Mexicans, Central Americans, and South Americans are hard workers, tend to be conservative Catholics, and aren’t trying to invade our country”.
Maybe each individual illegal alien is not “trying to invade”, but 25 million or so *have* crossed our borders illegally. I’m tired of apologists like you who suggest that it’s no big deal that millions of people wander in from just-damn-anywhere and we taxpayers are supposed to be happy to support them. And I guess we’re also supposed to turn a blind eye to the parasites and infectious diseases they bring with them – exposing OUR kids to illnesses unfamiliar to First-World medical practitioners. Then again, along with the “act of love”/”only trying to make a better life” intruders, we find SOME are gang members and drug runners; and SOME of them are Muslims intent on jihad. NO. Damn it, illegal aliens ARE a big deal, and I resent the moral preeners who cite Emma Lazarus’ poem as proof that Everyone From Everywhere ought to be allowed in.
Borders exist for a reason. They define the area within which our laws and customs will be upheld, and within which our rights as free citizens will be recognized and enforced. People who want to come
here have a legal means of petitioning for entry. Follow. The. Law.
HC68,
The polls are no more iffy now than when Clinton was President, or that well-read but inarticulate dunce (I amazed that people think inarticulate means stupid, a dunce) George Bush. Polls are what they are since polling started in the late 40s.
Jeane Dixon predicted things near flawlessly so long as you ignored that she was more often wrong than right. In fact the Jeane Dixon fallacy is all about ignoring that someone is more often wrong than even chance allows, but still believing that they actually have predictive powers. So Nate Silvers?
“but Romney was/is almost the Central Casting ideal of an Establishment Republican Candidate, he fit the pollster’s mental and math models perfectly.” Except he’s a Mormon, which makes him an heretic to too many Christian Americans (as an ex-Mormon with Southern Baptists ties and long time Atheist, having listened to even Episcopalians and Anglicans, a Mormon is worse than a Catholic) from a family that fled to Mexico to maintain polygamy. No, he didn’t fit Central Casting because too many Americans still hate Mormons, see Mormons as a cult, and can never see Mormons as equals. Romney was a ship that had no course other than to founder.
“Given their choice, the GOP leadership in Congress would focus on tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts, and the business agenda, and drop the rest, but the GOP voters are almost 180 degrees out of phase with that.
The GOP voters have become even more hostile to much of the traditional GOP economic agenda than Dem voters are, but the donor class is just as hostile to the social and nationalist agenda that animates much of the base.” And what is this other than gibberish? “Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.”
Now there are conflicting numbers, according to Gallup in October 2017, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrat, 24% identified as Republican, and 42% as Independent. In other accounts, the numbers of Democrats and Republicans are higher with the obligatory lowering of Independents. But you’re saying that Congress because it’s Republican it then should ignore over 73% of the population. That’s one damn bad Republic, Harry. But I’ve seen other numbers where Republicans are 37%, so then it’s only 63%. What a relief…
Mongrel19,
“Your last paragraph makes it sound as though capitalism and spirituality are mutually exclusive. No economic system in the history of mankind has lifted more people out of poverty than capitalism. Sounds pretty straightforward to me.” IOW, ymar is right.
How does an economic system that lifts people out of poverty, or doesn’t, have anything to do with spirituality? It doesn’t, and you explained why. Capitalism is an economic system, it doesn’t care about your religion, your ideology, your spirituality, your birthday, or your dog. In fact, it doesn’t care about you because it’s an economic system. It has nothing to do with spirituality, and again it cares nothing about your dog.
Try to understand categories and where there is no overlap. Your dog will love you for it. BTW, I think ymar is almost always wrong, he’s a caricature, but if he made you think that an economic system and spirituality are mutually exclusive, he was right because they have nothing in common.
“The polls massage public opinion. In this case, the approval rating is set to how much negative press Trum got. People are very predictable. They will believe what their social circle says and talks about, so if it is negative, they transfer this to the subject.”
Ymar, you write, say nothing, but think what you write is profound. What I quoted says nothing. You said nothing.
Gerard vanderleun,
That’s because Trump is an habitual liar. If he said to add twelve points, the truth is in the other direction. Trump has claimed he was a major developer in New York but he’s never been in the top 20.
When a guy uses superlatives about everything he does…yet the reality is something different, you have a con-man. I knew this about the guy back in the 80s, but I never thought so many would fall for his schtick in the 2010s.
I don’t even want to address Glenn H. Reynolds. But then our history is full of supposedly learned men falling for the huckster,
“In a rare moment of on-air candor, some NYT or WaPo bigshot some years back said the media’s slanted coverage provided the left with about a 15 point advantage. Currently the MSM is accurately defined as straight up batchsh*t crazy against the President, so taking that 15 point advantage into account it’s astounding he’s reached the 50% approval level.” Well, damn, some guy in some organization said in a moment of what you call candor something that met your confirmation bias and all was solved about the world and everything explained.
I think H. L. Mencken, Mark Twain, or even Will Rogers saw you coming. And then you so well illustrated it…
“In those unusual moments when a civil discussion can be engaged with someone on the other side, it’s interesting to steer the discussion toward whether we are a nation of laws or men.” That’s a damn fine sentiment, and which I agree with if you meant we are a nation of laws, but then you made the mistake of “Obama was suave and debonair (nation of men)”, which doesn’t follow unless suave and debonair must mean you are for a nation of men rather than just suave and debonair, and then “while Trump is, well, a New York real estate guy” so from nation of men to nation of wolves. I’m waiting for the nation of laws, could you get to it in another comment?
” but his policies are overall working pretty well” How the hell can you know that? I say this from watching George Bush blamed for the housing crash when it came from what Congress and Clinton did years before. It takes time, sometimes decades, to see what those policies create. You are no different than the Democrats that blamed Bush for what was done before he was President, they saw that it was good back then, but when it wasn’t they blamed someone else. What will you be doing when Trump’s policies lead to a crash in a later President’s term? Waxing exultant about how great was his policies and then clucking about what this other guy did to us?
I am so sick and tired of all of you because you fail to learn. What you do is root for your tribal leader and nothing more.
Ariel: Being fully aware of confirmation bias, do you really think the MSM provides down-the-middle reportage? That there is no advantage provided by their presentation (or non-presentation) of the ‘news’?
There is no confusion regarding economic systems and spirituality. Caring for our fellow man is a central tenet of many of the world’s faiths, why would we not want an economic system that does just that?
Nation of men vs nation of laws. The admirers of the crease in his pants lifted Obama to deity-like status amongst many in the media, making them unable – or unwilling – to see the corruption and narcissism which permeated that administration.
Current policies. Work force participation rates, respect (not liked, but respect) from our allies (NATO members finally willing to pony up), the discomfort of our enemies (NK, Russia, Iran, China), economic growth. Following your logic, this is all the result of Obama’s policies bearing fruit. I for one, am not buying it.
Ariel: “I am so sick and tired of all of you because you fail to learn. What you do is root for your tribal leader and nothing more.”
My observation prior to your comment: “While it is the policy that really counts, they can’t see beyond the man [Obama]. And anyone who places their faith in the cult of personality (on either side of the political spectrum) is a fool.”
Ariel:
Do away with the personal insults towards other posters.
No economic system in the history of mankind has lifted more people out of poverty than capitalism. Sounds pretty straightforward to me.
Capitalism is like a microwave. It doesn’t stop people from putting pets and cats inside.
Humans find it useful to make money and get work done for productivity, or at least your bosses benefit. The Elohim, however, have different agendas and goals.
Ymar, you write, say nothing, but think what you write is profound.
When did Ariel become psychic? You should post that as your job now a days.
Here’s what ariel is saying: “I’m so much smarter than the rest of you dummies”
“I am so sick and tired of all of you because you fail to learn.”
So what are you doing here other than to stroke your own ego by displaying what you *think* is your superiority over the rest of us. By the way, your definition of “learn” is “agree with ariel”.
I skipped over this originally because poll watching doesn’t interest me much, but came back to it, after the interesting Ariel comment and commentary over evaluating Presidents past and present. But I wanted to point out a math fallacy.
Ariel says:
“Gallop and Rasmussen probably have a normal error of +- 3.5%. Gallop has never had Trump’s approval above about 43-44 % (using the error, that’s 46.5 to 47.5% on the up) and Rasmussen has had a high of 51% (that’s 47.5% on the down). IOW, Gallup and Rasmussen aren’t actually in much or any disagreement at any one time if you consider the error. The number in the center is just the number in the center, it’s not a real number.”
So 44% center + 3.5% error = 47.5% possible for Gallop and, (1)
51% center – 3.5% error = 47.5% possible for Rasmussen. (2)
How do the pollsters define error? So that the +/-3.5% range centered about the center value has a 95% probability of encompassing the true answer. This is also known approximately as a +/- 2*SD range where SD is a standard deviation.
This means that there is a (5/2)% = 2.5% probability that case (1), or higher, happens for Gallup numbers; and a 2.5% probability that case (2), or lower, happens for Rasmussen numbers. And because Gallup and Rasmussen are entirely different operations and therefore uncorrelated, the odds that both happen at once are given by multiplying the individual probs.
0.025 * 0.025 = 0.000625 for a 0.063% probability or 630 parts per million.
So no, you can’t just add or subtract these “margin of error” numbers and get meaningful likelihoods. If you want to get the “ballpark” range that is likely, then you might use the +/-1*SD range which would be about the same as cutting the “margin of error” in half. That gives you roughly a 68% confidence interval.
The center number is a real number in the sense that +/-0.1% range centered on the center number is more likely to contain the true answer than one placed anywhere else on the bell curve.
_______
Finally, scientists as a group ALWAYS place much more emphasis on those things where a fully developed math analysis can be applied, e.g. random sampling errors; as opposed to non mathematical issues, such as systematic errors. I’ve been told that Gallup and others systematically over sample Dems and Independents and under sample Reps., which is why I tend to look at Rasmussen. There is no math for detecting how good or bad Gallup is this regard, and for all I know they’re just fine.
TommyJay “There is no math for detecting how good or bad Gallup is this regard, and for all I know they’re just fine.”
Thanks for your math analysis BUT — there sure is math for detecting how good or bad Gallup, Rasmussen, or any other predictor is in their predictions.
You take their prior predictions over the last 10 (or X) years, and find out how many of the actual results vary. Of course, this is predictions of some actual result, like election results or climate change temperatures.
A huge amount of Business Analyst work is comparing forecasts to actuals, and trying to get better forecasts — which mean forecasts today of what will be actual next month, quarter, or year.
Tho it’s true that there is no math / truth mechanism for predictions of opinions for which there is no “actual” with with to compare the prediction.
Which is why I also don’t watch most polls most of the time.
TommyJay,
I’ll use Pew Research (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/08/understanding-the-margin-of-error-in-election-polls/) “A margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points at the 95% confidence level means that if we fielded the same survey 100 times, we would expect the result to be within 3 percentage points of the true population value 95 of those times.” A survey is language, sampling size, and demographics. And Gallup and Rasmussen present those numbers from those variables as Pew Research gives.
Gallup and Rasmussen could describe it using standard deviation, but they don’t. As for the chances of the two polls coinciding, I was only addressing that both polls were in the same range by their definitions. As far as 630:1,000,000, you know with certainty that this isn’t one of those times?
Neo,
This is unanchored: “Do away with the personal insults towards other posters.”
Given that I think at most I’m being harsh, then perhaps you can show me the specific example(s).
Ariel:
Here you write: I am so sick and tired of all of you because you fail to learn. What you do is root for your tribal leader and nothing more. It’s the “all of you” and the condescending “you fail to learn” as well as the “all you do is root for your tribal leader and nothing more.”
And you wonder what I’m referring to? How extraordinary. Several commenters take you to task for that very comment in this thread, so I don’t know why you would be unaware of the problem. In fact, the comment right above the comment of mine where I tell you to stop the insults mentions that very insult.
It wasn’t just towards one poster, either, you were insulting, it was towards the collective “all of you.”
You also had written things like this:
Try to understand categories and where there is no overlap. Your dog will love you for it. BTW, I think ymar is almost always wrong, he’s a caricature, That one is more borderline, but it’s the gratuitous “dog” remark as well as the calling Ymar a caricature.
So that’s what I was referring to in that comment of mine.
More happened afterward, too, although not in this thread—you insulted me quite nastily (and had your facts wrong, as well).