LogFAQs > #915382379

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	How is Trump's Approval rating still at 45%?
darkknight109 01/08/19 3:00:37 AM #54:	OhhhJa posted... You're both fighting over what amounts to something that's relatively unpredictable with tiny sample sizes for all variables. A national election is anything but a small sample size. That's one of the largest sample sizes possible. OhhhJa posted... I know you pride yourself with your statistics knowledge so you should admit that even gasp you could be wrong and trump could be reelected. When did I say that it's impossible for Trump to be re-elected? We don't even know who his opponent will be and, as the old saying goes, two weeks is an eternity in politics. Trying to guess the probable election outcomes this far out is a mug's game. The only thing that I was originally responding to was PO's assertion that the constant outrage over Trump has tuned out all but the hardcore Democrats, thereby helping Trump; the skyhigh participation in the midterms shows that is wrong. It doesn't guarantee that Trump won't be re-elected - and I never suggested it did, so I have no idea where you got that idea - but it does put paid to the idea that most people have "tuned out". OhhhJa posted... After all, the polls last time suggested he had virtually no chance and we saw how that worked out. If you're going to start quoting statistics, you should at least look up the ones you're citing. No, the polls did not say that Trump had "virtually no chance". The reputable polling outfits had the odds of Hillary winning at roughly 70%, give or take ~5%. She was definitely the odds-on favourite, but Trump's odds of winning were far from non-existent (to contrast, in Obama's re-election campaign he ended with a ~90% chance of winning). Moreover, the polls were actually pretty accurate when you actually dig down in the details. Hillary was polling ahead in the popular vote by about 3%, and that's almost exactly where she wound up. There were no states that made a huge jump over to Trump that completely defied the polling numbers - when you factor in the margin of error, the results were very much within what was statistically expected. Basically, based on the numbers from before the election, one of three results was expected: a marginal Trump victory, a marginal Clinton victory (the most likely result), or a significant Clinton victory. And make no mistake Trump's victory was extraordinarily marginal. The electoral college masked it pretty well, but this was probably the closest presidential election in the country's history other than Bush vs. Gore. Trump barely scraped out a win in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. If 50,000 people in those states - or about half a football stadium - had swapped their votes, we would be saying "Madame President" right now. The idea that Trump's win was some great statistical anomaly is a myth, perpetrated by those who either don't understand statistics or don't understand how elections work. OhhhJa posted... Also, in reference to him winning by the skin of his teeth, Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 to al gore and still got elected again in 2004 Bush's popularity also skyrocketed after 9/11, with his approval ratings topping out at an eye-popping 90%, and it enjoyed smaller blips after the initial invasion of Iraq and the capture of Saddam Hussein. By contrast, Trump has literally never been more popular than he was on election day; his approval has dropped among all political affiliations, and is currently somewhere between ~37% and 42%, which is roughly where Bush's was during the start of the financial crisis (and you saw what happened the following election to the Republicans). See previous comment about calling elections this far out, but those are two very different scenarios. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:915382379] in How is Tru... [t:77368084]...</cite> <quote><cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>You're both fighting over what amounts to something that's relatively unpredictable with tiny sample sizes for all variables. </quote> A national election is anything but a small sample size. That's one of the largest sample sizes possible. <cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>I know you pride yourself with your statistics knowledge so you should admit that even gasp you could be wrong and trump could be reelected.</quote> When did I say that it's impossible for Trump to be re-elected? We don't even know who his opponent will be and, as the old saying goes, two weeks is an eternity in politics. Trying to guess the probable election outcomes this far out is a mug's game. The only thing that I was originally responding to was PO's assertion that the constant outrage over Trump has tuned out all but the hardcore Democrats, thereby helping Trump; the skyhigh participation in the midterms shows that is wrong. It doesn't guarantee that Trump won't be re-elected - and I never suggested it did, so I have no idea where you got that idea - but it does put paid to the idea that most people have "tuned out". <cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>After all, the polls last time suggested he had virtually no chance and we saw how that worked out.</quote> If you're going to start quoting statistics, you should at least look up the ones you're citing. No, the polls did not say that Trump had "virtually no chance". The reputable polling outfits had the odds of Hillary winning at roughly 70%, give or take ~5%. She was definitely the odds-on favourite, but Trump's odds of winning were far from non-existent (to contrast, in Obama's re-election campaign he ended with a ~90% chance of winning). Moreover, the polls were actually pretty accurate when you actually dig down in the details. Hillary was polling ahead in the popular vote by about 3%, and that's almost exactly where she wound up. There were no states that made a huge jump over to Trump that completely defied the polling numbers - when you factor in the margin of error, the results were very much within what was statistically expected. Basically, based on the numbers from before the election, one of three results was expected: a marginal Trump victory, a marginal Clinton victory (the most likely result), or a significant Clinton victory. And make no mistake Trump's victory was extraordinarily marginal. The electoral college masked it pretty well, but this was probably the closest presidential election in the country's history other than Bush vs. Gore. Trump barely scraped out a win in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. If 50,000 people in those states - or about half a football stadium - had swapped their votes, we would be saying "Madame President" right now. The idea that Trump's win was some great statistical anomaly is a myth, perpetrated by those who either don't understand statistics or don't understand how elections work. <cite>OhhhJa posted...</cite> <quote>Also, in reference to him winning by the skin of his teeth, Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 to al gore and still got elected again in 2004 </quote> Bush's popularity also skyrocketed after 9/11, with his approval ratings topping out at an eye-popping 90%, and it enjoyed smaller blips after the initial invasion of Iraq and the capture of Saddam Hussein. By contrast, Trump has literally never been more popular than he was on election day; his approval has dropped among all political affiliations, and is currently somewhere between ~37% and 42%, which is roughly where Bush's was during the start of the financial crisis (and you saw what happened the following election to the Republicans). See previous comment about calling elections this far out, but those are two very different scenarios. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1