Poll: Trump hits new low at 33 percent approval

>>163594
It's because he signed the Russia sanctions bill. the Russians are pulling their bot support away

>>163594
He'll Quit soon, and Pence will purge the nation of those scheming Communists and their Progressive Lies.

Where did they take the poll, California.

>>163594
>Quinnipiac
They had him at 35 and he's down to 33. They are the outlier. The average is still just shy of 40.

>>163598
The only bots and shill have been proven to belong to the left.

>>163619

37 and d

>>163594
Everything's coming up anal!

>>163613
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2476
>We asked 1125 people over landlines in predominantly blue counties how they felt about Donald Blumbf
>Despite Repub voters saying good things, they are about 20% of people surveyed because they dont represent the real americans Drumpf wants to put into camps
>Plz pay attention to our +10 Dem polls

>>163708
Donald Blumpff? Don't you mean Groland Grumphf?

>libtards think anyone cares about their bullshit polls
Fuck off.

>>163594
Response bias at its finest, and I hate this fat sack of shit.

Over 90 percent of Dems said they disapproved, just over 70 percent of Reps said they approved. With a near 2:1 ratio that means there were clearly more Dem respondents. Why? Probably because a Dem is more likely to weigh in on Trump negatively than a Rep is to speak positively about the guy. And they know this, too.

Leave it to any news source to not conduct careful analysis of the data sheets and look at the conclusion that my cousin in middle school could have written up.

>>163714
In alot of the polling questions they ask things like "I like Trump and his policies BUT I disapprove the way Congress is handling healthcare"

That's counted as "disapproval"

It's loaded questions and shitty bias toward blue states. Just like the election polls, I dont take these seriously because they don't.

>>163715
No, I don't think there's reason to believe anything shady like that is going on, the raw data seems fairly legit.

It's just that there is evidence of response bias (which admittedly is not really within the pollmakers' control given current political climate) and the conclusion was written very poorly, no higher level thinking or proper analysis, no potential sources of error, nothing. This is because statistics has become a political tool nowadays and news sources and media need to report numbers and percentages, that's what grabs people's attention in the Information Age, they don't give a shit about the process despite that's how the numbers mean anything. And you see both sides doing this all the damn time.

This is borderline unimportant news just like any articles that tout a controversial statistic in such a favorable light and shouldn't be posted here.

>>163714
Uh, you do know that there are about 1.5 times as many Democrats as Republicans in the US, right?

http://i2.wp.com/republic3-0.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/partyID.png

>>163714
>Independents don't exist, it's only R and D

>>163728
Yeah Illegal immigration is a problem

>>163744
Dude, Democrats have been the plurality in the US since before the 1965 Immigration Act, when whites were still >90% of the US population. You clearly don't know anything about politics. I encourage to start educating yourself :)

https://www1.udel.edu/johnmack/research/de_voting/pct_party_x_birthyear.png

>>163744
>only 4 cases of voter fraud in 2016
>3 out of 4 were republicans

>>163714
>just over 70 percent of Reps said they approved.

This is not a good sign that 1 out of 4 Republicans do not actively approve of a Republican president.

>>163760
Cuckservatives have always opposed Trump. Their opinions are fucking irrelevant.

>>163620
>no u

>>163728
That wasn't my point. Yes, it's more likely that there will be a higher number of Dems on a nationwide poll. But the numbers are skewed a bit too heavily. That's because Dems are more likely to respond to this type of poll just based on subject matter, Dems love stats and numbers and what they consider science so if they can scientifically prove Trump's incompetent they'll try it.

That the conclusion doesn't address your post nor my argument though it's very important when interpreting results is what makes this article look stupid.

>>163743
What the fuck are you trying to say?

>>163760
Well that's Trump's problem. Probably going to get lower, too.

>>163756
Untrue, fake news

>(((polls)))
https://streamable.com/ilc2u

>>163786
The numbers of respondents is made to match the proportion in the US electorate. Do you really think pollsters are dumb enough not to take things like response bias into account? They make sure to get a representative sample of the US population.

>>163594
fake news

>>163806

I mean, I'd believe you, but after the whole "electoral result in spite of every major poll" thing.... I'm not inclined to.

>>163832
The national polls were accurate though? Hillary was ahead by 2% in polls and ended up winning the pop vote by about that amount. Nobody could've predicted with any real level of certainty that Trump was going to win the electoral vote on the backs of <100k voters spread across three states.

Eh, this is probably an outlier. Most polls show Trump at 36-37% approval, though it has clearly been dropping over the past few weeks.

>>163836
Slight correction

Here's the RCP average for reference
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
Polls showed Hillary at 3.2% ahead nationally. She ended up being 2.1% ahead.

>>163806
>They make sure to get a representative sample of the US population.
>I say this despite there being no explanation of the sampling methods at all

>>163858
It's fucking Quinnipiac. They, like all the other top pollsters like Gallup, YouGov, Rasmussen, randomly sample from the US population and then weight according to census data on age, education, race, and region.

Seriously, I fucking find it amazing that you idiots have the gall to talk polling being biased without knowing basic shit like this. Fucking kill yourselves. I'm done spoonfeeding you /pol/tard shitposters.

>>163862
>Just trust them!
>The numbers dont add up? The methodology doesnt break down sample sizes? Arizona uses a +34 dem sample?
>Well your just ignant
The polls results and methodology is up here >>163708 and yes, it does over sample dems like so many other polls do/did. Theres inherent bias in a methodology of cold calling and asking about politics, especially when half of your sample is landlines (assuming they follow the rammussen methodology on polls)

>>163862
>libtard mad that people are pointing out how his polls are all bullshit

>>163806
We only know the respondents were selected via landlines and randomized phone numbers nationwide. Yes, it's representative of the US population in that it was done via random sampling, but it doesn't provide good data for generalizing to the whole population.

>not to take response bias into account
Political polls always suffer from response bias, bud, it's impossible in almost every method of random sampling. I'm asking that they include the fact that there was an overwhelming majority of Dems in the raw data, so we can draw proper conclusions. 61-33 is useless info once you realize that it's mostly dems hating trump and reps mostly liking him (with much more emphasis on the dem opinion due to higher representation in the sample). Everybody knows this, but the Hill is trying to make it seem like it's something bigger. So at the end, a retarded news site doesn't report these sorts of things as absolute fact.

Look, I'm not saying it's a bad poll, there's a lot of useful raw data here. But when we're talking approval ratings of the president, a fairly important value in the study, you can't just copy a stat from raw data without understanding what it means. That's dishonest.

>>163862
>polls predicted Hillary winning the election the entire time until maybe the day of
>WOW ARE YOU REALLY TELLING ME THAT MY POLL IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT?!?! IT IS ENTIRELY SCIENTIFIC JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHER ONES!!!!

>>163620
>proven

>>163594

Fake news

>>163880
polls predicted Hillary would win the popular vote by about 3 percent. They were exactly right. All they got wrong was the distribution of the vote, because state by state polling is very difficult. Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan were all won by less than 1 percent. It is easy to miss a polling error like that. Deliberately misunderstanding the science behind polling does not make it fake nor does it make you smarter

>>163906

kys cuck

Polls also predicted her winning the entire election and Trump winning being almost impossible.

There is not science to polling. It's one of the most easily fallable methods of gathering data.

Of course he will have low approval ratings if you poll mostly commies

>>163906
>7.75/8 months of polling she is ahead by 10-15 points country wide, Trumps best states are +2 or +3 points
>articles and speculations about states like texas and arizona becoming swing states
>the only poll that disagrees uses a totally different methodology (LA Times)
>Every tv news station from fox to MSNBC shows Trump down on every metric and issue except the economy
>Last 2 weeks before the election
>Trump magically gains a ton of ground
>Many states are suddenly almost even
>Trump breaches in every red state
>Gets dangerously close in places like michigan and illinois
>Exceeds the new polls in many states, margin of error is almost completely for Trump
>For the rest of time: pollsters were right about hillary being ahead nationwide (entirely on the backs of NY, Cali and some cities) they can be trusted to be competant
>Even though the only poll that was accurate from day one was the one not cold calling landlines