SAY IT WITH ME LOWEST APPROVAL RATING EVER

>>133893925
Fake news

Whoops. I guess being disloyal to your country and running interference for Putin and his oligarchs isn't so popular after all.

Surely the polls are accurate this time.

Butthurt Amerisharts only think the polls are wrong when they are negative. Sad!

>>133894188
That's the craziest fucking thing I've ever heard.

>>133894247
Given that they were accurate last time, yes, surely they are.

(3 million votes, yo.)

File: 1479418720301.gif (3MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x270px

>literally no way to remove a POTUS unless he personally shoots up an orphanage while doing coke.
>no alternative candidate on offer

haha just enjoy this 8 year ride
i know i will

>>133894390
that's because a nigger wrote it.

File: LittleRee-1.jpg (407KB, 916x720px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 916x720px

WHY DO AMERICANS HATE HIM
IT'S LIKE THEY'RE BELIEVING THIS RUSSIA STORY ACTUALLY HAPPENED

>>133894504
I'm sorry, you must be new here. What I was doing was called "being sarcastic". Here at /pol/, we produce nothing but the highest quality satire and irony.

>not undersampling Republicans

the interesting number is 90% R approve while only 5% D

get fucked commies

>>133894373
Totally.
What's even worse is this quote from Trump: "even though almost 40% is not bad at this time".

>>133894791
But less Republicans exist now...

>>133894791
>not understanding statistics, polling science, or the concept of representative sampling
Don't you get tired of being retarded day in and day out?

>>133894424
National polls, yes.

State polls weren't even fucking close. ME-2 was off by 10 points.

>>133893925
Say it with me: approval ratings mean shit.

>>133895048
>>not understanding statistics, polling science, or the concept of representative sampling

I think I've heard this before. I believe it was in reference to the poll that had Hilary winning Arizona by 5 points.
Which leads me to believe that you're full of shit.

I also don't care because impeachment isn't a popularity contest.

File: 1417583626669.png (645KB, 722x525px) Image search: [Google]

645KB, 722x525px

>>133894424
>a week out from the election they where calling Pennsylvania a 14% lead for Shillary Clinton
pic related, its you

>>133893925
As long as he keeps up the shitposting, I still like him.

>>133895232
>I believe it was in reference to the poll that had Hilary winning Arizona by 5 points.
It's in reference to your lack of understanding of science you dipshit.

>>133893925
And yet he will be elected again.

>>133894086

fpbp

OP is fake news

>>133893925
So the guy who has the entire media establishment against him has a low approval rating? No way dude!

>>133894665
>>133893925

Fuck off Colbert, we aren't your personal meme army, fag.

>>133893925
The fact that that many people actually think he's doing a good job is depressing. How the fuck did people get to be so stupid.

>>133895048
lmao you shills said this same thing during the election about all the polls and you were proven wrong, and yet you still believe.
Listen, Nate Silver intentionally lied to you about what oversampling means, or he's the biggest hack in the world. He played some semantics games and and you all fell inline and are still posting about it.

>>133895671
>being so paranoid and retarded that you're scared of a late night comedian that doesn't know or care about you

>>133895844
You don't understand, do you. If a scientist is wrong once, it doesn't mean that whole branch of science is wrong.

>>133893925
Kys jew

fake news

>>133895499
>population in U.S is roughly 40% I, 30% D, and 25% R.
>bullshit polls and approval ratings are often times some thing like 65% D, 20 R, and 15% I.
>LOL U DUN UNDERSTAND SCIENCE AND POLLS MAN
>IT'S REPRESENTATIVE OF THE POPULATION

I would recommend some adult literacy courses and critical thinking skills. Because you have the competency of a retarded ape.

Who cares
h
o

c
a
r
e
s

>>133895754

What's your standard of a 'good job'?

Imagine Clinton is in office, right now. Exactly what do you see her doing that would justify a vote for her? Selling more state secrets and favors to China and her international banking donors?

Please libshart, enlighten us.

>>133895754
he's not even doing as bad as I expected he would

>>133895933
>If a scientist is wrong once, it doesn't mean that whole branch of science is wrong.
Correct.
However,
> If a scientist is wrong once, and they do the exact same methods again, it does mean that whole branch of science is wrong.
You can even quote your kike friend (((Einstein))) on that one.

>>133895952
If you're crying fake news, then why don't you look at your lovely Fox News poll. Even they can't spin it positively, as Trump's approval still hasn't been higher than where Obama's ended.

>>133895933
>if I post nonsensical bullshit when he calls me out I don't have to respond to what he said
cool man. Enjoy your finely crafted narrative, just be warned, its popped before and it will pop again.

kek don't care

https
:/

Hit me up guys
/discord
.gg
/EKYtP

>>133893925
BEST PRESIDENT EVER

Polls are meaningless.

>>133896210
fuck off

File: 1139851415241.jpg (553KB, 821x1277px) Image search: [Google]

553KB, 821x1277px

>Poll asking Clinton voters what they think of Trump

LEL

>>133895964

My friends and I accurately predicted the 2016 election just by ballparking the poll numbers back to what the actual party ID normally is.

Take it down from assuming 25% of voters would be black to 12% and suddenly it was a dead heat instead of a Hillary blowout...

>>133896218

This.

Polls are shoved in our faces by MSM, which are as left wing as it gets.

Why would anyone expect them to be anything but dishonest and butthurt?

>>133895933
Polling is biased and the point is to paint a false view of the world.

>>133893925
So, like 8% of his voters disapprove of him? Not bad.
Hillary got 48% of the vote, so right off the bat her voters will disapprove of Trump no matter what.

>>133895964
If they know the %s of their study, and they know the %s of the whole country, then they adjust the results of the study based on the relationship between the two %s. It's the fucking science of statistics, do you really think nobody's figured this out yet??

You're trolling me, right? Nobody is this stupid.

>>133896343
>what is 25%
>what is flipping a coin twice and getting heads both times
Wow 25% might as well be 0% amirite

>>133893925
i miss grace

File: 1496371693740.gif (181KB, 477x348px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 477x348px

>>133896343
>My friends and I accurately predicted the 2016 election just by ballparking the poll numbers back to what the actual party ID normally is.

First it was
>the polls were right!
now it's
>okay, the polls were wrong, but I was right! Even though I can't prove it! And I'm right this time as well!
Nice moving the goal posts. At least you're now accepting my original argument of the pollsters WERE WRONG.

See you in 2018 faggot. Midterms are going to rail you in the ass.

>>133893925
>>133891993
>>133891993
can we talk about the literal death of the petro dollar instead

Cool, I guess Trump's presidency is over.

What? He still gets to sign executive orders and fill judicial vacancies no matter what the discredited mainstream media-commissioned pollsters say?

Huh.

File: chance_of_winning.png (32KB, 1247x474px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 1247x474px

>>133893925

>implying polls are accurate

go back to 538 doofus

>>133896397
No, the point is to figure out what objective reality is like. You've been told that people are trying to trick you to get you to hate those people for no reason.

Or is it a gigantic conspiracy that affects all polls and polling science?

>>133896461
>If they know the %s of their study, and they know the %s of the whole country, then they adjust the results of the study based on the relationship between the two %s. It's the fucking science of statistics, do you really think nobody's figured this out yet??

Yeah, they (((adjusted))) it alright. giving clinton 5 in AZ, 14 in PA, even in ohio (she lost by 7), and 10 in ME-2.
Real sound work on their part with the (((adjustments))).

>>133893925
>polling a sample population
>heavy bias in "random sample
>expecting accurate results
>thinking a sample of 10,000 properly displays national interest.
This is why Liberals are in a death spiral right now.
Say it with me FAKE NEWS.

>>133896582

Here's some objective reality for you, dipshit.

Trump won, despite ALL of MSM saying he would lose.

That's the reality you have to live with, salty cunt.

File: IMG_0970.jpg (122KB, 750x774px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 750x774px

>>133894599
That's liberals for you. They want a coup at any cost.
The rest are just dumb followers.

>>133896562
>implying a 20% chance means there's no possible way he could win
Flip a coin. I bet you'll get 2 or 3 heads or tails in a row sometimes. Guess what, that has a 20% chance of happening.

Things that have a non-0% chance of happening actually can happen, it's insane, I know.

>>133896681
>HAHA YOU THOUGHT YOU MADE A LOGICAL POINT BUT IT WAS THE JEWS THE WHOLE TIME!
Jesus christ.

File: 1489564503754.jpg (34KB, 405x400px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 405x400px

>>133893925
>imblyign anyone who dosnt approve disapproves

>>133896742
He sure did. And now he's fucking it up one day at a time.

>>133896792
he wasn't supposed to win tho

>>133893925
Lifelong Democrat turned reluctant Republican here.
You are fake news.

>>133893925
it

>>133893925
IMPEACH
M
P
E
A
C
H

>>133896757

It's time to charge the DNC with TREASON

Democrats refuse to accept the results of the election.
Democrats declare anyone who does not support their party a "nazi"
Democrats start looting and rioting.
Democrats start calling for violence against Trump supporters.
Democrats start randomly assaulting people.
Democrats openly call for the assasination of our president.
Democrats start killing policemen.
Democrats start shooting elected officials.

Democrats claim the Presidential Election cannot be rigged.
Democrats create an obstructionist campaign claiming the election was rigged.

The DNC is committing acts of treason in an attempt to overthrow our government because they lost the election.

Dont forget mass democrat voter fraud by citizens, illegals, and felons

>>133896792

Are you really inferring Trump had no chance of winning, yet somehow won because muh low statistical % outlier?

Fucking cognitive dissonance at its worst. Just kys already you sad sack of shit. Trump isnt going anywhere for 8 more years.

File: 40keks.jpg (17KB, 292x257px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 292x257px

>>133896792
>>HAHA YOU THOUGHT YOU MADE A LOGICAL POINT BUT IT WAS THE JEWS THE WHOLE TIME!
>Jesus christ.

>Make argument and call out jews
>lel, you make fun of jews, therefore your argument doesn't count.

See, it doesn't work that work. If I call you a faggot, that isn't an argument. That's just simply ad hom.
But if I make an argument and ALSO call you a faggot, that's not ad hom. That's just me calling you a faggot.

In your /r/eddit attempt to look cool and throw out "muh logical fallacies" you just instead ignored my argument. So I'll repeat it again since you're retarded.


I repeat (and please just address this part)
Yeah, they adjusted it alright. giving clinton 5 in AZ, 14 in PA, even in ohio (she lost by 7), and 10 in ME-2.
Real sound work on their part with the adjustments.

>>133896949
>>133897109
Holy fuck. Please read very carefully. He had a 20% chance. Did I type 0%? No.

Did he have a lesser chance to win? Yes. Did he have 0% chance of winning? No.

Please tell me this isn't too complicated for you.

>>133897136
I explain that statistics are adjusted reasonably, using well-defined formulae, to account for discrepancies. You laughed that off, saying oh yeah they sure did "adjust" it, completely ignoring the point of what I was saying.

So, because one prediction was fucked up, all of math is wrong now? No, you goddamn retard, that's not how it works.

>>133896792
>Flip a coin. I bet you'll get 2 or 3 heads or tails in a row sometimes. Guess what, that has a 20% chance of happening.
>doesn't understand standard deviation.
>doesn't realize the 1% chance refereed to him barely winning
>doesn't realize him getting 306 EV was 4, 5, or even 6 SD away from the mean.
>lel sometimes it's just off guys, that's odds

Yes, surely we should trust the experts who were fucking 6 SD off the mean.

>>133893925
>>>133894086 >>133895214 >>133895440 >>133895513 >>133895581 >>133895671 >>133895754 >>133895942 >>133896218 >>133896455 >>133896472 >>133896538 >>133896562 >>133896741 >>133896907 >>133897058 >>133897085
>polls
>trump

fucking kek
i am a meme war veteran m8 i member how there was no fucking snowball chance in hell for trump to even have a shot
according to the polls and pollsters and nate fucking plutonium
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGomGRZIDIE

>>133896792
>>133897184
>Things that have a non-0% chance of happening actually can happen, it's insane, I know.

Man, I've never seen this level of retard. Are you really the best shareblue has to offer? Did brock outsource to India? Lmao!

>>133893925
>D+12
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAGAHAHAHAHA

File: IMG_0968.jpg (237KB, 668x1024px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 668x1024px

>>133897096
Don't forget the main medias collusion with the DNC. This was going before the election. We have so much evidence of this corruption. They need to be charged as welll.

File: M.A.G.A FOR THE EMPEROR.jpg (113KB, 842x725px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 842x725px

>>133896287

>>133897096
It's organized sedition bare minimum. At this point anyone who's still a Democrat needs to be considered an enemy of the state (presuming they're not just retarded and in a coma so that they have no idea what has happened in the last couple years) and I'm not meming.

>>133897340
Okay then, don't trust those experts. Are you implying that every statistics expert was involved in that prediction

>>133897400
>I know you're right and have nothing to counter your point with so I'll insult you
Sounds about right.

>>133897328
>You laughed that off, saying oh yeah they sure did "adjust" it, completely ignoring the point of what I was saying.
Because what they did was laughable and in no way reflects what you describe.

If you have a sample size of 2 people, you can't fucking adjust that. There are limits to what you can adjust.
And polls with 80%+ dems and 65% women are not adjustable, because the remaining sample sizes of the remaining populations that comprise the rest of that 100% total are too fucking small.

Not to mention the small sample sizes are even cherry picked to boot.
Their adjustment in the AZ poll that had Hilary winning by 5% meant shit, because that poll had a majority of republicans that voted against Trump, which was categorically false.

>>133897438
posting (((that image)))

You are going to get doxed the fuck out nazi

>>133897546

You're literally insane.

Dodgy polls aren't doing shit for Dems. They lost to a fucking body-slammer and a woman without an ounce of charisma in her body. Trump just has to be more palatable than the Dems.

It's like the old "You don't need to run faster than the bear -- just faster than your fellow camper."

>>133897607
Quit focusing on that one instance. It's the only place where your argument holds any water.

What the fuck poll were we talking about in the first place? Was it conducted by the same people? Where is your evidence that they're wrong in this one like they were wrong in the one you keep referring to over and over again?

>>133897663
You can't seriously be implying that he had a 0% chance of winning, can you?

>>133893925
If this were anywhere close to being true, Trump would have been impeached already.

File: 1493559191969.png (486KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 1280x720px

>>133893925
BUTTTTTTTTTTT BUTUTT HE WAS HOPEY CHANGY HE WAS GONNA MAKE EVERYTHING BETTER AND DRAIN THE SWAMP!

>>133897546
>Okay then, don't trust those experts. Are you implying that every statistics expert was involved in that prediction
Nate Silver, and like 2 other pollsters had Hilary in the 75-90% win range.
Everyone else was either 90% or 99%, so at that point you're not just getting into the several SD of a single poll being wrong.

You're going into the idea that SEVERAL polls were SEVERAL SD off, and that in itself is also several SD from the mean in concept.

This isn't a simple matter of
>people thought Hilary would win and shit didn't
no, this is a matter of
>Trump literally cannot win in every universe known to man except 1 out of 7489317489317980.

Being wrong is one thing. Being slightly wrong and still having an opinion is another.
Being totally off the mark and then stating your opinions as fact
>>133893925
>SAY IT WITH ME

>LOWEST

>APPROVAL RATING

>EVER

Is full blown asinine.

It's almost as if the libtards forget about Sam Wang, an esteemed analyst, reading the polls and giving Hillary a 99% chance of winning based on what the polls were saying.

>>133897657
Come get me.
I got something for you or any other faggot that wants to try their luck.

>>133898009
INB4 "Drumpf got his 1% lucky day." Or 5% for the NYT, if I recall.

File: 1487233587670.jpg (137KB, 500x510px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 500x510px

>>133893925

most people don't like hitler, but tell me again /pol/

did he do anything wrong?

>>133897718
>Quit focusing on that one instance.
>one instance
>AZ +5
>Ohio Even
>ME +10
>PA + 14
>WI + 7

Not to mention the fact, that these results weren't just one off polls. The above results were CONSISTENTLY reported for weeks by multiple operations.
So something like the +14 PA is really
>+5PA, +20PA, +14PA, +14PA, +8PA...,...,...
and so on.

That's the entire point. It's not one off. It's not a simple mistake. It's not within margin of error.

Literally everyone fucked up royal across the board consistently over a period of time and totally missed the mark by +3 SV.

So to invite their insight on the situation is laughable.

>>133893925

Fuck off with this shit already. Hillary Clinton and her bunch of degenerate lackeys have to be the sorest losers in history with no grasp of reality. It is only true mental cases that are still squawking about Russia and impeachment. Nobody fucking cares anymore, Trump will only be President for 8 years. That is a miniscule amount of time over a lifetime of political options. The fact that media matters and shareblue are still harrassing everybody that didn't vote Hillary is only making it worse. NOBODY wanted Hillary for president. The fact that Trump won means that any and every other option was a terrible horrible, apocalyptic choice in comparison. Get a life and stop astroturfing with rigged polls and fake news. You guys are truly demented and nobody cares.

>>133897968
>1 out of 7489317489317980
When you say stupid shit like this, you are programming your own brain to accept hyperbole as truth. Can you not see that?

>Being totally off the mark and then stating your opinions as fact
All you're doing is saying that everything you disagree with is an opinion, regardless of how factual it is.

>>133893925
The following polls on Realclearpolitics.com offer NO information on the voting sample/party identification of those they questioned: ABC News/Wash Post, Gallup, Rasmussen Reports.

Polls providing information on those they questioned:

Reuters/Ipsos (Approve 40, Disapprove 56) [Disapprove + 16]

Democrats Polled = 658
Republicans Polled = 554

*104 more Democrats polled than Republicans....

Link: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2017_Reuters_Tracking_-_Core_Political_07_12_2017.pdf


Economist/YouGov (Approve 41, Disapprove 52) [Disapprove +11]

Democrats Polled = 557
Independents Polled = 630
Republicans Polled = 308

*249 more Democrats polled than Republicans...
*322 more Independents polled than Republicans....

Males = 640
Females = 855

*215 more Females polled than Males....


Polls are BULLSHIT & are used to sway the minds of those who are fucking morons & can't get their heads out of their own fucking asses & just go check the sample size.

Lastly, OP, SUCK A COCK

>>133898255
Okay. So none of this behavior will ever end? When do we start trusting polls again, when they swing back to his favor?

>>133898009
>>133898098
I'd even accept 1%.

But for him to win with all the outlets saying things like that with their CI and SD over long periods of time, it wasn't even 1%.
It was like 1 in a million. That's why it's so skeptical.
Either he got absurdly, outlandishly lucky, or they fucked up.

>>133893925
Bots, it was her turn, Russia, and now more polls, played, slayed try again shills

>>133898418

Economist/YouGov Poll Link:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/38eszqtohw/econTabReport.pdf

File: file.png (77KB, 762x502px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 762x502px

>>133893925
So says the same polls that Said Trump would not win the election.

Basically, the polls are completely unreliable, ESPECIALLY in between elections when there's no means of seeing how events play out.

We have:

- possible complete manufacturing of polls.
- poorly chosen samples.
- likely influence of social-desirability bias, a known statistical bias that occurs when a respondent feels pressure to answer untruthfully. With the violent, hysterical mob left, it's not surprising.

File: 1500145492146.jpg (28KB, 720x418px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 720x418px

>>133893925
>polls

>>133898287
I have literally picked apart every poll you've posted and refuted it.
All you've done is go
>nu uh, they're experts and they adjusted it.

And props to you for taking a hyperbole literally and then not addressing the rest of the argument.

>Okay. So none of this behavior will ever end?
When the fucking have legit figures.
When they have meta analysis of several samples each in the thousands with a break down similar to political affiliation and geographic placement.

That's when I take it as ironclad fact. I'll start believing in general when dems and women aren't so heavily fucking skewed.

File: Some_faggot_said_to_screencap_this_so_I_did.png (26KB, 541x317px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 541x317px

>>133895048

>>133898734
>When the fucking have legit figures.
>When they have meta analysis of several samples each in the thousands with a break down similar to political affiliation and geographic placement.
>That's when I take it as ironclad fact. I'll start believing in general when dems and women aren't so heavily fucking skewed.
Does this data not exist? What's stopping real experts (since apparently there are none currently publishing polls) from crunching the numbers and putting the real polls out there?

File: just fuck my shit up.png (131KB, 500x441px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 500x441px

(((Polls))
WTF I guess I'm #withhernow

File: 3millionvotesHA.gif (417KB, 267x199px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 267x199px

>>133894424
Are you implying about the lies that Hillary says she won by 3 million? And everytime they look into voter fraud they find thousands more?

>>133898876
>Does this data not exist?
Yes and no.
Some of it is legit cherry picking, and some of it is outdated methods. Like for instance, they only use landlines, and I don't own one.
This means they will never call me. Not really their fault there per se.

Some of it is cherry picking. Picking areas where he's weaker with Republicans and asking them.

The Trump campaign knew it was close. They clearly did some internal polling of their own and knew it would be down to the wire.
The Clinton campaign had internal polls as well, and they were also off the mark. More of that bias and outdated methods.

>What's stopping real experts (since apparently there are none currently publishing polls) from crunching the numbers and putting the real polls out there?
Nothing. It just doesn't suit their agenda.

I want you to find coverage of G20 with Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.
All CNN and MSNBC did was cut parts of the speech and call it trite, fluff and nonsense.
Fox literally took their coverage and every time CNN or MSNBC said Trump didn't cover and issue, they showed a clip of where he did cover the issue in great detail.

It is stone cold disingenuous bias.
And honestly dude I'm saying this for your own good and my own good.

I don't have Republicans to run unopposed because one party won't be honest by itself.
But dems need to make serious changes, and these polls are their way of saying
>nah, they got lucky we're okay guys
When that is clearly not the case. The polls are only hurting you.

>>133898422

No. Many of us don't trust the Rasmussen polls either. It's just a completely discredited industry now, particularly in the Trump era. You can thank Hillary and her media machinations for that. I never once questioned the polls during the Obama era, and I felt that, though he didn't deserve the popularity, it was likely legitimate. It's only Hillary who needed fucking lies, media hand-holding, and artificial polling boosts.

>>133893925
To whomst is this referring?

>>133898422
>trust polls when?
Probably never

>>133893925
Approval ratings dont matter. Do you hire the lawyer you approve of the most, or the one whos the best at the job. His performance rating is what matters

>>133899431
>To whomst
An underrated meme.

>>133899327
>Nothing. It just doesn't suit their agenda.
Then why the fuck are you complaining that the polls suck? Y'all can't have the chance to prove that your side's polls are superior, but you automatically assume they are and leave it at that. Put up or shut up.

>When that is clearly not the case. The polls are only hurting you.
I assume you mean by breeding complacency. Do you think democrats will be complacent forever when they've lost over and over?

>>133899350
So point to a real poll that you can trust.

>>133899438
It's easier to just assume that you're right and not bother testing it? Doesn't seem very objective to me.

(((Approval)))

When they don't have anything on Trump they always turn to the good ole (((poll))).

The only poll that matters is Election Day 2020.

>>133893925
Yeah and if you believed the polls, Hillary would be president.

>>133899750
>Then why the fuck are you complaining that the polls suck?
Because as I said one party systems are bad for business.

>Y'all can't have the chance to prove that your side's polls are superior, but you automatically assume they are and leave it at that. Put up or shut up.
The remarks about trump's internals were just speculation about his campaign's comments regarding them. I don't trust any polls unless they have lots of back and good methods.

>I assume you mean by breeding complacency. Do you think democrats will be complacent forever when they've lost over and over?
They are propping up Warren and Waters and picking fights where there shouldn't be fights.
Like the SCOTUS pick.
gorsuch was a total slam dunk and had unanimous approval previously, but one of the guy who voted for him spearheaded the movement stop him.

you have to remember you're a liberal and I'm a conversative.
True independents don't give a shit about most things. They care about economy and that's about it.
Several of these independents voted for a SCOTUS pick. How do you think they feel when they see dems pulling shit like that?
It alienates them pushes them right.

Just like using warren or FUCKING maxine.
The blue wall was no joke, and the way it's looking, the entire rust belt is going to be red starting 2020. That's fucked.

>I assume you mean by breeding complacency. Do you think democrats will be complacent forever when they've lost over and over?
Want proof other than my speculations? Look at the special elections.

>>133900033
How convenient, gives Trump a free pass on everything for the next three years.

>>133899750
There aren't any I trust. The most I can give them is suspending judgment and saying maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong. I have no way of verifying their findings.

>>133896741
There's multiple other polls with similiar results that poll in different regions on different days and their results are consistent. If they're truly rigged, why didnt Trump's approval numbers drop after the MSNBC comments and his sons relevation, instead of slightly increasing? Truth is that there's no indication or proof that 40%+ approves of him in the past months.

Obama came in on a 67% approval rating, but it slowly declined to 51% by the first mid-terms in which the Dems lost the House. In 2014, it hit 41%, which the Dems lost both of Congress. Bush maintained a 50%+ approval rating until 2005, then it went into the low 30's before the mid-terms and the Dems won Congress.

Keep on pretending his approval rating will not be tied to the GOP's chances in the mid-term, especially when they can't pass a basic healthcare bill

>>133899050
wtf me too

>>133893925
Fake

>>133900515
Because the media colludes with one another and they "adjust" their polls in regards to events.

It was the same damn thing with the first 1st debate. They put Trump ahead and then made him drop like a rock after it. And the thing that's so obvious is that it was just Trump dropping, it was Hilary rising.

Trump dropping by 5 points, okay whatever fine.
Trump dropping by 5 points at the same time as Hilary raising 5 points when the total was originally near 100%? Get the fuck out.

The polls represented a situation were people were flipping between Clinton or Trump at will, which is totally retarded.

>Keep on pretending his approval rating will not be tied to the GOP's chances in the mid-term, especially when they can't pass a basic healthcare bill
A. They've passed a fuckload of other things
B. They're not the ones defending 10 fucking seats where Trump won.

Senate is literally unwinnable for dems.