Rasmussen poll - Trump's approval ratings hit six-month high

[Butler1000]

Trump knows he’s not going to get his wall. He’s just setting it up to blame the Dems and use it as an excuse to rescind DACA.

Actually I think he will happily sign a reprieve bill for quid pro quo. That's the point. If he can get immigration reform in exchange then he wins.

And if not the Dems will get part of the blame. Any blame that falls on him really won t hurt him much at this point will It?

Cold. But in light of congressional gridlock and the so called resistance he has to force things.

 

[Frankfooter]

Hey. I didn't say it wasn't a cold move. It is.

Pretty much a Washington move actually. Certainly not the first time that town has played chicken with these kinds of stakes.

But what's done is done. The question now is what do the Dems do? Would any of you care to speculate what they should do Now?

Let it die and blame Trump, who killed it.
Campaign on that and the tax breaks for the 1%.

 

[K Douglas]

The only approval rating that counts will be in Nov 2018 and 2020.

 

[oldjones]

Rasmussen's daily tracking reported on Thursday (Jan. 4) that Trump's approval rating was the highest it has been since June 2017. From what I can see, his support is consistent with what he had in the 2016 election.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/prez_track_jan04

… when he came second to a woman who was one of the least-liked and most reviled politicians in the country.

After almost a full year of calling the shots in Washington, with his party holding majorities in both House and Senate, this is the best he can manage?

Thanks for drawing our attention to this actual measure of his lacklustre job performance.

 

[mandrill]

The only approval rating that counts will be in Nov 2018 and 2020.

When Trump and his acolytes will run on a track record of attempting to kill Obamacare, cutting taxes for the ultra rich, failing to bring back jobs to the Midwest, failing to relieve the post hurricane effects in PR, fighting with 8 state governments over legal bud and killing DACA. Aside from his own personality issues, continual idiot ranting and tweeting, endless golfing holidays and Mueller.

What do I see happening against any competent DEM candidates? Loss of FL. Loss of NC and perhaps 1 or 2 Deep South red states over GOP voter apathy and large Black voter turnout - i.e. the Roy Moore Effect. Loss of the the Mid West rust belt over failure to bring back jobs, as promised. Possible loss of TX due to unprecedented Chicano voter turnout. And forget winning back ANY blue state.

A presentable and moderate DEM candidate - i.e. Shiff perhaps - should be able to pull off the biggest electoral landslide since Reagan.

 

[Promo]

Rasmussen's daily tracking reported on Thursday (Jan. 4) that Trump's approval rating was the highest it has been since June 2017. From what I can see, his support is consistent with what he had in the 2016 election.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/prez_track_jan04

Really? According to the link you posted, Trump's current popularity is about 13% lower than this time last year and 19-21% lower than election time (you have to look at older rasmussen reports data).

Keep in mind that this particular result is based on a sample size of 500. Most other Rasmussen reports are based on 1500 and this poll has a sample error of 2.5 points. Most other polls also indicate the slight upward swing, so I believe this trend is probably accurate.

You need to analyze what you are seeing. Every president sees a slight upward swing in January due to increase economic activity leading up to the Christmas season and people's more positive outlook/spirit. Also this poll was performed just before information about Wolff's book was made pubic. Let's see what happens next week.

No matter how you try to spin it, Trump still has the lowest approval ratings of any President in recent history. He's maintaining his support from the more-right-leaning, but continues to not win-over the strong middle. Lucky for Trump the Dems continue to flounder.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Trump's support in the U.S. election was 47%. The 44% approval rating last week is "consistent" with his level of support in the 2016 election, given that voters don't yet know who would be running against him.

 

[Moviefan-2]

No matter how you try to spin it, Trump still has the lowest approval ratings of any President in recent history.

The "lowest approval ratings" would have been the reality regardless of who won the 2016 election.

 

[Smallcock]

When Trump and his acolytes will run on a track record of attempting to kill Obamacare, cutting taxes for the ultra rich, failing to bring back jobs to the Midwest, failing to relieve the post hurricane effects in PR, fighting with 8 state governments over legal bud and killing DACA. Aside from his own personality issues, continual idiot ranting and tweeting, endless golfing holidays and Mueller.

What do I see happening against any competent DEM candidates? Loss of FL. Loss of NC and perhaps 1 or 2 Deep South red states over GOP voter apathy and large Black voter turnout - i.e. the Roy Moore Effect. Loss of the the Mid West rust belt over failure to bring back jobs, as promised. Possible loss of TX due to unprecedented Chicano voter turnout. And forget winning back ANY blue state.

A presentable and moderate DEM candidate - i.e. Shiff perhaps - should be able to pull off the biggest electoral landslide since Reagan.

Who is going to trust your prediction? You predicted Trump would lose the election and you predicted that CK would be playing in the NFL again by now. LOL

 

[Bud Plug]

Who is going to trust your prediction? You predicted Trump would lose the election and you predicted that CK would be playing in the NFL again by now. LOL

Well, he, like everyone else, was promised Hope and Change. Obama didn't bring any change (except for a greater number of unemployed and underemployed Americans seeking spare change on the streets), but it's hard to objectively declare that Obama didn't create hope. It seems some still have it. The confusing part is that they conflate their hopes with their objective predictions.

 

[Promo]

Voters are a fickle binch, Trumps rating dropped 3% since Friday. <-- personally I think day-to-day rating are meaningless. You need to look at longer time periods and trends. Regardless, a good President is typically focused on getting the important work completed early in their term, popular or not. Politics begins a year before the election (depending on criticality of midterms).

The "lowest approval ratings" would have been the reality regardless of who won the 2016 election.

Are you referring to Hillary? I completely agree. I dislike Trump, but Hillary - IMHO would have been a disaster, more of the same with the usual hidden corruption. Really, are these two the best the United States could offer the public in 2017? Partisanship aside, American politics needs a major revamp, especially the Dems.

Trump's support in the U.S. election was 47%. The 44% approval rating last week is "consistent" with his level of support in the 2016 election, given that voters don't yet know who would be running against him.

Are we talking election day or first day in office? The first graph in the Rasmussen Reports shows Trump's Jan-20-2017 (first day in office) approval rating as 56%, today it's 42%. That's a 14% difference. Unfortunately, you have to subscribe to look at the older election day data, but I think you are right, I believe now I was looking at the unfavourable numbers of 62% in the politico press release.

I tend to use projects.fivethirtyeight.com which uses multiple polls and weighs/scores each one. Trumps Jan 23-2017 approval at 45.5 and today's at 38.7. You can select polls based on 3 criteria and look at the results for individual pollsters.

 

[Promo]

Well, he, like everyone else, was promised Hope and Change. Obama didn't bring any change (except for a greater number of unemployed and underemployed Americans seeking spare change on the streets), but it's hard to objectively declare that Obama didn't create hope. It seems some still have it. The confusing part is that they conflate their hopes with their objective predictions.

Geesh, I really wish you guys would stop spewing BS. Obama's positive job numbers and economic growth numbers have been presented in other threads. Obama brought much change, some I firmly believe was for the good (i.e. bank regulations) which Trump has now dismantled.

What you are saying is not truthful. Since you rarely support your "opinions" with reliable sources and rarely rebut when people present hard facts .... what's the point of debating you?

 

[Bud Plug]

Geesh, I really wish you guys would stop spewing BS. Obama's positive job numbers and economic growth numbers have been presented in other threads. Obama brought much change, some I firmly believe was for the good (i.e. bank regulations) which Trump has now dismantled.

What you are saying is not truthful. Since you rarely support your "opinions" with reliable sources and rarely rebut when people present hard facts .... what's the point of debating you?

Here's a chart showing the decline in the US labour participation rate from 2008 to 2016 (toggle to the 10Y tab):

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate

This is a far more relevant indicator of employment than the unemployment rate, which doesn't track people who have given up looking for work or transitioned to temporary or "off book" work. You can see it dropped about 4% over this period. Not surprising given the low GDP rates during the same period.

However, you might be right that there is no point in YOU debating me.

 

[Promo]

Here's a chart showing the decline in the US labour participation rate from 2008 to 2016 (toggle to the 10Y tab):

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate

This is a far more relevant indicator of employment than the unemployment rate, which doesn't track people who have given up looking for work or transitioned to temporary or "off book" work. You can see it dropped about 4% over this period. Not surprising given the low GDP rates during the same period.

However, you might be right that there is no point in YOU debating me.

OMG! Seriously? I absolutely intend to respond later tonight after I finish what I'm working on.

Your post is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. You clearly don't understand the context of the numbers and didn't take the time to compare them to other key economic and social indicators in order to be able to draw meaningful conclusions. Any MBA or Economist would be screaming at you right now! F*ck!

 

[Bud Plug]

OMG! Seriously? I absolutely intend to respond later tonight after I finish what I'm working on.

Your post is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. You clearly don't understand the context of the numbers and didn't take the time to compare them to other key economic and social indicators in order to be able to draw meaningful conclusions. Any MBA or Economist would be screaming at you right now! F*ck!

Not that MBAs are the last word on such issues (no reason I can think of why they should be, given their training), and economists are about as homogeneous in their opinions as psychiatrists, but are you either? I hope so. That will make your response more interesting. If not, it will probably be more about how you don't understand the subject all that well.

 

[Promo]

Not that MBAs are the last word on such issues (no reason I can think of why they should be, given their training), and economists are about as homogeneous in their opinions as psychiatrists, but are you either? I hope so. That will make your response more interesting. If not, it will probably be more about how you don't understand the subject all that well.

Proud Engineer first, but yes, I am one of those. Bud Plug, I would certainly value the opinion of an experienced MBA or Economist over that of an individual who has gained the reputation of making-up fake facts to support his biased opinions. Both education programs require study of the various economic indicators and how they apply to the the practical business management model. I personally did several case studies that included using LFPR as one of the many measurements.

I sat down last night and started to type out a lengthy reply explaining the measurements and math used and the proper use-of of the labour Force Participation Rate indicator and why it's not a valid all-encompassing indicator. Further I was going to describe the 4-5 key economic indicators that should be correlated to more accurately evaluate historic employment and economic growth. I then realized ..... you really don't care. I could provide almost indisputable proof and you would default to your standard MO: either just move onto your next fake-fact topic, or you would endlessly argue some unimportant minutiae of this discussion. Why waste my time?

However while gathering websites to support my points, I did find a pretty good website that explains LFPR and how it related to Obama's employment numbers: https://qz.com/286213/the-chart-obama-haters-love-most-and-the-truth-behind-it/
I checked several of the charts against the Bureau of Labor Statistics and they appear accurate. It's a bit simplified and leaves out 1 or 2 additional measures that I typically like to use. I found several other similar analysis, if you want further proof, but Google is your friend. Fact is the economy under Obama did quite well, sorry that doesn't fit with your agenda.

https://www.thebalance.com/labor-force-participation-rate-formula-and-examples-3305805
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/participationrate.asp

 

[Bud Plug]

Proud Engineer first, but yes, I am one of those. Bud Plug, I would certainly value the opinion of an experienced MBA or Economist over that of an individual who has gained the reputation of making-up fake facts to support his biased opinions. Both education programs require study of the various economic indicators and how they apply to the the practical business management model. I personally did several case studies that included using LFPR as one of the many measurements.

I sat down last night and started to type out a lengthy reply explaining the measurements and math used and the proper use-of of the labour Force Participation Rate indicator and why it's not a valid all-encompassing indicator. Further I was going to describe the 4-5 key economic indicators that should be correlated to more accurately evaluate historic employment and economic growth. I then realized ..... you really don't care. I could provide almost indisputable proof and you would default to your standard MO: either just move onto your next fake-fact topic, or you would endlessly argue some unimportant minutiae of this discussion. Why waste my time?

However while gathering websites to support my points, I did find a pretty good website that explains LFPR and how it related to Obama's employment numbers: https://qz.com/286213/the-chart-obama-haters-love-most-and-the-truth-behind-it/
I checked several of the charts against the Bureau of Labor Statistics and they appear accurate. It's a bit simplified and leaves out 1 or 2 additional measures that I typically like to use. I found several other similar analysis, if you want further proof, but Google is your friend. Fact is the economy under Obama did quite well, sorry that doesn't fit with your agenda.

https://www.thebalance.com/labor-force-participation-rate-formula-and-examples-3305805
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/participationrate.asp

Based on this post, I have no trouble believing that you have an MBA.

p.s. It would be helpful if your linked article had an author, and wasn't published by some website specializing in Coles Notes type analysis for those inclined to globalist views: https://qz.com/about/.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Who is going to trust your prediction? You predicted Trump would lose the election and you predicted that CK would be playing in the NFL again by now. LOL

I'm going with oagre on this one.

He sounds legit












































/s

 

[Promo]

Based on this post, I have no trouble believing that you have an MBA.

p.s. It would be helpful if your linked article had an author, and wasn't published by some website specializing in Coles Notes type analysis for those inclined to globalist views: https://qz.com/about/.

The Author's name was in the article. Top right. Did you even look at the article?

As expected - Ad hominem. You attacked me, you attacked the author and you attacked the website (incorrectly I might add), yet you weren't able to dispute any of the article's content. I already said I can provide additional articles, but since you weren't able to rebut any points in this one, what makes you think you could even understand one that included detailed technical analysis.

---------------------------------------
Okay, lets put this to bed:

Your chart: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate
You are saying your chart proves that Obama's economic and job numbers were poor (really just job numbers, LFPR doesn't directly measure economic indicators) because the LFPR steadily decreased during his Presidency. Your chart includes data from Dec 2017 until now - during Trump's Presidency. Trump claims RECORD economic and job growth for the last 12 months. yet .... your key indicator LFPR .... has remained absolutely flat for Trump's 12 months ....... according to your logic Trump accomplished nothing! How do you explain that Bud Plug ?

Experienced technical analysts, realize that LFPR requires analysis of other key indicators before conclusions can be drawn (except you of course). My supplied article explains Trump's performance to-date, even predicted it. Trump may have produced significant new job numbers in his first 12 months (in-fact he did) .... which proves that you are wrong and LFPR cannot be used as the sole measure. You either bull sh*tted or have no idea about what you are talking about.

Bud Plug, can you explain (all stats taken from your article):
1) The unemployment rate steadily declined under Obama and so far has been flat under Trump. On the surface looks like Obama did better than Trump ....
2) Initial jobless claims steadily declined under Obama and so far has increased under Trump. On the surface looks like Obama did better than Trump ....
3) US Employed Persons steadily increased under Obama and maintained the same trendline for Trump. Looks like Obama did just fine and Trump is doing about the same ......
Almost every (not all) indicator (using trend lines) shows Obama has either matched or exceeded Trump. Of course technical analysts (i.e. MBAs) know there is more to the story. Can you explain those factors Bud?

Remember, I identify conservative center. Because I don't have hate blinders on, I can still appreciate many of the good things Obama has accomplished.

 

[FAST]

Based on this post, I have no trouble believing that you have an MBA.

p.s. It would be helpful if your linked article had an author, and wasn't published by some website specializing in Coles Notes type analysis for those inclined to globalist views: https://qz.com/about/.

Yep,... that post pretty much guarantees that an MBA is the limit of what "it" has achieved.

And most definatly doesn't have a full time postion in Engineering.