patrick.net

curious2 says

Americans approve of Executive Order 13769 by a margin of +17%, 55% for vs 38% against. Two more Executive Orders (freezing regulations and attempting to revoke funding from "sanctuary cities") also have majority approval, while the remaining Executive Orders have plurality approval.

At the same time, Americans are now evenly divided (within the margin of error, no majority view) on the President's overall job performance.

https://morningconsult.com/2017/02/08/trump-approval-rating-slides-despite-support-travel-ban/

#politics

Imagine how much support there would be if the msm reported truthfully.

Rew says

No, the same polling companies who showed the election to be tight and a Trump win within the margin of error.

You cannot magically say "my polls, the ones I agree with are sound and scientific. Your polls, that dissenting crap, that's all fake." ... well, unless you are an idiot ... or the President. ;)

Unless you are the media, covering up for yourself. Obviously whatever method they used failed royally.

I'm not crazy. Teleprompter readers were announcing the only question - according to ALL the polls and ALL the polls can't be biased unless you're a right-wing fake news denier - was how much her margin of victory would be in the Electoral College.

If I could be arsed, I could probably find dozens of posts making the same claim in the own words right here on pat.net

There's only two possibilities - the polls were heavily skewed for their end user (the Media Conglomorates, not the viewer) as an exercise in suppressing the vote, OR they were using bad methodology to compensate for the landline issue. I'm being generous :-)

NYT Election Day: 99% chance.

Rew says

You think the un-favorbaility is waining [sic]?

I don't think that can be shown at all.

Your older numbers showed close division while current numbers show majority support and significantly lower opposition. So, either the numbers are wrong, or opposition is waning. Certainly I've heard from people on both sides of the issue, but I don't pretend they are a representative sample.

BTW, Islamic terror attacks are continuing to kill people in the name of Islam. If those continue to occur in Europe, or if more jihadis are caught trying to cross from Canada to the USA, support for the ban will probably increase. Partisan Democrats will remain committed even in that scenario, and will continue to lose elections for that reason. Since 2010, Democrats have imposed an internal litmus test demanding fealty to Islam and Obamneycare, both of which are disasters. That is why Democrats lost, after winning in 2008.

Quigley says

They got it completely wrong, so the margin of error was pretty significant

Well, the margin of error was much larger than normal because there were so many more undecideds than normal with 1 week left to go. But the polling error was right in the middle of the last 10 elections.

Quigley says

But your ilk was touting their wonderful predictive ability to the heavens and prematurely gloating about a "first female President."

Nope.

Not sure who "my ilk" is, but 538 had it about 30% chance that Trump wins.

curious2 says

That is why Democrats lost, after winning in 2008.

That, and despite having a mandate from Americans fed up with Wall Street, failed to do a single serious reform; only useless paperwork that STILL hasn't had the regulations finalized. And was it Mary Jo or one of the others who fired a 5-star rated employee for chasing down insider trading by somebody who white-shoe law firm once represented?

T L Lipsovich says

That, and despite having a mandate from Americans fed up with Wall Street, failed to do a single serious reform

Will all wait for Trumps reforms then.

curious2 says

current numbers show majority support and significantly lower opposition.

Link that shows growth of favoring the ban?

Rew says

Link that shows growth of favoring the ban?

Are you trolling so many threads that you can't see the OP? Compare those numbers to the older polls you cited.

curious2 says

Are you trolling so many threads that you can't see the OP? Compare those numbers to the older ones you cited.

A different poll, done at a later date, doesn't mean results show a trend. They show a different result. To show a shift in opinion you need to repeat the same poll at a later date.

Data challenged Trump voter?

Stop questioning the experts, even when they have egg on their face. Experts are always right and the human beings are completely predictable. If you don't believe them you're a fake news sucker. Only US Mainstream Media owned by a handful of billionaires who profit off outsourcing like Bezos have the reliable facts and more importantly, the indisputable truth gleaned from those reliable facts, and polling run by unquestionable experts.

Everything else is fake news.

Ironman says

Yes, Nate was so close...

It's not even worth discussing this with you. It's like talking astrophysics with a 3 year old.

T L Lipsovich says

Stop questioning the experts, even when they have egg on their face.

Yes the new Trump mediocrity nation is the way to go. (Why ask your economics team about what a strong national currency means, when you can ask your security advisor instead. Experts are so overrated.)

T L Lipsovich says

Only US Mainstream Media owned by a handful of billionaires who profit off outsourcing like Bezos have the reliable facts and more importantly, the indisputable truth gleaned from those reliable facts, and polling run by unquestionable experts.

Dang Politico and there even handed fact based approach to the question of polling and the muslim ban!
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-immigration-travel-ban-234816

Clearly, we need a leader who can just say: "If it's against me, it's fake! If you are opposed to me, I don't think you are fit for the position you are in. If you are mainstream you are lamestream." This is the type of healthy, rational debate and discourse the nation was founded on. Through this type of debate we will strengthen our opinions and come to the best solution for all.

Rew says

Clearly, we need a leader who can just say: "If it's against me, it's fake! If you are opposed to me, I don't think you are fit for the position you are in. If you are mainstream you are lamestream." This is the type of healthy, rational debate and discourse the nation was founded on. Through this type of debate we will strengthen our opinions and come to the best solution for all.

How about, "Despite Media onslaught of articles overwhelmingly bashing the new President on a host of issues, and pushing a narrative that temporarily banning Nation-States from entry despite it being done by previous presidents, Trump's approval rating is stable or perhaps increasing."

T L Lipsovich says

Trump's approval rating is stable or perhaps increasing."

Increasing from 45% to 43%? Lowest approval rating on record?
http://www.gallup.com/interactives/185273/presidential-job-approval-center.aspx

So I'd rephrase to ... "...Trump's approval rating is stable or perhaps increasing to his fearful anti-immigration base, while attaining a historical record low for US Presidents in the nation overall."

I pray to god just like mike pence, that Trump tears up UIGEA and I can get into some wagers with these data challenged Americans, because it becomes more evident with each passing day, that this nation of nitwits has zero understanding of probability.

The polls could have said that Trump had a 1% chance of winning the election, and they wouldn't have been wrong. They would have gotten clubbed.

Ever hear of Live Betting and Market Driven Pricing.

You could have bet the New England Patriots at both -180 AND +1250 on Sunday. Does that mean the books were right and wrong?

"Yes, don't you just hate when I blow your narrative completely to shit?"

As if that would ever happen.

"If you take Nate's PERFECT prediction of the Electoral College and flip them, then he would be closer to reality. But, you keep believing Nate is so wonderful. He completely blew the Primaries, all his predictions in between and blew the General election."

Once again you show that you don't understand the simplest of topics. Nate developed a model based on polling data and then put probabilities on the various outcomes. He was actually very accurate during the primaries with his model. And with the Presidential election. You're just too dim to understand probabilities.

Most sane Americans can see what is happening in these crazy countries and don't want them here. The crazy left thinks if you import war mangering folks-theyw ill magically turn into angels. Kinda like the women who want bad men-so they cna turn them good-ignoring the countless good men available. methinks the elfties have too much time in their empty lives and want to fill a void and seem self-important again.

"The crazy left thinks if you import war mangering folks-theyw ill magically turn into angels. Kinda like the women who want bad men-so they cna turn them good-ignoring the countless good men available"

Or perhaps they realize that there are a lot of good people, even in war torn countries.

joeyjojojunior says

Or perhaps they realize that there are a lot of good people, even in war torn countries.

Of course there are. The problem is Islam, which teaches hate and murder. Especially the Saudi variety, whose proselytization efforts get more funding every time we fill up the tank with gas.

Most Muslims are good people in spite of Islam, not because of it.

rando says

Most Muslims are good people in spite of Islam, not because of it.

Same is true for all religions. Yes, there are degrees of vileness, but they are all rotten to the core.

Rew says

Dang Politico and there even handed fact based approach to the question of polling and the muslim ban!

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-immigration-travel-ban-234816

You might have misundertood your own link there, but thanks for acknowledging Politico as even handed on this topic. The linked article says, "Some, like the POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, show widespread support for the order." It goes on to explain politely why prior polls showing a closely divided public were, essentially, fake news. I was being charitable earlier, saying opposition may have waned, which would allow the earlier polls to have been correct when conducted. You've provided a link saying your earlier polls used different (and basically inferior) methodology.

Islam and Obamneycare are two issues where partisan Democrats continue to sabotage their party's chances of winning. Partisans can't see their positions are both wrong and unpopular, and can't recognize the price that Democrats are paying across all other issues. As others have noted, the "left" have abandoned liberalism in favor of expressly anti-liberal policies. Given a choice between Islamists and Christianists, most Christian voters are forced to side with the Christianists. It didn't need to be this way. Polls show majority support for many genuinely liberal policies, but both major parties insist on anti-liberal policies instead. Democrats who identify as "liberal" fail to see their own party has betrayed them.

curious2 says

You've provided a link saying your earlier polls used different (and basically inferior) methodology.

Unfortunately, that value judgement is all yours, as Politico didn't push a method or poll as superior. As I've stated here, and elsewhere, they are pretty centrists and fact driven.

Here is a summation of what was actually said ...

"Why the discrepancy? Here are three possible explanations."

Verbiage:
"Of the 11 polls to gauge public opinion since the immigration order was issued, each uses different verbiage to describe Trump’s order — choices that can impact the ultimate results."

How:
"... the immigration freeze appears to be more popular in polls conducted online or by automated phone calls — and less popular in surveys conducted by live phone interviewers. ... That doesn’t necessarily mean that the discrepancies are caused by respondents who are less willing to express support for the ban to another person over the phone. ... and as last year's election underscores — it's not uncommon for the polls to overstate or understate support by a few points."

Elements Measured:
"While most pollsters included the various elements of the executive order into one catch-all question, the Quinnipiac poll split up the order into three questions about its most controversial components"

Politico in no way called one method inferior to another. It acknowledged that all polls are imperfect, and pushed no specific poll as being "best".

Rew says

Politico didn't push a method or poll as superior.

LOL - maybe in your desperation to find fault, you overlooked the exact match between the title of the publication and who did the poll. "If you want something done right, do it yourself." You remind me of a comedian who made a joke about a KFC commercial, "do it right."

They even put it in ALL CAPS for you:

"Some, like the POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, show widespread support for the order."

All in support

I don't see how this ban is prejudice. We're saving Muslims from the oppression of Evil White Male Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, Islamophobic, Transphobic Deploreables who cling to their guns and can't wait to assault them in the subway with their MAGA hats.

They come here like lemmings, expecting to get rich on their convenience stores and Canadian alcohol and cigarette smuggling runs, they don't realize what DOOM!!!! awaits them.

The White working Class Male is mean and athirst! Every full moon they must have Muslim blood!

We must ban them to save them from themselves. They won't learn the TRUTH about AmeriKKKa and it's pork eating Oppressors from Hell, waiting to enslave every Syrian, Libyan, Somali, Sudanese etc that isn't Christian in chains, to pick their cotton. Or something.