trumps support is collapsing

[dherd]

resident Donald Trump's approval rating fell to a new low in the latest Pew Research Center poll.

Key results from the survey of U.S. adults, conducted from Nov. 29-Dec. 4:

• 32 percent approve of the job Trump is doing, down from 39 percent in a February Pew poll.
• 76 percent of Republicans or people who lean toward Republican politics approve of Trump, down from 84 percent in February.
• 7 percent of Democrats or people who lean toward Democratic politics approve of Trump's job performance, down one percentage point from February.
• Trump has the lowest approval rating of any president dating back to Ronald Reagan at this point in their presidencies. Bill Clinton has the closest approval number to Trump after one year, 48 percent in 1993.
• A combined 59 percent said senior Trump officials either "definitely did" or "probably did" have improper contact with Russians during the 2016 presidential campaign.

 

[Walter Brennaneer]

Good stuff Herdbuckeye!

 

[WV-FAN]

 

[ohio herd]

Ha ha , - brought to you by the same people who said Hillary would crushTrump!

 

[extragreen]

You morons don't realize the polls were quite accurate. The average of polls had Hillary winning 3.2% of the popular vote. She won by 2.1%.

 

[ohio herd]

You morons don't realize the polls were quite accurate. The average of polls had Hillary winning 3.2% of the popular vote. She won by 2.1%.

funny even Pew Research agrees with me.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/why-2016-election-polls-missed-their-mark/

 

[Walter Brennaneer]

You morons don't realize the polls were quite accurate. The average of polls had Hillary winning 3.2% of the popular vote. She won by 2.1%.

Is she President? She got smoked and cheated your socialist boy out of getting trounced too.

 

[extragreen]

funny even Pew Research agrees with me.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/why-2016-election-polls-missed-their-mark/

Weird, I have facts. But you continue to ignore them if you like. The polls you continually take exception to missed being exactly correct by 1.1% on average.

 

[ohio herd]

Weird, I have facts. But you continue to ignore them if you like. The polls you continually take exception to missed being exactly correct by 1.1% on average.

From the article:

The results of Tuesday’s presidential election came as a surprise to nearly everyone who had been following the national and state election polling, which consistently projected Hillary Clinton as defeating Donald Trump. Relying largely on opinion polls, election forecasters put Clinton’s chance of winning at anywhere from 70% to as high as 99%, and pegged her as the heavy favorite to win a number of states such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that in the end were taken by Trump.

How could the polls have been so wrong about the state of the election?

spin it anyway you like , over and over the media admits they were wrong.

 

[extragreen]

Difference between polling and actual popular vote total...1.1%. Fact.

 

[WV-FAN]

if only the election was decided upon by popular vote. LULZ!

 

[ohio herd]

if only the election was decided upon by popular vote. LULZ!

and all of these polls had her for the win, wrong then wrong now. EG doesn't get it

 

[Walter Brennaneer]

if only the election was decided upon by popular vote. LULZ!

Greed is so sad-----and MAD!

 

[extragreen]

and all of these polls had her for the win, wrong then wrong now. EG doesn't get it

You're one of many on the board that doesn't get it. Talking like the polls did a terrible job when they missed it by 1.1%.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

But who are the Dems going to run in 2020? Assuming Trump doesn't get cammed, shot, or nukes the world. I can't think of anyone worth a damn.

 

[dherd]

how trump and republicans stole the white house with aid or russia​

She knew that the company that provided Durham’s software, VR Systems, had been penetrated by Russian hackers months before.

“It felt like tampering, or some kind of cyberattack,” Ms. Greenhalgh said about the voting troubles in Durham​

Susan Greenhalgh, a troubleshooter at a nonpartisan election monitoring group, was alarmed. Most of the complaints came from Durham, a blue-leaning county in a swing state. The problems involved electronic poll books — tablets and laptops, loaded with check-in software, that have increasingly replaced the thick binders of paper used to verify voters’ identities and registration status.

But months later, But months later, for Ms. Greenhalgh, other election security experts and some state officials, questions still linger about what happened that day in Durham as well as other counties in North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia and Arizona.

After a presidential campaign scarred by Russian meddling, local, state and federal agencies have conducted little of the type of digital forensic investigation required to assess the impact, if any, on voting in at least 21 states whose election systems were targeted by Russian hackers, according to interviews with nearly two dozen national security and state officials and election technology specialists.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/us/politics/russia-election-hacking.html

.

 

[Walter Brennaneer]

how trump and republicans stole the white house with aid or russia

FIFY -----of not or

.

 

[raleighherdfan]

how trump and republicans stole the white house with aid or russia

She knew that the company that provided Durham’s software, VR Systems, had been penetrated by Russian hackers months before.

“It felt like tampering, or some kind of cyberattack,” Ms. Greenhalgh said about the voting troubles in Durham​

Susan Greenhalgh, a troubleshooter at a nonpartisan election monitoring group, was alarmed. Most of the complaints came from Durham, a blue-leaning county in a swing state. The problems involved electronic poll books — tablets and laptops, loaded with check-in software, that have increasingly replaced the thick binders of paper used to verify voters’ identities and registration status.

But months later, But months later, for Ms. Greenhalgh, other election security experts and some state officials, questions still linger about what happened that day in Durham as well as other counties in North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia and Arizona.

After a presidential campaign scarred by Russian meddling, local, state and federal agencies have conducted little of the type of digital forensic investigation required to assess the impact, if any, on voting in at least 21 states whose election systems were targeted by Russian hackers, according to interviews with nearly two dozen national security and state officials and election technology specialists.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/us/politics/russia-election-hacking.html

.

Interesting. Durham is the district that determined the loss for the incumbent Republican gov.

 

[WV-FAN]

You're one of many on the board that doesn't get it. Talking like the polls did a terrible job when they missed it by 1.1%.

where do you get 1.1%? I remember seeing polls indicating she had 90+% chance of winning. if she had 90%, that left less than 10% for the don because there were other options. so, the polls were off by wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more than 1.1%. i find it cute, though, how you pansy motherfvckers want to take up for anything and everything that was "with her", including the polls . . . lmfao!

 

[extragreen]

where do you get 1.1%? I remember seeing polls indicating she had 90+% chance of winning. if she had 90%, that left less than 10% for the don because there were other options. so, the polls were off by wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more than 1.1%. i find it cute, though, how you pansy motherfvckers want to take up for anything and everything that was "with her", including the polls . . . lmfao!

Let me ask you a question. You ever watch a game tracker on espn? As the game goes along they give a team a percentage chance to win. You think they're taking polls to come up with that precentage?
Moron. sad

 

[countryroads89]

where do you get 1.1%? I remember seeing polls indicating she had 90+% chance of winning. if she had 90%, that left less than 10% for the don because there were other options. so, the polls were off by wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more than 1.1%. i find it cute, though, how you pansy motherfvckers want to take up for anything and everything that was "with her", including the polls . . . lmfao!

I can't believe you actually posted this. It's like, hey, let me show everyone how f'ucking stupid I am, even if they already know.

LMAO.

 

[WV-FAN]

Let me ask you a question. You ever watch a game tracker on espn? As the game goes along they give a team a percentage chance to win. You think they're taking polls to come up with that precentage?
Moron. sad

no, i actually haven't paid attention to that on ESPN, probably because i don't watch ESPN. doesn't answer where you're coming up with 1.1%.

 

[WV-FAN]

I can't believe you actually posted this. It's like, hey, let me show everyone how f'ucking stupid I am, even if they already know.

LMAO.

obviously you have it down, genius. where's greed's 1.1% number come from? instead of spouting insults, answer the question.

based on the polls that were conducted, despite having a yuge probability of winning the election, she lost, yet "the polls missed it by just 1.1%".

 

[extragreen]

no, i actually haven't paid attention to that on ESPN, probably because i don't watch ESPN. doesn't answer where you're coming up with 1.1%.

Average of polls had hillary winning the popular vote by 3.2%, she won by 2.1%.
3.2-2.1 = 1.1

Polling, and using the poll numbers to come up with a percentage chance to win use different prediction models. The polling itself, like I said, was pretty accurate.

 

[countryroads89]

obviously you have it down, genius. where's greed's 1.1% number come from? instead of spouting insults, answer the question.

based on the polls that were conducted, despite having a yuge probability of winning the election, she lost, yet "the polls missed it by just 1.1%".

RCP average = Clinton by 3.2%
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Actual = Clinton by 2.1%

 

[WV-FAN]

Average of polls had hillary winning the popular vote by 3.2%, she won by 2.1%.
3.2-2.1 = 1.1

Polling, and using the poll numbers to come up with a percentage chance to win use different prediction models. The polling itself, like I said, was pretty accurate.

thanks for the response.

i understand your reasoning, but the giant flaw with your argument is the polls were projecting her to win the election, not just the popular vote. the polls had hillary winning multiple states she lost, so, while yeah, what you're saying regarding the popular vote is true, the margin of error of the actual polls to determine who would/did win the presidency, was off quite a bit more than just 1.1%. losing just 1 state that pollsters said she would win accounts for a substantial error percentage, let alone looking at the multiple states pollsters said she would win (don't know how many, not looking it up, but off the cuff, she was suppose to win, i'm thinking, PA, OH, WI, MI, FL, NC, and, i'm sure, others).

same response for @countryroads89

 

[countryroads89]

thanks for the response.

the margin of error of the actual polls to determine who would/did win the presidency, was off quite a bit more than just 1.1%.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

WV-FAN, we're friends and all, but you are embarrassing yourself here.

 

[WV-FAN]

WV-FAN, we're friends and all, but you are embarrassing yourself here.

how so? by asking questions about the veracity of polls that were only off by 1.1% and somehow were correct when they actually wasn't?

i realize people are going to hang on to the idea the polls were on target because they were only off a bit regarding popular vote, and that's fine. however, popular vote isn't what counted and, in reality, whatever information the pollsters used to predict the winner couldn't have been farther from being correct (read one that proclaimed hillary to have a 99% chance of winning). 99% chance that didn't occur yet was off only 1.1%. really?

there's an obvious flaw here, yet i'm the one that doesn't make sense and am "embarrassing myself" because I question the veracity of polls that won . . . but, yet, somehow didn't.

 

[dherd]

I can't believe you actually posted this. It's like, hey, let me show everyone how f'ucking stupid I am, even if they already know.

LMAO.

damn he is stupid!
sad thing is he is too stupid to know it.

 

[WV-FAN]

damn he is stupid!
sad thing is he is too stupid to know it.

is that all you guys have? at least extra provided an answer. I still have yet to told how the polls were so far off in predicting the winner when they were correct in their assumption that Hillary would win the popular vote, i.e. is that all the polls look at, popular vote? if so, how'd they miss the popular vote in the states Clinton was to win that the don won?

perhaps it'd be better suited for you to continue lying about bit coin and football picks.

 

[extragreen]

I still have yet to told how the polls were so far off in predicting the winner when they were correct in their assumption that Hillary would win the popular vote

Trump voters were notably less comfortable about telling a telephone pollster about their vote. Voters who backed a third-party candidate were even less comfortable responding to a poll. Women who said they backed Trump were particularly less likely to say they would be comfortable talking to a pollster about their vote.