On Monday the Dallas Morning News trumpeted of Trump: “Day 94: Polls hit rock bottom.” The story was written not so much to point out polling results but to make it appear that all is disaster at the White House telling us that: “Polls released Sunday showed Trump with the lowest support at this point of any president since World War II.” (What, Democrat icons Truman or FDR had lower poll ratings?)
“Until now, every president in the modern age could count on the approval of more Americans than disapproval at the 100-day mark. Trump’s ratings are under water,” Todd Gillman wrote.
The next line should have been, but wasn’t: “Of course every president other than Trump in the modern age was given a general “honeymoon” period from the press and wasn’t constantly held-out by the press and opposition to be in office due to the machinations of foreign spies.”
The polling firms that missed the general election numbers widely seem to have kept their bad sampling models in-place reporting that only forty percent approve of Trump’s work as president in the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll with a majority of fifty-four percent registering disapproval. Much the same was found in the ABC/Washington Post poll.
Gillman at the Dallas Morning News wrote about these results: “Keep in mind that to be a president at the 100 day mark means you won a nationwide election only five months earlier. That makes such results startling.”
The only thing that is startling about the numbers, and I’m being quite serious and not lending support to Trump, is that the polling firms which got all so wrong in the primaries and in November seem to be doubling-down on faulty samples and not trying to recover their reputations.
It must be because those paying for the polls, media outlets, don’t want better data, they want data that fits their narratives.
Trump polls: Have polling firms bothered to fix their faulty sample?
Robert Pratt
On Monday the Dallas Morning News trumpeted of Trump: “Day 94: Polls hit rock bottom.” The story was written not so much to point out polling results but to make it appear that all is disaster at the White House telling us that: “Polls released Sunday showed Trump with the lowest support at this point of any president since World War II.” (What, Democrat icons Truman or FDR had lower poll ratings?)
“Until now, every president in the modern age could count on the approval of more Americans than disapproval at the 100-day mark. Trump’s ratings are under water,” Todd Gillman wrote.
The next line should have been, but wasn’t: “Of course every president other than Trump in the modern age was given a general “honeymoon” period from the press and wasn’t constantly held-out by the press and opposition to be in office due to the machinations of foreign spies.”
The polling firms that missed the general election numbers widely seem to have kept their bad sampling models in-place reporting that only forty percent approve of Trump’s work as president in the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll with a majority of fifty-four percent registering disapproval. Much the same was found in the ABC/Washington Post poll.
Gillman at the Dallas Morning News wrote about these results: “Keep in mind that to be a president at the 100 day mark means you won a nationwide election only five months earlier. That makes such results startling.”
The only thing that is startling about the numbers, and I’m being quite serious and not lending support to Trump, is that the polling firms which got all so wrong in the primaries and in November seem to be doubling-down on faulty samples and not trying to recover their reputations.
It must be because those paying for the polls, media outlets, don’t want better data, they want data that fits their narratives.