[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I haven't seen the Gallup poll, but Rasmussen's most recent one had something like 51% approve. However, one of theor categories (I forget the exact name) was only 2% positive because it measure the difference between those who strongly approve and those who strongly disapprove. At this point in his presidency, that is historically low. This is mostly because the 36% strongly disapprove is not a number anywhere near how most presidents have scored one month in. Most presidencies haven't done much of anything by this point and so most peop,e are either positve towards them or holding back judgment.

I would imagine the 21% you mention is based on some sort of measure like that. No doubt it could be off by a handful of points like the election polling was, but I believe it is mostly accurate. Look at how progressives are losing their monds, protesting, rioting, predicting the end of the world. This is not normal and one effect is on Trump's job approval polling average.

The bigger question, though, is why you care? It could be true and not matter. It could be false and not matter. Either way, it doesn't matter.

[–] p0ssum 5 points -3 points (+2|-5) ago 

The bigger question, though, is why you care? It could be true and not matter. It could be false and not matter. Either way, it doesn't matter.

They believe anything that shines light on the god-emporer, and anything else is 'fake news'. Surely you've figured that out by now.

[–] Dalai_Llama 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

As opposed to you who believes anything negative about Trump is ultra special true because feelings, whereas anything positive is just a misguided effort to hurt your poor wittle fee fees.

[–] Onlio 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Repeal the a Smith-Mundt Act if 2013 and there will be less fake news

[–] maxoverdrive 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Wow, looks like you brought out the liberal fee-fee fuckers out of the wood-work. What the fuck these morons think they're doing on Voat is beyond me; apart from shilling their tired horse-shit, all they accomplish is showing just weak, ineffectual, and tantrum-prone the left has become. Please, keep pissing off these manginas - it amuses me to no end.

[–] Drenki 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

We all know it's completely meaningless to take a measurement at this point, especially considering the great number of people who are still entirely clueless as to why and how Trump won.

[–] zubr 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Link?

[–] FightingFatForever 5 points -2 points (+3|-5) ago 

Hi, my name is /u/Rummel, and I can talk out my ass with no proof and people will believe me. I'm so good at crafting narratives to fit my belief that my ideas withstand almost all measures of evidence.

For example, the polls predicted, by a 5 to 10 point margin, that Hillary would win the popular vote. She did! But if anyone questions that I'll just mention the millions of illegal voters that never happened, that I have no proof of (but remember, the real secret is that I don't need proof). So now when most polls have Trump down in approval rating I can just call them fake without actually looking at their studies or understanding statistical analysis!

But Rasmussen? When they show Trump ahead, I just rely on their anomalistic score with blind regards tot heir scientific accuracy.

It's actually easier to construct a world view where people who disagree with me are out to get me or something. The paranoia actually build my credibility, because people will listen if I just demonize my enemies.

[–] Rummel [S] 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Hello, me!

[–] SuperConductiveRabbi 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Hi, my name is /u/FightingFatForever, and I've conveniently ignored that the polls also showed that Clinton would crush Trump in electoral votes. This didn't happen. Why did I leave this out? Is it because it's actually evidence that the polls were biased? Should I also mention that Rasmussen was one of the few poles that often predicted Trump would win the presidency?

[–] p0ssum 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago  (edited ago)

The polls were right ... by the way. The percentages were almost exactly correct. Trump just got the right votes in the right areas.

Here, 80k votes would have swayed the election:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/donald-trump-will-be-president-thanks-to-80000-people-in-three-states/

And also:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/05/which-was-the-most-accurate-national-poll-in-the-2016-presidential-election/

So, yeah, the polls were accurate, Trump got the right voters to turn out in the right places, and won the electoral college because of it.

[–] p0ssum 3 points -1 points (+2|-3) ago 

I'm so good at crafting narratives to fit my belief that my ideas withstand almost all measures of evidence.

Don't forget karma-whoring. There isn't a bigger karma whore on voat.

[–] p0ssum 3 points -3 points (+0|-3) ago