POTUS Trump's Approval Rating is above Obama's!!!!!
>President Trump’s approval rating on his second Independence Day is at 48% with likely voters.
>And that is with 90% negative coverage from the far left mainstream media.
>And after a month of anti-ICE protests by Democrats President Trump jumped 10 points with Hispanics in the recent Harris-Harvard poll.
>On Barack Obama’s second Independence Day — despite a fawning media — his approval rating was only at 45%.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
projects.fivethirtyeight.com
twitter.com
>at 48% with likely voters
>only at 45%
I'm sure the term likely voters means nothing here, right? Right user?
Pedro approves this message
Sounds like you need a safe space to deal with this. Need a comfort dog, libshit?
Don't get too excited yet. The Dems are going to try to leverage this to get out the vote in November. He's wanted to retire for years. This timing is no accident.
Get ready to hear about coat hanger abortions every day.
wait
user
I don't understand
what is this that I'm seeing
user whats happening
Nice try at photoshop faggot. Numbers don't lie. Trump's demolishing any legacy obongo had.
It would help if you provide a source and a translation of "day 530" into two dates so that I don't have to do much thinking.
Obligatory
The kike media has tried everything in their book against him and NOTHING has worked!
I LOVE coat hanger abortions. We kill TWO Rat voters with each one.
Here:
projects.fivethirtyeight.com
Rasmussen is built into the 538 chart.
Is that just based on the one Rasmussen poll? As far as I know, you're both just cherry-picking junk data and offering insufficient explanatory context.
The polls are fake and meaningless, Trump will win 2020 in a landslide.
Also why the fuck are all the images 404d?
Q unironically predicted this.
Go Zoomers.
that's right bud, all meaningless, trump is love, trump is life
538 compiles polls, I don't think it's cherrypicking.
Rasmussen and Harris-Harvard are the two most prominent polling institutions in the country. If you're going to read up on polls, they're the ones to browse. The other faggot has polls like LA Times or HuffPo factored in which aren't legitimate, just nigger newspapers with an agenda who ask leading questions and/or purposely fuck around with their data.
>My ass won't stop bleeding!!!
>gnat copper
lol
>I dont like ur stats UR WORNG
>gnat copper
LOL
Kek
Nate cardboard was eternally JUST'd by the 2016 election and will never recover
You do remember when the polls said it was almost certain that Hillary would win the election?
>OMG TRUMP ONLY HAS 25% CHANCE THAT'S EFFECTIVELY 0% HE PULLED OFF A MIRACLE!
They gave him a 25% chance the night of the election. Did you know that 25% is flipping a coin and getting tails twice in a row? But that could never possibly happen, right?
see
not cherrypicking, but the vast majority of the media is biased against trump, and so they commission biased polls, which means the stddev and mean will be biased too
skew them 2-3 points towards trump
>177603303
>177603332
lol, this guy has a Jow Forums pass to shitpost?
Sad!
>They gave him a 25% chance the night of the election.
lol, just like your hero gnat copper, you have to cherry pick events down to THAT NIGHT HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I think you're assuming that this weightedness isn't taken into account.
It's almost like public opinion changed wildly in the week coming up to the election. But nothing happened then, right? Right user? Why would a poll that tracks day to day changes in opinion change so wildly in such a small time?
I hadn't seen your response before I posted that. I prefer aggregators like RCP and 538 over one single Rasmussen chart. On the other hand, I think a comparison using likely voters is still a meaningful thing to gloat about, but what you've suggested is that OP has mixed apples and oranges, which is obviously problematic.
>He thinks it's acceptable for scientific polls to get it that wrong, let alone for the stats darling of the left
Just admit you're salty as fuck, Nate.
Yeah, but whenever the LA Times poll shows good numbers for Trump, T_D is flooded with comments about how the LA Times was the most accurate pollster in 2016 or some such.
>get it that wrong
>25% chance
You must be literate, you're typing words and sending them, so why the fuck can't you read what I'm saying? Polls predicting a 25% chance of something and then that thing happening didn't mean the poll was wrong, why the fuck would it? Does a 51% chance mean the thing will necessarily happen? Do you genuinely not understand numbers?
>177603676
>But nothing happened then, right? Right user?
I thought this guy was baiting but it seems he's genuinly frustrated.
Lord knows what he hopes to accomplish, aside from making the Right hate the Left even more, with his asinine remarks.
>It's almost like public opinion changed wildly in the week coming up to the election. But nothing happened then, right? Right user?
It literally did not. Anyone with their head out of their ass knew exactly what was going to happen, but you have to desperately cling to shifting excuses like the reeds on the crumbling bank of a river. A river that had been rising for the past 8 years, mind you.
But by all means, keep searching for the magic excuse. We all want you even more deluded and out of touch next time around.
By your logic even if it said 1% chance it'd still be 'right'.
So unless it literally says 0.00~% chance, it's never wrong.
I'm assuming that they still carefully select their samples of the population
Do thousand year floods happen?
iirc the sampling ratio in the last few days was altered to reflect more of reality.
Several pundits spent the entire election pointing out the errors, but not gnat copper
Not everybody is trying so hard to push their agenda that they resort to doctoring their data. Not that anybody who has any reason to disbelieve him would believe that.
Okay those are about the same
The ocean is a million year flood.
Quit. Being. Retarded.
All these flavors, and they had to choose salty.
>Not everybody is trying so hard to push their agenda that they resort to doctoring their data.
lol, no, just every source that gnat copper relied on to compile his off the mark analysis
TICK TOCK
'Flood' is just a social construct.
Without human observation, a million year flood and a ocean is no different for the fish that make it their home.
This is fact.
Isn't there a better way to exit the conversation than to act like this?
That's not a Ben "Trump so sweet I could lick him up" Garrison original; the cone, shadow, ice cream, hair, nose, eyes, background, tongue, eyebrows, and cheeks aren't labeled.
Says the man "acting" like a faggot
Looks like le MSM boogeyman was proven to be a myth. Jow Forums absolutely BTFO.
>a million year flood and a ocean is no different for the fish that make it their home.
wrong moron, floods pick up sediment and debris and kill the fish caught up in it
fucking idiot
flag checks out
Sediment and debris are human constructs. Over a million years, the fish would adapt to it and it would eventually become their natural environment.
You need to fully expand your mind.
'All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea doth not overflow: unto the place from whence the rivers come, they return, to flow again.'
T. Pol all the fucking time on
Their behavior
Evolution
Global warming
Women being inherently docile
It's cut down from the original. It's still quite terse for a ZBG.
Full cartoon always best from BG
>>And that is with 90% negative coverage from the far left mainstream media.
Isn't Fox news the biggest news station and they are literally lying and spinning everything in favor of trump?
Doesn't matter what the left says if the right doesn't listen.
I don't think Trump will win though considering how close it was before but who knows how much the dems will shit the bed. Would be sad to see USA ruined as I have a feeling our new Chinese overlords won't be as nice.
Fox News is still only a cable channel, and they are only the "biggest" on cable because the others have a lot fewer viewers than you would guess. The local Fox TV stations only have local news programs.
Are you praising trump for 48%? Even if he is beating obama that's still awful.
Are you joking? That's very solid. Reagan has the highest approval in the modern era when he left and he was at 60 some
Mediocrity is not worthy of praise
> Have mainstream media all over the world piss and shit in general direction 24/7
nob enougghh xDXDXD DRUMPF XD LOL
Except that's not mediocre in the realm of presidential approval ratings.
It's almost like we have had terrible presidents the last few decades who consistently fail us.
I am demoralized. You did good
Those are solid numbers compared to the presidents of the the last century or more you dope
Is this guy serious rn? Do you have any idea how politics work? kek
3 scopes, you heard it here first!
Can't be true
>TWO SCOOPS
>TWO HANDS
>TWO JUSTICES
>TWO TERMS