Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Exactly the same at end of their respective first years:

46% approve
53% disapprove

http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_co ... rack_dec28

It's the economy, Stupid.

kalm wrote:It's the economy, Stupid.

Here comes JSO in 3......2.......1......

kalm wrote:It's the economy, Stupid.

Witch tits!

Rasmussen

This is an excellent thread

It got a picture (not a chart) out of Felchy and an emotey repudiation of Rasmussen out of Jon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dbackjon wrote: Rasmussen

http://americanresearchgroup.com/rating ... president/

That's the latest poll so it could mean something but for now it is an outlier as Rassmussen polls usually are. By 538 it's a C+ rated polling organization with the 4th strongest Republican bias among 372 polling organizations.

JohnStOnge wrote:That's the latest poll so it could mean something but for now it is an outlier as Rassmussen polls usually are. By 538 it's a C+ rated polling organization with the 4th strongest Republican bias among 372 polling organizations.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/rating ... president/

So much liberal fail in this thread.

So much entertainment.

93henfan wrote:

dbackjon wrote: Rasmussen

http://americanresearchgroup.com/rating ... president/

That's based on looking at one polling situation. 538's rating is based on 657 Rasmussen polls. And Rasmussen's performance over a large number of polls has been pretty mediocre. Also, as noted, it has tended to show opinion as being a little more to the right than it really is.

JohnStOnge wrote:

93henfan wrote:
http://americanresearchgroup.com/rating ... president/

That's based on looking at one polling situation. 538's rating is based on 657 Rasmussen polls. And Rasmussen's performance over a large number of polls has been pretty mediocre. Also, as noted, it has tended to show opinion as being a little more to the right than it really is.

538 is very poorly rated by the group that rates poll reviewers.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... one-chart/

93henfan wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
That's based on looking at one polling situation. 538's rating is based on 657 Rasmussen polls. And Rasmussen's performance over a large number of polls has been pretty mediocre. Also, as noted, it has tended to show opinion as being a little more to the right than it really is.

538 is very poorly rated by the group that rates poll reviewers.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... one-chart/

That's not poll reliability assessment. That's a belief based upon what polls were saying at the time (June 2015). Again: The 538 projection on the eve of the election did not provide sufficient confidence to say that either of the two major candidates would win.

46% approval in the Rasmussen poll is an uptick but it is not a dramatic one. That poll had him at 45/53% Approval/Disapproval on November 16. It had him at 46/53% on November 13. It had him at 46/53% on October 6. It's had him bouncing around in the 40s/50s% for a long time. All pretty much consistent with the random variation one would expect if nothing were changing much. You can see that at http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ex_history.

It's a polling organization that tends to be biased towards the Republican side. It just is. If you choose to disbelieve that because of what you want to believe you're avoiding reality.

JohnStOnge wrote:

93henfan wrote:
http://americanresearchgroup.com/rating ... president/

That's based on looking at one polling situation. 538's rating is based on 657 Rasmussen polls. And Rasmussen's performance over a large number of polls has been pretty mediocre. Also, as noted, it has tended to show opinion as being a little more to the right than it really is.

'Calm down,' Donald Trump won't win the GOP nomination
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nate-sil ... 06189.html

Nate Silver Calls The Election For Hillary Clinton On Election Eve
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/08/celeb ... ction-eve/

538

BDKJMU wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
That's based on looking at one polling situation. 538's rating is based on 657 Rasmussen polls. And Rasmussen's performance over a large number of polls has been pretty mediocre. Also, as noted, it has tended to show opinion as being a little more to the right than it really is.

'Calm down,' Donald Trump won't win the GOP nomination
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nate-sil ... 06189.html

Nate Silver Calls The Election For Hillary Clinton On Election Eve
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/08/celeb ... ction-eve/

538

This.

Let's push this thread completely off the rails by throwing in some demographic unemployment rates under the Trump economy:

But how about when you break down the 4.3% unemployment rate by race? Two groups fall below the overall level — with the white unemployment rate at 3.7% and the Asian unemployment rate at 3.5%. Meanwhile, the Hispanic unemployment rate is 5.2% and the black unemployment rate is 7.5% — its lowest level since December 2000.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/black-un ... 35060.html

If the Trumpster keeps this up, methinks he'll pull in a decent chunk of team black to go along with the already burgeoning 29% of Team Brown in 2020. JSO, care to counter this demographic argument? Graphs will help, jellybean can help you out on that one.

SDHornet wrote:Let's push this thread completely off the rails by throwing in some demographic unemployment rates under the Trump economy:

But how about when you break down the 4.3% unemployment rate by race? Two groups fall below the overall level — with the white unemployment rate at 3.7% and the Asian unemployment rate at 3.5%. Meanwhile, the Hispanic unemployment rate is 5.2% and the black unemployment rate is 7.5% — its lowest level since December 2000.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/black-un ... 35060.html

If the Trumpster keeps this up, methinks he'll pull in a decent chunk of team black to go along with the already burgeoning 29% of Team Brown in 2020. JSO, care to counter this demographic argument? Graphs will help, jellybean can help you out on that one.

It never gets old seeing JSO get pummeled. Team Brown FTW.

JohnStOnge wrote: poll reliability

CAA Flagship wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote: poll reliability

Bigly!

I'll get to some of that other stuff in a minute. First let's disabuse you people of the notion that Trump's situation in terms of Job Approval as of this point is comparable to Obama's after his first year. The Real Clear Politics average on that issue on December 29, 2009, had Obama at +5.4. It was "Approve" at 49.9% vs. "Disapprove" at 45.5%.

As of today, December 29, Trump is at -17.1. It's "Approve" at 39.3% vs. "Disapprove" at 56.4%. If you think Trump's situation in that regard is anything like Obama's you are kidding yourself. You are in denial of reality. Here are some Real Clear Politics graphics:

BDKJMU wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
That's based on looking at one polling situation. 538's rating is based on 657 Rasmussen polls. And Rasmussen's performance over a large number of polls has been pretty mediocre. Also, as noted, it has tended to show opinion as being a little more to the right than it really is.

'Calm down,' Donald Trump won't win the GOP nomination
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nate-sil ... 06189.html

Nate Silver Calls The Election For Hillary Clinton On Election Eve
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/08/celeb ... ction-eve/

538

The Daily Caller writer didn't know how to interpret what Silver was saying. He wasn't definitively picking winners and losers. He was giving confidence levels. He was giving about 71% confidence that Clinton would win and that's not a high confidence level. Nobody who understands such things would think that's saying Clinton winning was a done deal. Same kind of thing with the author's comments on individual States. Silver saying that there was 55% confidence that Clinton would win Florida, for instance, was not Silver saying there was high confidence that Clinton would win Florida.

This is a good place to once again remind you guys of what I was saying on the night before the election about the confidence level Silver calculated. You can go to http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/ ... start=2575 then scroll down until you find the post in which I wrote this:

It's not over by any means. To put it into terms we're familiar with a 70.3% chance of winning is about equivalent to football team being an 8.5 point favorite. So by no means a done deal. I feel better than I would if the probabilities were reversed. But not at ease at all.

It would've been better if I'd have properly used terminology like "...a 70.3% confidence level..." rather than "...70.3% chance..." But you can see the basic point. If you knew how to interpret Silver's output you would not have said he was saying there was high confidence that Clinton would win.

All of you Libs and Trump haters can go fuck yourselves. You're on the LOSING side.

89Hen wrote:All of you Libs and Trump haters can go fuck yourselves. You're on the LOSING side.

89Hen wrote:All of you Libs and Trump haters can go fuck yourselves. You're on the LOSING side.

I mean, Trump is an imbecile. But whatever.