Poll: Up to 55% of Americans Approve Trump's Executive Orders

[Turaska]

This is actually a pretty good example of why polling isn't that useful for policy decisions. Not because polls are inaccurate, but because people taking them often understand basic facts as poorly as someone that would write this. Without even the most basic understanding of how sampling and statistics work, there's no reason to treat your opinion as being worth more than that of a child.

OR my point was people are using such a low sample size as an excuse to claim the entire nation is behind Trump (which is basically what people are doing when they see the headline to that story)? you really shouldn't assume so much, it just makes you look like an ignorant tool.

[Etselion]

And the "silent majority" guy was never seen again...

[Floopa]

Because Trumpettes love to use a single poll to try and reinforce their confirmation bias.

MSM polls can be misleading. after all, Huffington Post said hillary had a 98.1% chance of winning the presidency, and other MSM polls similarly put her chance at winning the presidency at >90%+

maybe the MSM just wants to paint trump/conservatives in a bad light to push some pointless agenda that has no place in the western world

:thinking:

[Independent voter]

55% of Americans Approve Trump's Executive Orders

Kind of fake news. 55% approve of the travel ban between 8 Muslim countries and the US. Americans likely don't know about Trump's other Executive orders.

And Trump has rescinded zero of Obama's executive orders so far.

[Jeezy911]

I personally think he is doing a pretty good job though it is clear he is inexperienced. You don't vote for a guy to shake things up then get mad when he does. Nothing he has done so far has been radical in my mind.

[Underverse]

Even if most Americans did approve, that doesn't give them a position of moral or intellectual superiority. If anything, it's just another indicator of why 'average Americans' are unfit to make national decisions.

[KrazyK923]

MSM polls can be misleading. after all, Huffington Post said hillary had a 98.1% chance of winning the presidency, and other MSM polls similarly put her chance at winning the presidency at >90%+

maybe the MSM just wants to paint trump/conservatives in a bad light to push some pointless agenda that has no place in the western world

:thinking:

I never understood this line of thinking. Yes, Hillary was the shoe in candidate. And Trump barely won. What do you not understand about that?

[anyaka21]

Why does every other poll show otherwise?

because you know all those left polls are so accurate. They fully predicted a landslide Hillary win.... oh wait....

Not saying Trump is doing a bang up job or that I voted for the guy, but trusting left wing news to give accurate polls, at this point, is the height of stupidity.

[Narwal]

Why does every other poll show otherwise?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...polling-234630

Donald Trump might be more popular than you think

Once again, there's evidence suggesting traditional polls aren't accurately measuring support for the president and his policies.

I've harped on this in another thread. Pollsters got the presidency wrong. They never figured out why they were wrong. Until they figure out why they were wrong, and correct it, their polls will follow the same wrong patterns.

[Sengel]

The silent majority stands with Trump.

Calling yourself a majority is a bit of an interesting point when you lost the popular vote. 62,985,105 is roughly 31% of eligible adults (24% is under 18 and 13ish percent is foreign born) and 45% of the total votes cast which is by no means a majority any way you slice it . Now if there were "wide scale voter fraud" why hasn't there been a big formal announcement of them actually looking into it? at best you're the silent plurality.

[Floopa]

I never understood this line of thinking. Yes, Hillary was the shoe in candidate. And Trump barely won. What do you not understand about that?

so you're saying the election was, at the very least, not a landslide hillary victory... as every MSM poll suggested it was?

:thinking:

[Orange Joe]

Something smells fishy about that site.


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-daily-wire/


Yeah.....

[Deleted]

Also can I note that, 3 out 11 executive orders being above 50 %, isn't exactly what I'd call a stellar performance.

[Dug]

MSM polls can be misleading. after all, Huffington Post said hillary had a 98.1% chance of winning the presidency, and other MSM polls similarly put her chance at winning the presidency at >90%+

maybe the MSM just wants to paint trump/conservatives in a bad light to push some pointless agenda that has no place in the western world

:thinking:

Just following some basic logic here but even if Trump had a 1% chance of winning and won... you realize the poll wasn't actually wrong, right?

Ashe's of Al'ar has a 1% drop chance. You get it on your 1st run doesn't mean Blizzard is fake news

[Orange Joe]

Because California leftists should decide the president for 50 states.

And this has what to do with the comment he made?

[cubby]

http://www.dailywire.com/news/13292/...-aaron-bandler

In spite of the relentless anti-Trump media portrayal of the president, and in spite of the Trump camp's numerous missteps and flawed spokespeople that fuel that portrayal, the American people are quietly nodding their heads when they see what Trump is doing so far.

"Up to"? Just the EO's? You mean, the ones Trump himself hasn't read? I doubt people even know what the EO's do.

[Tyrianth]

60% of Americans think Donald is taking the US in the wrong direction, and Donald only has an approval rating of 47%.

[anyaka21]

Just following some basic logic here but even if Trump had a 1% chance of winning and won... you realize the poll wasn't actually wrong, right?

Ashe's of Al'ar has a 1% drop chance. You get it on your 1st run doesn't mean Blizzard is fake news

considering we are talking about the results of a presidential election and not a drop rate of an item in a game, then ....

[Narwal]

Even if most Americans did approve, that doesn't give them a position of moral or intellectual superiority. If anything, it's just another indicator of why 'average Americans' are unfit to make national decisions.

This is the mindset which gets Democrats into hot water. The United States exists for its citizens, the government is "of the people, and for the people". When you start telling the majority of the country, they are not fit to make decisions for themselves, you will lose them in an election.

You base your knowledge of which policies are best for this country based on your own priorities. You consider no one elses, that's how you're so definitive in your belief that what you consider good policy is best for everyone.

The US is a melting pot of people, and by creating this melting pot of a country we create many differing points of view, differing daily lives, differing needs and differing priorities. It is out of the attempt to respect this fact, that many believe it is important that the Federal government be as noninvasive as possible. That a more local governing take place to fit the needs of smaller pockets of people with their own priorities. It is the overreach of a federal government into the daily lives of everyone, by both sides, which has raised the consequences of Federal elections and with it the bipartisanship we see. We live in a country now where laws from both sides are meant to force upon everyone the priorities of one side. I'm not saying that in the past we've been free of this, but every election we see the heavy fist of the federal government squeezing tighter. I'm not even an enemy of a federal government, I simply think the government is becoming too involved in our daily lives where they're really not needed.

[Dug]

considering we are talking about the results of a presidential election and not a drop rate of an item in a game, then ....

What I'm saying is just because the polls predicted Hillary to win be it through arrogance or whatever doesn't somehow make them fake. If they were giving Clinton a 100.1% chance of winning I'd agree with you guys but 90% chance of winning and then losing doesn't make the prediction false. Much in the same way that you having a 99% chance to not get that mount drop and then getting it doesn't mean it's not actually a 1% chance.

But I'll be honest I really didn't bother reading prediction polls or how they even came to such numbers as election nights never go exactly as planned.