Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, November 13, 2019

The day before his public impeachment hearings begin, Trump's net approval is -10 in his favorite poll, Rasmussen. Disapproval hits 54%.




Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Where are all the (R)tards that use to quote Rasmussen like it was the Bible???
< crickets >

#1 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-11-13 12:25 AM | Reply

Where are all the (R)tards that use to quote Rasmussen like it was the Bible???
< crickets >

#2 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-11-13 12:26 AM | Reply

Since it's Rasmussen, Trump's true approval is actually 39%.

#3 | Posted by Zed at 2019-11-13 08:18 AM | Reply

www.realclearpolitics.com (RCP)

- approve: 43.9
- disapprove: 53.4

Rasmussen Reports:
- approve: 46
- disapprove: 53

One thing to keep in mind when you read the approval ratings on RCP is the "LV" and "RV" thing. They are "likely voters" and "registered voters," respectively. Registered voters is a pretty cut and dry attribute. But how do the pollsters figure out who is likely to vote?

#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-11-13 10:09 AM | Reply

I think that when pollsters interview, they ask "are you likely to vote in the upcoming general election?" which is akin to asking someone on the DR if they plan to have a non sequitur reply by Goatman.

#5 | Posted by e1g1 at 2019-11-13 02:22 PM | Reply

#4 My understanding is LV is gained through questions regarding voting history. If you vote regularly you are more likely to vote than somebody who seldom votes. That is why the 2016 polls undercounted Drumpf voters who had not voted in several cycles and they currently undercount young voters who are more motivated to vote than anytime since Vietnam and skew very left, hence blue wave 2018 and 2019.

#6 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2019-11-13 02:25 PM | Reply

This must be bad for Democrats and great news for Russiapublicans!

#7 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-11-13 02:43 PM | Reply

#1 greatest president ever has NEVER had a majority positive approval rating in his whole tenure. Let's make sure to explain how that is a big problem for Democrats in 2020.

#8 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-11-13 02:45 PM | Reply

A new poll by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution shows Trump getting beat by half the Democratic field, Biden by the biggest margin, 51-43%

54% disapprove of Trump and 44% approve.

In Georgia

#9 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-11-13 03:09 PM | Reply

Here's the link:


#10 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-11-13 03:11 PM | Reply



No way around the conclusion but that the 2020 race for the White House is the Dems to lose. Because right now, they are a sure thing.

#11 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-11-13 03:24 PM | Reply

In November 2016 Trump polled at 43.6%. He ended up winning the election.

A poll with him at 44% is not good news for Democrats.

#12 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-13 03:31 PM | Reply

There is a sizeable contingent of people in this country whose sole political concerns are being mean to brown people and triggering --------. Trump's polling has an absolute floor because zero of these people will ever change their minds about him, ever.

#13 | Posted by JOE at 2019-11-13 03:33 PM | Reply

zero of these people will ever change their minds about him, ever.
#13 | Posted by JOE

Very sad, but true. They'll believe anything the Russians tell them.

#14 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2019-11-13 03:48 PM | Reply

Wow, the same number o'bummer had in mid nov in last year of first term. Careful what you pose dems.

#15 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-11-13 03:58 PM | Reply

@#6 ... My understanding is LV is gained through questions regarding voting history. ...

That's part of it.

The LATimes had a great article on the LV topic a few years back. Unfortunately, I cannot find the magical incantation to convince the search engines to find that article. :(

#16 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-11-13 06:44 PM | Reply

The Democratic Party planks during the '90's were to the right of where the GOP is today."

The Republican Plank during the '50's and '60's were to the left of where the Democratic Party is today.

What's your point? The movement of the Democratic Party to the right is a consequence of 1980's deregulation of television and radio, corporations, and destruction of the Union movement. When the GOP knee-capped the unions, headlined by Reagan and the Air Traffic Controllers, the Dems lost a major source of money, infuence, and "boots-on-the-ground". In order to remain competitive, they had to find another source of funding. Wall St. was a kind of "lesser of two evils" compared to the polluting energy-extracting and processing industries and the MIC. Besides, a lot of Wall Streeters lived in Manhattan and were "socially liberal", so at the time it sounded like an attractive compromise.

Fortunately, with the advances in technology and telecommunications over the last 20 or so years, small individual contributions have become a viable source of funding. I think it would probably be a good thing if it were the only private funding source campaigns, and even better if campaigns were funded with public money, like it is in most other countries.

TV advertising is the single largest expense for most American congressional candidates, while in many other countries candidates are either forbidden from advertising on television or given free TV time. In most places there's substantial public funding of campaigns, and candidates are often forbidden from campaigning until a relatively short period before election day. Put all that together, and you have elections where, even if it would technically be legal to rain huge amounts of money down on candidates, nobody considers it worth their while (for instance, here's a nice description of the relative quiet of a German campaign). So the idea of someone spending two or three million dollars to get a seat in the national legislature, the way American House candidates routinely do, would seem absurd.
As you look over the different regulations various countries have come up with, it does seem that the thing that makes all the difference in how campaigns are conducted is the spending limits, which are often combined with time limits on electioneering. Everyone has to weigh two competing considerations. The first is the desire for elections that retain a reasonable amount of integrity, and are conducted in a manner that is, for lack of a better term, civilized. And the second is the principle of free speech, that a candidate for office should be able to say what he wants, as often as he wants, and spend as much as he wants doing it, even at the risk of corruption. In most other countries, they've decided that the first consideration is more important. In the U.S., we've decided that the second consideration is the only one that matters.

And we end up with a system that nobody likes except the large donors, who get to control the playing field.

#17 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-11-14 06:08 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort