Do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Presidential Approval Poll 4/3/19 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
For reference, nailed on +42/-53 in polling averages (-11).
sho nuff
Footballguy
Not sure these will change much in here unless there is an influx new posters or exodus of current posters.
There doesn’t seem to be anything he can do to make those who approve not approve of him...and he has done enough in the eyes of those who oppose him to always oppose him. He would have to change a lot to make his approval here really go up.
There doesn’t seem to be anything he can do to make those who approve not approve of him...and he has done enough in the eyes of those who oppose him to always oppose him. He would have to change a lot to make his approval here really go up.
Thanks. I'm sorry but I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Can you elaborate?
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Sorry! In real polls the average is 42% approve of Trump and 53% disapprove.
He's been no better than +44.6/-51.1 and no worse than +40.4/-55.5 -- a range of only 4.2% for both approve and disapprove for the last 15 months -- it's barely moved.
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
No offense taken at all. I know this is serious business here so I'm not too worried about one more thread. I do like keeping track of it on a historical thing. I wish I'd done this since the beginning of the FFA. But better to start now than never.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
You're not really keeping track of Trump's approval level, though. You're just keeping track of the number of Trump supporters who happen to be browsing your site on any given day.
For sure. This is just us. It's tracking his approval rating in the Footballguys Political Forum. It's an indication of how many people here approve or disapprove of how he's handling his job in a given time. The wording of the question is extremely intentional and mirrors the bigger studies.
Did you for some reason think it was only tracking Trump supporters?
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish
Footballguy
Here's the thing. There are things Trump has done I approve of. Ending TPP, the criminal justice reform legislation he signed being the two biggest examples. The problem is those are so outweighed by vast overwhelming amount of crap that is the day to day with this guy I can't approve of him overall.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
Actually, it just shows an answer to the question that is asked.
Clearly, the vast majority here disapprove of how he's handling his job. I'm not looking for any bigger underlying meaning.
Understood. And I think that's the proper way to answer the question.
On balance, do you approve or disapprove? That's how you seem to be answering and I think that's the proper way to answer it.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Here's the thing this echo Chamber stuff is way oversold. I definitely don't echo the things many on the left here may want to hear. And I'm not the only one. While the board may be more liberal even within that there are divisions and issues. The main thing we all agree upon is in general Trump is an embarrassment who lies about things easily proven to be lies, who suffers from severe Dunning Kruger effect, and is just not up to being presidential.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Well I think you give credit where due if you want to be intellectually honest. He has done a couple of good things and if he had done more of that and less of what he's actually done then maybe I could approve. Unfortunately the bad significantly outweighs the good.
[scooter]
Footballguy
My point is that you're not really tracking his "rating". If your polls show his number going up or down, you'll have no idea if it is because his approval rating really changed, or if it's just a matter of a few extra Trump-supporters being online that day.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
How else is he going to know when Operation Liberal Echo Chamber has succeeded in its zero-tolerance objectives?
Last edited by a moderator:
GoBirds
Footballguy
Gr00vus
Footballguy
Trump could engage in discriminatory housing practices, commit adultery multiple times, commit and brag about sexual assault multiple times, go bankrupt multiple times, commit fraud multiple times, lie 10 times a day, launder money, threaten violence against those who don't support him, encourage illegal acts to forward his candidacy, give favorable treatment to enemies of the U.S, wreck the long term health of the U.S. economy, sell favors and peddle influence to enrich himself and his family, direct millions in taxpayer money to his own businesses in the course of government work (and his own vacation time)......and Trump supporters wouldn't budge an inch.
Last edited by a moderator:
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
JohnnyU
Footballguy
I support our President and believe he's doing a good job, especially for the American people.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
FWIW I think it's a very bad idea to give Trump credit for this. He signed it because it got through Congress. Most other presidents would have done the same. The reason his predecessor wasn't given the opportunity was because Republicans in Congress were unwilling to pass the legislation and allow Obama to get any credit for it. So essentially you're praising him for being from the same party as Mitch McConnell, thereby removing the previous impediment to its passage. In the meantime, of course, thousands of people who would have benefited from earlier passage of the legislation but instead were left to languish until the politics shifted.
If anyone deserves praise for the legislation, it's the Democrats who were willing to set aside the pettiness and partisanship that doomed the project during the Obama era and act for the greater good. Although even that is a fairly low bar that legislators prior to McConnell and Ryan during the Obama administration cleared easily. Praising Trump for this law just rewards deeply entrenched partisanship and encourages more of the same.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Perhaps you could consider defending him on substance, then. There's a 2,000 page thread that recounts his perceived missteps that IMO would benefit from someone explaining why they're actually not missteps.
For example you could explain to us why it's actually good that the administration intervened to head off a recall of faulty strollers that were injuring parents and children, or is rolling back USDA inspections and entrusting food producers to monitor themselves, or why it's helpful that DHS is disbanding its domestic terrorism unit in the wake of the Tree of Life shooting and the obvious rise of white nationalism. And that's just the news of the last two days. I think a perspective defending these moves as "doing a good job" would be very interesting to hear.
NCCommish
Footballguy
It got signed and it will start to undo the bad effects that Democrats and their crime bill put in motion. He didn't have to sign it and he did. He's even said he is looking forward to signing the next bill to further reform the system. So yeah he gets some credit. Sorry when you can't even give that little bit that's when you start to lose some credibility in your critiques.
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
Or he could keep lying and you would never say anything.
Trump could cure cancer and the regulars in here wouldn’t budge an inch.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
There is plenty I don't like about Trump (tweets, lies, but most, if all do it, name calling but most do it), but in general, I like the job he is doing (well documented by me already).
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
You didn't address any of my argument. You see that you're rewarding GOP obstructionism by praising the president for signing a bill that should have been signed years ago, right? And that this actually hurts people who would have benefited from earlier passage?
Obviously it's better that he signed it than if he didn't. That was good. It's also good that he discontinued the family separation policy at the border. Does he also deserve credit for that, ignoring the circumstances that led to him having to make the decision in the first place?
Sorry, I'm not gonna think that way, especially when doing so encourages hyper-partisanship and obstructionism at the legislative level that does real harm to real people. Context matters.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Not be a wise guy or anything, but joining in the conversations and actually speaking out against the things you don't like would go a long way towards dispelling the appearance of just being a Trump apologist. Not just you, but Trump supporters in general. We hear a lot of "oh there are a lot of things I don't like about him" but those sediments are rarely seen.
GoBirds
Footballguy
He's awful, never had a problem saying it. Meanwhile you and the regulars in here regurgitate the same mess daily and double down on crazy conspiracies so I missed the purpose of monthly approval polls in here.
joffer
Footballguy
I’d be thrilled. Still wouldn’t want him to be President. Rather he be in the lab working on the next disease.
Trump could cure cancer and the regulars in here wouldn’t budge an inch.
NCCommish
Footballguy
There is another way to look at it. Perhaps giving people some praise for doing things you like may cause them to do more of those things. I mean it's called carrot and a stick not stick and a stick for a reason. And how much credit do Democrats deserve for finally starting to clean up a mess of their own making really? At the end of the day who gets credit is schoolyard silliness what matters is it got done.
Sure, any polling with a sample size this small can swing either way. Seems interesting you'd be solely focused just on Trump Supporters though. The poll asks the same question to everyone - "Do you approve or disapprove"?. Pro and Anti Trump people have the exact same way to cast a vote.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Sure, and that should be done.
I think maybe our disconnect is due to the subtle difference between "praise" and "credit." I'm happy to praise Trump for signing the bill. I'm not gonna give him credit. The credit goes to Cory Booker with assists to Chuck Grassley and Mike Lee and countless others. And it's important even if it is "schoolyard silliness," because as I said that "schoolyard silliness" is the reason this didn't happen years ago. That delay had real consequences for real people.
Last edited by a moderator:
Two or three extra (or fewer) Trump supporters would change the ratio a lot more than two or three extra (or fewer) Trump opponents.
In the Political Forum Census thread, krista mentioned that if she’d seen the survey before it closed, she could have single-handedly put a dent in the male-female ratio. She’s right. Contrariwise, any given male wouldn't have been able to affect it much at all.
I suspect that’s why [scooter] mentioned Trump supporters rather than Trump opponents.
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting because I have the opposite reaction. Signing the bill rather than vetoing it was the obvious thing to do. It’s far from praiseworthy. But if we’re putting all presidential actions into either the credit column or the demerit column, signing the bill belongs in the former.
You mentioned above that it’d be nice if Trump supporters didn’t withhold criticism of Trump when he makes the wrong choice on some issue.
Similarly, I don’t think Trump critics should refuse to give him credit when he makes the right choice. (I know that there’s a whole thread for giving him such credit, and that you’ve contributed to it.) When it’s something super obvious like not vetoing widely popular legislation, or not sexually assaulting his press secretary, he doesn’t deserve much credit. But more than zero seems okay to recognize. If he’d done the opposite, we’d sure enough assign him blame.
butcher boy
Footballguy
Approve. Doing a fine job considering all the unnecessary crap he's had to deal with
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I guess this is just semantics.
Here's the bottom line: if we make it a positive, legacy- affecting thing that a president signed legislation that should have been enacted long ago but was delayed by legislators to avoid letting the previous president get credit, we validate and encourage that legislative behavior. Hopefully everyone agrees that this perspective is bad for America.
Last edited by a moderator:
[scooter]
Footballguy
The reason I am focused on Trump Supporters* is because they have a stronger history of re-appearing in this forum, depending on whether they perceive that Trump has had a good day or not. This is a phenomenon that has been observed many times by Trump supporters, detractors, and moderators alike.
On the other hand, we do not see the same level of fluctuation with anti-Trump posters.
Therefore, on most days, this poll may show something like 80 votes of disapproval, compared to 15 votes of approval. But if you had conducted the poll on March 25th (the day after Barr's letter was published), then the poll would be more likely to show something like 80 votes of disapproval, compared to 30 votes of approval.
This does not mean that Trump's approval rating increased by 12%. It only means that more Trump supporters happened to see the poll that day.
(Obviously, these numbers are not scientific. I'm just using them to illustrate my point about the ratio of supporters to non-supporters in this forum.)
Now, some may counter my statement by claiming that the number of "anti-Trump" posters will also fluctuate based on whether they believe that Trump has had a good day or not. And there is some truth to that. But because Trump supporters make up a smaller percentage of overall users of the forum, it is much easier for their presence to alter the poll numbers. Also, there is a much larger contingent of "everyday" posters in this forum who are not Trump supporters. (So, their presence will be "baked in" to any poll that you conduct.)
Anyway, what I'm saying is that if you continue to do these polls, I expect that you will find that the number of anti-Trump votes will remain relatively constant, while the number of pro-Trump votes will vary wildly.
*or "conservative types who don't officially proclaim to be 'Trump Supporters', but just happen to be more likely to post in the Political Forum when Trump's approval rating in the Rasmussen poll hits 50%", if you're not into labels.
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
Thanks. We'll see how it goes. My guess is you could be right. With the number of Trump supporters so small, the number could increase or decrease as a percentage of the number with the addition or subtraction of a relatively small number of votes. Could be interesting to see.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Sure how we got here sucks. But we got here and that doesn't suck. Giving a little credit or praise or whatever word we feel comfortable with seems like a better idea than not.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
