Thursday, September 07, 2017

In Trump approval polling, Clinton's popular vote edge more than twice the size of her edge in actual votes cast

It's previously been pointed out here that Reuters-Ipsos--among other polling organizations--has a history of oversampling self-identified Democrats at the expense of independents and sometimes Republicans.

In the case of presidential approval polling, the 'trick' is to poll the adult population rather than "likely voters". Likely voters skew more Republican than the adult population does, in part because of non-white electoral inertia and also because adults in the US who are ineligible to vote skew much more heavily Democrat than the population of eligible voters does. While Kate Steinle's killer can't vote against Trump (we hope!), he can drag down Trump's approval rating.

R-I's interactive polling explorer site allows for various filters to be used to analyze the data it releases. Since June of this year, the presidential approval poll (n = 23,055) has sampled a two-way distribution of respondents that breaks 52.6% voted for Clinton, 47.4% voted for Trump. The poll asks respondents who they voted for in 2016, not who they would vote for now.

The official popular vote distribution in a two-way contest was 51.1% for Clinton, 48.9% for Trump.

So among actual votes cast in 2016, Clinton won by 2.2 points. Among the current R-I presidential approval poll, however, Clinton won by 5.3 points.

The discrepancy is only 3 points, so it can't explain away Trump's current -18 net disapproval rating in the poll. On the other hand, the polling gap is more than twice the size of the actual voter gap, so its severity is in the eye of the beholder.

It could be a consequence of some respondents being apprehensive to say they voted for Trump when they actually did so. Or it may be another instance of a thumb being placed on the anti-Trump side of the scale.

I can't know for certain, but those are what the numbers show.


Anonymous said...

Conservatives won't tell pollster what they think. Rasmussen has verified thus.

The Z Blog said...

A while back, I looked at a WaPo poll on Trump and how he handled Charlottesville. The WaPo story on their poll focused on the negative, of course, but what I found startling was the number of respondents who responded with "No Opinion" on the questions regarding the alt-right. It was a push poll intended to give the respondent the right answer in advance, yet 10% called themselves alt-right and 40% refused to say they were for, against or had any opinion.

It is just one poll and not a very good one, but it got me thinking that the growing hostility toward the mass media is spilling into polling. The mere act of polling a topic causes opinion to shift on the issue. The underlying assumption of polling is that respondents will be honest about their opinions and neutral toward the pollster.

What happens when the public thinks they should be dishonest with pollsters because they are hostile to them or see them as the enemy?

Sid said...

Somewhat OT, but related - Kris Kobach thinks voter fraud made New Hampshire blue in 2016:

This all sounds rock solid to me. I believe Trump would've won New Hampshire had the election there had been more secure. I suspect the same is true of Nevada.

Trump can win Minnesota in 2020 if he plays his cards right. Again, more anecdotal evidence about the Zyklons:

Well, if a lot of Puerto Ricans make their way over to Florida in the aftermath of Hurricane Irma, Trump will still have a lot of room to win in 2020. Trump won Ohio so decisively in 2020 that it wasn't even close, so that helps compensate for a potential full-blown Latinization of Florida.

Feryl said...

Dev Patrick's first Wiki photo is from 2007, when he was around 50 years old. Yup. 50 is the ceiling for guys being attractive and cool. After that, you're supposed to take up stamp collecting or something. Has Roissy ever talked about PUA theories (a Gen X innovation) and aging dudes? After 50, chicks will notice your status....and, that's about it. I've noticed that a lot of Boomer actors are often in denial about this. Eddie Murphy, Stallone, Tom Cruise etc. will occasionally acknowledge their age, but they still also want star vehicles that make them look active, cocksure, and "hot" (as in sought-after and exciting). Of course, by and large these movies are far less popular than their big hits from the 80's and 90's (though with Cruise, his last big hit was actually in 2015 when he was in his early 50's; I'd imagine it might be the last hit action movie he fully stars in).

If the Dems insist on running yet another DLC approved candidate born before 1970, who's gonna get excited? Bernie and Trump showed that rebel ideology overcomes other shortcomings; If the Dems run a cuck, he better be young and slick. American pres. elections are brutal and seems to beat women to a pulp. You can't expect kindness or even fairness when running on a pres. ticket, and that seems to rattle women. And male voters do not want to shack up with middle-aged or older women, and women don't want to sleep with them either.

Lost in the bitterness about Trump not immediately getting his way on everything is that it's miraculous that he was able to withstand the greatest negative PR opposition campaign ever mounted in the space of 1-2 years. Ross Perot gained in the polls in early 1991, and the MSM/Deep State went to work on him. After being the butt of heightened attacks for a couple months, Perot retreated to one of his Texas compounds, had a sabbatical, and emerged in the late Summer with diminished poll numbers that never reached earlier highs. Perot was taken aback by how vicious politics had become and how hostile the establishment was to an interloper. Trump chose to face it all when he had so many reasons to turn back, and a demoralizing Perot style retreat would've further proved that decadent elites were just never going to be held to account.

Buchanan or Perot could've been victorious in 1992 if they had had the money and the tenacity of Trump. Buchanan definitely lacked the former and arguably lacked the latter. Perot lacked the latter.

Feryl said...

"Trump can win Minnesota in 2020 if he plays his cards right"

3rd party voters tend to regret their decision over the next 1-2 elections, as they find that the mainstream party they dislike the most benefited from 3rd party votes. See:
- Nader doing better in 2000 than 2004
- Perot doing better in 1992 than 1996

McMuffin and goofy pothead Johnson cheated Trump out of MN and NH at the very least, with if memory serves, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, and Maine also being placed further out of Trump's reach due to bitchy 3rd party cucks and their "principles". This kind of prissy "stunt" voting loses it's novelty quickly, and besides, after McMuffin and Johnson did terribly even many of their voters probably wonder just why the hell they voted, in effect, for Hillary.

MN-wise, we'll have to see if cucks "come back" to the GOP in 2020, and we'll also have to hold our breath on whether Gen Z (which in MN is still fairly white) votes GOP in large enough numbers to off-set the rising population of Mexicans, Muslims, and Asians, all of whom are likely to show up in pretty good numbers to vote against Trump (trust me, most non-whites have drunk the Kool-Aid that Trump represents a nascent Neo-Nazi movement).

Audacious Epigone said...


While I don't disagree with the thrust of your assertion, you do realize the inherent problem in the evidence you're using, right?


A lot of our focus was on the fact that 20+ million identify at least in part with the Alt Right. That's big, and you noted it at the time, but that 100+ million won't participate in the 2 minutes hate (or however long a phone survey like that takes to complete!) against us is perhaps the even bigger story. We are in a period of transition and I don't think any of us know exactly how we're going to come out on the other side, but we know it's not going to be like it was 10, 5, even 2 years ago ever again.


The voter fraud issue is framed perfectly for Trump. A few thousand instances of illegal votes will validate Trump's claims of "millions and millions" of illegal votes being cast in the minds of public. Kobach is a driven, extremely smart, genuine immigration patriot. If anyone will get to the bottom of it, it's him.


The principled cucks are not the kind of people to sit elections out. While markets show a pretty widespread belief than non-Trump Republicans will run in 2020, I'm skeptical. Does Kasich want to get humiliated again? Maybe so, but even I'm not jaded enough to think that he will. There will be enough for those cucks to vote more from Trump in 2020 than they did in 2016, I think.

Sid said...

It remains to be seen how many McMuffin and Johnson voters who normally vote Republican (as opposed to libertarian ideologues) Trump can win back in 2020. My own view is that most of those who cucked were afraid of Trump's temperament and lack of experience. By 2020, it'll be clear that Trump's temperament is volatile, but not dangerously so. (Think of how, summer 2016, the MSM was beating into people's heads everyday that Trump would trigger a nuclear war.) Trump's lack of experience in 2016 will be replaced by his record in 2020: I'm personally confident it will be good enough for most Republicans, even those who cucked last time.

I'm hoping that Kris Kobach will work his magic and expose voter fraud, which would make winning the "indigo" states (blue states with a significant red voter share) more feasible.

Feryl said...

"The principled cucks are not the kind of people to sit elections out. While markets show a pretty widespread belief than non-Trump Republicans will run in 2020, I'm skeptical."

No real progress on a real wall (electronic my ass), an unwanted war, etc. could undermine Trump and make challengers more feasible. Trump is in a tough spot; do I make good on my promises and draw the wrath of the globalists, or do I accept being a doormat in exchange for elite approval while risking alienating the public? Right now he and, apparently, his handlers seem to be walking a fine line between the two approaches (for example, boasting about wall offers and contracts, which vary widely in the nature and extent of the wall promised). And of course, the still ongoing DACA enigma for which so many "conservative" (to say nothing of the liberal) lobbies are willing to torch their credibility after a good 15 years (!) of failed amnesty attempts.

Keep in mind that judges and commie state officials always seem to be lurking, ready to torpedo any immigrant related legislation deemed to be insufficiently kind to foreigners. I think the initial travel ban chaos had a chilling effect on Team Trump; that alone proved difficult to write, to implement, and legally defend. Plus it reinforced the idea that Trump's loyalists would quickly be exposed as arrogant, naive, and amateurish. It's possible that Trump found it disappointing, and made him more receptive to establishment figures who he would've (naively) assumed to be of greater use at getting good things done. Truth be told, if the political and legal establishment gave a damn about national long-term security, they'd of gotten out of the way. We don't have that much power, and what we do have has to be used wisely.

Greedy, corrupt, and ideologically blinded elites await us always and everywhere. They might be nearing a death spiral; it's just a question of whether they can take entire nations down with them. Remember what the civil war did; greedy Southern pricks didn't want less cheap labor, while smug Northerners refused to placate The South's desire to remain culturally distinct. End result? Vast levels of resources and lives wasted and lingering tension and regrets for generations to come. All because most elites refused all efforts to rein in excess,

Feryl said...

I see two outcomes to the future (as in 10-20 years from now). First: America and many other Western nations renounce the worst aspects of globalism (high third world immigration, massive personal and governmental debt, no domestic manufacturing, multi-nationals run amok, etc.). Second, we don't change our tune and we soon are hit by massive economic problems that force elites to stop fucking around, which also diminish the appeal of cultural liberalism, and by default deters immigrants from entering. since they don't like the native's long-faces and the poor overall prospects in such a country.

An outright violent civil war seems a bit unlikely, given that Americans are far more physically inept and docile than the civil war generations. For that matter, imagine what the 2016 campaign trail would've been like if these battles had been fought by 1960's Boomers or 1930's GIs; we're talking a lot more busted skulls, given that kids back then were much tougher and stronger. We've been overdosing on E (estrogen, not ecstacy) for the last 30-40 years, and the younger a generation is the wimpier it is.

Anonymous said...

Polls showing disapproval numbers are meaningless. If I disapprove of Trump because he is not moving to the right fast enough that does not mean I will vote Democrat or Moderate Republican in the next election. It means I will vote for Genghis Khan in the next election. If Trump had only a 20% approval rating the Democrats and RINOs should not be encouraged.

Audacious Epigone said...


Well put. When the establishment threw out everything but the kitchen sink at an effort to keep Trump from being elected, they created the fear of an impending fascist regime led by a crazy dictator, literally Hitler! Gay people were going to be thrown in death camps! Of course nothing close to any of the predictions happened, and after 3 more years Trump will be viewed by everyone as a known quantity. That'll help with the cucks, though it may correspondingly hurt with cross-party and infrequent voters.


Both of those outcomes feel a lot like Eastern Europe today. I wonder if we're too outbred for that. I hope not. I'd rather have the demographics and standard of living of Hungary than the demographics and standard of living of Los Angeles.

Feryl said...

"Polls showing disapproval numbers are meaningless."

Well, someone did a poll about 2 or 3 months ago which asked people who they voted for back then and who they'd vote for now. It turns out that many 3rd party voters, some non-voters, and even a few HIllary voters would've voted for Trump if they could have a do-over. The MSM and perhaps more underated, the cuck GOP elite, obviously did a lot of damage; not enough to sink Trump but enough to depress his turnout to the point that his legitimacy was heavily undermined, thus leading to talking points that he wasn't a real president and that Russia did just enough to get Trump to the finish.

Most of the muh principles crowd is chiefly motivated by cultural issues, not economic ideology (libertarianism is by far the least popular ideology in America). So Trump following post-1980 doctrine on social issues (abortion, crime, drugs, guns, etc.), while making tentative steps towards reforming trade/foreign policy/immigration, has led to a decent number of muh principles folks at least tolerating Trump. If anything, the moderate/Reagan Dem types who voted for Trump are actually more bitter than the Ned Flanders types, since the former would accept cultural transgression from Trump if it meant a complete overhaul of trade/war/immigration policy. If the GOP elite wasn't so crooked, we'd ideally return to the culture of the 40's and 50's in which we got social conservatism and economic populism.

Feryl said...

"Both of those outcomes feel a lot like Eastern Europe today. I wonder if we're too outbred for that. I hope not. I'd rather have the demographics and standard of living of Hungary than the demographics and standard of living of Los Angeles."

The cucks who would just as soon as pretend that race doesn't matter, that we're all special individuals and so on are in for a rude awakening. With the election of Obama, several states at or nearing majority "minority" status (a term that they probably won't let go on account of history and white "privilege"), and gloating about demographic predictions, the cult-Marxist West/white hating cult has fully gone mainstream. Whites have been unwelcome in much of urban America for 50 years at this point, which has since become a problem in Western Europe too, and as campuses and cultural elites continue to foment hostility to a dwindling number of whites in many areas, look out! Look at what PC (spread by Teutonic self-loathing, under-achieving dark-skins, and devious Jews) has done to South Africa; every horror perpetrated by blacks against white devils is justified and often simply ignored in the name of "lifting up" the "oppressed".

When a nation's leaders fail to adequately protect their subjects in their own nation....

What's interesting to me is how the US would fare in a large scale global war, esp, if we were being invaded. Would multi-racial America effectively unify, esp. 30-40 years from now when the last heavily white generation (Boomers) is totally irrelevant? Who would you side with: neo-liberal, greedy, soul destroying globalist Western elites who America would fight for, or Russia?

If America lacked financial and military clout, we'd already be nearing a Brazil or South Africa type situation, in which whites are an elite almost totally cut-off from the dark underclass, or whites are a besieged minority asked to bear however many costs to atone for past racist behavior. Then again, even those countries don't have substantial numbers of all ethnic groups; how long, for example, do we keep up the fiction that America's historical population of gentile Euros unfairly makes gains at the expense of others, when the white population is declining and Jews/Asians/Lighter-skinned Hispanics/Dot-Indians etc. continue to do much better than blacks and Mixtec types?.

America in the mid 1960's commenced in experiment in diversity that is without precedent in the history of the world, and most other Western countries have begun to flirt with similar policies since at least the early 1990's, with some (mainly the English speaking countries and France) committing to the same kind of ideological policies earlier than that, albeit they did so initially at a lower degree than the US. People often reference Germans in Rome, but to put things in perspective, at least they were the same race! Muslims mostly had to fight their way thru Spain; Spain didn't have a retarded elite that completely welcomed an invasion of dangerous aliens.

We've been conditioned to not think of America as a white country, even though in 1960 it was around 85-90% white (!). Until around the last 10-20 years, it was generally accepted that European countries were white. But with the immigration rates and birth rates being what they are, many of these countries are substantially less white than they used to be...and you know what that means. Western Europe will go thru the same process of being asked to pay for and sympathize with people who should've never been let in to begin with, just like what America and Canada went thru already in the 60's and 70's.

Feryl said...

WRT to LA, in California as a whole native born Gen X-ers and Millennials, some of whom are white, have been leaving the state in earnest for a while at this point. Following the earlier exodus of lower-middle class white Boomers that happened in the 90's and early 2000's due to the defense industry collapse, the immivasion (the last straw being a judge overturning populist immigration laws in the mid 90's), and increasingly liberal politicians.

To the extent that anything still works in LA, it's because the heavily Jewish Boomer elite in SoCal demands and still gets a decent amount security/order/efficiency/competence from the remaining whites as well as Asians/Dot Indians/talented tenth Mexicans and Arabs, etc.

"Los Angeles County has the highest number of millionaires of any county in the nation, totaling 261,081 households as of 2007"

"As of 2000, there are hundreds of Christian churches, 202 Jewish synagogues"

Agnostic would be quick to point out that Jews (and gentiles who imitate them) are largely confident in their ability to extract gains from anything, including diversity, even when it manifestly is terrible for middle-class prole natives.

Audacious Epigone said...


That hypothetical presumes a politically unified country in 3-4 decades. History is full of examples of besieged cities throwing up the doors to their besiegers. That was easy to understand prior to rise of nationalism in the 19th century. We've been heading back to a pre-nationalism dynamic since the sixties. Can you imagine a draft today? It would make Vietnam look like nothing.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

I'm obviously pro-Trump so I'm biased but I'm not overly concerned about his approval rating. The primary reason is that there's nobody waiting in the wings that people want to see get elected. Not Paul Ryan, not Jeb Bush, not even Little Marco. I think if people were to vote all over again tomorrow, I don't see Hillary flipping a single state that Trump won. Furthermore I don't know of anyone who probably would be able to do better than Hillary, except for Obama who of course can't run. This is the paradox that the GOPe and Democrats face in 2020: Trump is not a popular guy (and he never will be thanks to the divided nature of the country) but there's nobody who can deliver on a victory to remove him from office.

As long as politics continue to get more polarized, this is the future of politics where every candidate is going to suffer from low approval ratings. Almost to the point where we have to start shifting away from personal popularity to popularity of pressing issues at the time (immigration, war, etc.)

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

I think you're right. I am almost certain that you are among "likely voters". It's another indication that political dissolution is on the way.

It will be interesting to see the Democrat nomination play out. Lots of opportunity for serious ruptures to occur in the Coalition of the Fringes.