This is Stupid

[Caballus]

I didn't notice a graphic disparity until you called it out, because I know how to read a graph. I frankly think the author just decided to make the Trump graph larger than the graphs of other presidents and the Congress. Yes, someone who is stupid might have trouble reading a graph, but I doubt very many people are so dumb that they would have trouble reading the graphs in that article.

I think Trump's approval numbers are sky high. When 50% of the votes went to Trump, he had 30% approval or therabouts in the polls. Now his approval numbers are 50% higher. We can argue about it, but that's what I think.

I respect what you think, Hack, but I am confused by it. How/why the confusion?

Skewed graph

• Fact: As previously noted, the method chosen to depict the data in the graph is a common disinformation technique. By stretching the chart, it makes it appear that they are measuring the same period and the variation across that period is comparable for all four subjects, which is not true. The approach can be rationalized by saying the view of the incumbent is stretched to highlight the fact that he is the incumbent, which many viewers will accept, while looking beyond the intended psychological effect.
  
• Many countries now teach how to recognize such indicators of disinformation in context of "Total Defense." The Finns lead the way by starting with kids in grade school--consider the habits of their Eastern neighbor. We do the same with defense and security professionals aimed, of course, externally. (Opinion: That does little for our population back home. For the sake of national security, I wish we would teach it in our schools).
  
• Whats all the more confounding is that you are accepting the practice from a mainstream media outlet, something your have appeared to be vehemently opposed to.

Shifting baseline

• It would seem that the reference point being used would either be be 100 or the ratings of previous presidents at the same point in their terms.
  
• "Sky high" would, therefore, logically be something relatively close to 100 or significantly higher than predecessors.
  
• Instead, it appears that the reference point is the President's ratings prior to his previous election, when not running against an incumbent, which you then mix with a comparison to his previous opponent.
• None of the comparisons you use are consistent.

I am not arguing that the President will or will not be reelected. My point is simply that there is no way to do objective analysis or even have a logical discussion under these conditions. Moreover, we (Americans) cannot hold "MSM" accountable if we accept these sorts of practices from them. They are a business and to that end reflect the desires their clients--the proverbial self-licking ice cream cone.

All that to say, the President's very well be elected for a second term, but his ratings are not sky high by any logical measure.

Sponsored

 

[Hack]

All that to say, the President's very well be elected for a second term, but his ratings are not sky high by any logical measure.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/500203-trump-asserts-his-power-over-republicans

His approval in general is as high as it's ever been and among republicans his approval is in the 90s. Sky high. What approval rating would he need to have for you to think it's sky high?

I understand that there are a lot of Trump haters out there that have closed minds and will always disapprove no matter what he does. That's why a strong conservative-ish person will never have approval from the majority of Democrats and a Bernie type will never have the approval from the majority of Republicans.

You fight so hard over this stuff rather than just looking it up yourself.

 

[Caballus]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/500203-trump-asserts-his-power-over-republicans

His approval in general is as high as it's ever been and among republicans his approval is in the 90s. Sky high. What approval rating would he need to have for you to think it's sky high?

I understand that there are a lot of Trump haters out there that have closed minds and will always disapprove no matter what he does. That's why a strong conservative-ish person will never have approval from the majority of Democrats and a Bernie type will never have the approval from the majority of Republicans.

You fight so hard over this stuff rather than just looking it up yourself.

What does this have to do with President Trump haters, Senator Sanders or Democrats. It has to do with disinformation and skewed statistics.

As for what I think is sky high, I don't use the term. However, the term does have implications, and I noted what they were. The bottom line is that you use the term to present a rating below 50% and base it on a shifting reference point.

 

[Hack]

What does this have to do with President Trump haters, Senator Sanders or Democrats. It has to do with disinformation and skewed statistics.

As for what I think is sky high, I don't use the term. However, the term does have implications, and I noted what they were. The bottom line is that you use the term to present a rating below 50% and base it on a shifting reference point.

I resent that you call what I'm saying disinformation. Trump's poll numbers are really high right now because many people think he has been doing a good job.

Speaking of disinformation. A guy with an approval rating of 30% against an opponent with at least a 10 point advantage in approval rating wins the election. That's the type of poll results we typically have here in the US. And it is disinformation.

 

[Caballus]

I resent that you call what I'm saying disinformation. Trump's poll numbers are really high right now because many people think he has been doing a good job.

Speaking of disinformation. A guy with an approval rating of 30% against an opponent with at least a 10 point advantage in approval rating wins the election. That's the type of poll results we typically have here in the US. And it is disinformation.

From "sky high" approval to "really high" approval with a less than 50% approval rating throughout his term? Really high compared to what?

Then you shift and compare approval rating to election ratings. The first data set uses previous presidents and congress--serving leaders. The second data set shifts to voting data but still uses the term approval.

Resent all you want. The depiction you provided is an example of disinformation. Not saying you are intending to mislead; the data you provided is, nevertheless, misleading as are your remarks. That is simple, objective fact.

 

[watisthis]

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/trump-approval/

They're sky-high I tell you!

 

[Hack]

From "sky high" approval to "really high" approval with a less than 50% approval rating throughout his term? Really high compared to what?

Then you shift and compare approval rating to election ratings. The first data set uses previous presidents and congress--serving leaders. The second data set shifts to voting data but still uses the term approval.

Resent all you want. The depiction you provided is an example of disinformation. Not saying you are intending to mislead; the data you provided is, nevertheless, misleading as are your remarks. That is simple, objective fact.

Sky high and really high are essentially the same and you constantly want to parse words. These discussions are annoying at this point.

 

[Caballus]

Sky high and really high are essentially the same and you constantly want to parse words. These discussions are annoying at this point.

Annoyance is personally controllable. I am not parsing words. You are misrepresenting facts. Why? Only you know.

Sponsored