Poll: Trump's popularity soars after election"Soars"?
Donald Trump’s popularity is rising in the days since his election, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll of registered voters.So in "a dramatic uptick," Trump's favorability "soars" to mere parity, 46%-46%.
Forty-six percent of voters now have a very favorable or somewhat favorable opinion of the president-elect. Twelve percent have a somewhat unfavorable opinion and 34 percent have a very unfavorable opinion of him.
It’s a dramatic uptick since the election. Trump’s favorability has grown 9 points, 37 percent to 46 percent, compared to a Morning Consult poll right before the election -- while his unfavorability has dropped 15 points, from 61 percent to 46 percent.
How does this compare? The implication is that it's right in line with what happened to previous presidents:
"Trump’s favorability among voters has reached new highs since he became president-elect,” said Morning Consult cofounder and Chief Research Officer Kyle Dropp. "This honeymoon phase in common for new presidents. For example, Obama saw about a 20 point swing in his favor following the 2008 election."Let's check Polling Report. What were Barack Obama's favorable/unfavorable numbers in polls taken in the five weeks after Election Day 2008?
CNN : 75%-22%No parity here.
Fox: 68%-24%
Quinnipiac: 67%-19%
CBS: 55%-12%
NBC: 45%-22%
We've already seen this comparison:
Gallup finds Trump has the worst favorability of any president-elect in modern American history. pic.twitter.com/2D0tbiJuvF
— Matt McDermott (@mattmfm) November 17, 2016
But the Politico headline is right-wing clickbait -- and will probably become mainstream-media conventional wisdom.
Although if we're lucky, this, from Pew, will influence the narrative:
But the Politico headline is probably the story the media likes, so I'm not optimistic.
Our mediums will have to work hard to normalize t-RUMP!
ReplyDeleteThere are still a lot of people who won't want to swallow a turd sandwich, not matter how many fixin's ya put on it!
But, give 'em time.
They've done it to lesser degrees before, so just give 'em time... Give 'em time...
Something I've been meaning to mention to see if anyone else had this happen.
ReplyDeleteI have an android phone and on that phone I HAD Google now. When I first tried Google Now I thought it was handy. It gives you a fair amount of information and you can pick the categories of things your interested in for news stories. I like politics so that was one of my picks.
At first I didn't really notice anything weird I just swiped away anything from FOX and then I found out that I could block sites I didn't want to see, like FOX. So I blocked FOX and Brieghtbart appears, so I block them and another RWNJ site appears. It got ridiculous, it was one right after another so I just dumped pretty much the whole thing. What the hell is up with that? You'd think their algorithms of whatever they use would see that I don't want news from the crazy people.
Anyone else have this experience?
rclz, on Google News, I've had that problem on my desktop computer. I would keep adding right-wing sites that I didn't want to see, and yet I kept seeing more right-wing sites. At least on my computer, I found out two things by going to the controls: 1) It works by naming a news source and a slider, so for instance if I said I wanted to see more from The Guardian, it's just a slider towards more. If I say I want to see less from Breitbart, it's a slider towards less (no such option as "none"). 2) At least on my desktop, there is a maximum of ten sources. So as I kept adding right-wing sources I didn't want to see, I was also wiping out previous entries, including actual news sources that I did want to see. It is just a continual replacement process with a maximum of ten entries. I can't imagine why they made the system work that way. I don't know how the app works because I don't use it, but that's how the website works.
ReplyDeletethanks Diane I'll take a look at it. That seems really goofy. I'd rather it got the hint that NO I NEVER want to see anything from Fox et al.
ReplyDelete