@CCoinTradingIdeas Its been well over a year since I've read either of those. I prefer to read actual bills or watch C-SPAN and other first-source information. I dont usually read mainstream news outlets of any kind.

With that said did you literally just call all gay people unworthy of presidency and really think that doesnt make you look like a moron? This is why I unfollowed you and its about to be the reason I block you now.

@freemo LOL, mentally ill people (perverts) have no business running a country. If you follow me or not, I really do not care.
BTW, who is you phobophobia? Enjoy your self-censorship ;)
Cheers!

@CCoinTradingIdeas I agree that mentally ill people, such as yourself, have no business running a country, or being on the internet for that matter. That however does not extend to gay people.

Welcome to the block list.

@freemo you turned out to be a typical leftist snowflake, who can't deal with different world views. Enjoy your echo chamber, where everyone thinks like you (or pretends to)

@cnkraeh I cant say that is remotely true.. Warren scares the hell out of me after I saw her try to play the race and woman card **constantly** and even used it to throw bernie under a bus in what was obviously a lie (about bernie claiming a woman cant be president)... She is hardle the "best", she is scary.

Bernie isnt as bad thankfully. But he showed us last election he has party loyalty that is more important than his own integrity. The last thing we need right now is party loyalty.

@freemo

the woman thing gets a bit old with her. . . I dont think she was lying . .people in the same conversation can interpret it differently

party loyalty to a certain extent is demanded of by the bankrupt system the US has, understandable

@cnkraeh Lying might be a bit strong, manipulative and dishonest is more appropriate. If he said claimed once that he thought aericans were too sexist to vote for a woman, which he said he never said mind you, then it is a non issue. So if he did say it she is still disgusting tfor throwing bernie under a bus over a non-issue. If he didnt say it, which is far more likely, then she is a straight out liar.

No matter how you dice it it is not the level of petty that I'd ever want to see have power, let alone be president.

@freemo

well, she didnt bring it up in the debate,. . .and I dont think she knew mic on. . .so . ..eh. . .

got to say I dont care for Buttegieg . . mcKinnsey ties . . .kinda like Romney ( tho who did show some (maybe designed for future run?) courage over removal)

@cnkraeh She absolutely did. Bernie was asked and he said "I didnt say that, I dont want to talk about it" he said **nothing** to attack warren in his statement. Despite this warren explicitly stated in the debate that bernie said this. Moreover **she** is the one who brought it up before the debate, thinking it appropriate. In fact she has on multiple occasions brought it up and used it as a means to get an upper hand on bernie. Come on now, where do you think the accusation came from in the first place, her!

@freemo

maybe she took advice from someone in her campaign to bring it up . . . who knows. . .I really dont see it as that big a thing . . .do think that GOPers pushing it to drive a wedge

@cnkraeh Implying someone is sexist and using it to win at a campaign is a pretty huge deal to me. It shows a complete lack of integrity.

Yes the campaign im sure suggested it to her but ultimately it was her choice and she is accountable.

@freemo

ok, I guess I just dont see it as all that big a deal

@cnkraeh I generally find that people who tend to support a party or its candidates often dismiss their wrong doings as "not a big deal" meanwhile make everything from the other party the end of the world.

Not sure if that applies to you or not but how often have I heard a democrat dismiss Obama's massive scandal and pretend he had a scandal free presidency when he literally murdered a US citizen without due process. Or from the GOP side people who shrugged off Bush's approval of torture as no big deal. Yes these are both more extreme cases than with warren granted. But they do show the pattern of even in the most extreme cases people are blind to the ills of their own party, or dismiss it.

@freemo true enough

@freemo @cnkraeh “Motivated Reasoning”, a close cousin of “Confirmation Bias”.

@khird I mostly stick to the well respected polls with good controls. Obviously just massively importing every poll known to man is not a good way to get accurate data.

Ironically though even on the link you gave it shows one point where trump bear out obama's approval rating briefly just before the impeachment (which was also the last time I noticed that Trump's approval rating was higher than obama's). So not really a good counter example on two accounts.

Also notice how the list of polls on that site are largely inclusive of non-professional polls taken by agencies like news media which we all know have extreme bias and certainly dont conduct very scientifically accurate polls. However if you look at the polls from agencies devoted to scientifically accurate or professional polling without a political bias you see a very different trend.

Data science, particularly in polls, means you have to know your source. You cant just pool together every known bias poll and expect the results to not be bias.

@khird More specifically take gallup polls one of the least biased agencies who is devoted to professional polling. They have trumps approval rating hovering around 50% right now where Obama's at this same time during his election was at 47%.

Just edited this post to include this comparison from statistica. Apparently someone already had the good sense to create an up to date graph using gallup :)

@freemo right, 538 weight pollsters by quality & adjust for house effects. They do a much more methodologically-sound job than just blindly "importing every poll known to man."

Trump briefly cleared his predecessor's rating once, but he's 4-7 points back now. So, given that you made the claim today, I wondered if you're maybe looking at a single pollster - Rasmussen, for example - with a big Republican house effect.

Edit: I see you mean Gallup. Still gonna go with the aggregate myself, to increase effective sample size, but I appreciate you providing the extra detail.

@khird They certainly made an attempt to weight the polls. But a **very** poor attempt at that. They rated polls from agencies with **very** poor track records of accuracy as being A+ polls for example.. Sorry but everyting smells of bad practice here.

You cant just verage together polls that are 90% from bias non-professional sources like a news agency with polls from professional sources with dubious weighting, no peer-review, and no objective process and expect that to be meaningful.