(OT) Quinnipiac University poll, 22 March

[Brian W Lawrence]

23pp pdf file

<https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us03222017_Upt839fm.pdf/>

Some 'highlights'

Trump 'not honest' 60%
not good leader 55%
doesn't care abt Americans 57%
not level-headed 66%
strong person 66%
intelligent 59%
doesn't share our values 61%

73% say Trump or Administration make statements without evidence to back
them

70% do not believe Obama 'wiretapped Trump Tower'
48% think Trump 'truly believes' he was tapped

26% approve strongly of the way he's doing his job
29% approve of Republicans in Congress doing their job
30% approve of Democrats " " "

36% have favorable opinion of Trump
27% " " " Paul Ryan

35% think Trump is honest

How much of the time can you trust Trump to do what is right?

Almost all of the time 5%
Most of the time 23%
Some of the time 20%

State of the economy?

Excellent 3%
Good 56%

Who is mostly responsible for the present state of the economy?

Obama 63%
Trump 22%

Should Trump release his tax returns?

Yes 66%
No 30%

Should he keep his personal Twitter account?

Yes 36%
No 59%

Did 3-5m people vote illegally?

Yes 29%
No 63%

Does Trump's election make you feel more safe, less safe, or just as safe?

More 27%
Less 52%
Same 20%

Non-pdf page: https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2442


But apart from that he's doing great.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Pelle Svanslös]

"Most alarming for President Donald Trump, the demographic underpinnings
of his support, Republicans, white voters, especially men and those
without a college degree, are starting to have doubts."

High time.

[*skriptis]

Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_...@msn.com> Wrote in message:

> 23pp pdf file
>
> <https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us03222017_Upt839fm.pdf/>
>
> Some 'highlights'
>
> Trump 'not honest' 60%
> not good leader 55%
> doesn't care abt Americans 57%
> not level-headed 66%
> strong person 66%
> intelligent 59%
> doesn't share our values 61%

The last one explain every other.

--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[*skriptis]

Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> Wrote in message:

I doubt they're flocking to vote Perez.

[Pelle Svanslös]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7uMg80W4AAAOJe.jpg

[Brian W Lawrence]

On 26/03/2017 15:37, *skriptis wrote:
> Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_...@msn.com> Wrote in message:
>> 23pp pdf file
>>
>> <https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us03222017_Upt839fm.pdf/>
>>
>> Some 'highlights'
>>
>> Trump 'not honest' 60%
>> not good leader 55%
>> doesn't care abt Americans 57%
>> not level-headed 66%
>> strong person 66%
>> intelligent 59%
>> doesn't share our values 61%
>
>
> The last one explain every other.

Indeed, a president who doesn't share the values of 61% of the
population will struggle in all areas.

[*skriptis]

Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_...@msn.com> Wrote in message:
> On 26/03/2017 15:37, *skriptis wrote:
>> Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_...@msn.com> Wrote in message:
>>> 23pp pdf file
>>>
>>> <https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us03222017_Upt839fm.pdf/>
>>>
>>> Some 'highlights'
>>>
>>> Trump 'not honest' 60%
>>> not good leader 55%
>>> doesn't care abt Americans 57%
>>> not level-headed 66%
>>> strong person 66%
>>> intelligent 59%
>>> doesn't share our values 61%
>>
>>
>> The last one explain every other.
>
> Indeed, a president who doesn't share the values of 61% of the
> population will struggle in all areas.

Is this population or "population"?

[Brian W Lawrence]

On 26/03/2017 17:02, *skriptis wrote:
> Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_...@msn.com> Wrote in message:
>> On 26/03/2017 15:37, *skriptis wrote:
>>> Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_...@msn.com> Wrote in message:
>>>> 23pp pdf file
>>>>
>>>> <https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us03222017_Upt839fm.pdf/>
>>>>
>>>> Some 'highlights'
>>>>
>>>> Trump 'not honest' 60%
>>>> not good leader 55%
>>>> doesn't care abt Americans 57%
>>>> not level-headed 66%
>>>> strong person 66%
>>>> intelligent 59%
>>>> doesn't share our values 61%
>>>
>>>
>>> The last one explain every other.
>>
>> Indeed, a president who doesn't share the values of 61% of the
>> population will struggle in all areas.
>
>
> Is this population or "population"?

What's the difference?

[*skriptis]

Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_...@msn.com> Wrote in message:
> On 26/03/2017 17:02, *skriptis wrote:
>> Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_...@msn.com> Wrote in message:
>>> On 26/03/2017 15:37, *skriptis wrote:
>>>> Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_...@msn.com> Wrote in message:
>>>>> 23pp pdf file
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us03222017_Upt839fm.pdf/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Some 'highlights'
>>>>>
>>>>> Trump 'not honest' 60%
>>>>> not good leader 55%
>>>>> doesn't care abt Americans 57%
>>>>> not level-headed 66%
>>>>> strong person 66%
>>>>> intelligent 59%
>>>>> doesn't share our values 61%
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The last one explain every other.
>>>
>>> Indeed, a president who doesn't share the values of 61% of the
>>> population will struggle in all areas.
>>
>>
>> Is this population or "population"?
>
> What's the difference?

Well population and "population" share different values. And some
values are more worthy than than the others. Not in a sense that
they're necessarily superior, that's not the issue here, but
they're more worthy on a given location because they're authentic
home values that have and should have priority on that location.


If you bring bunch of people from all parts of the world e.g. to
Texas, of course they don't share traditional Texan values. They
might even be so cocky to try to impose their own values on a
society.

If that's the case, one should act hard.

[TT]

26.3.2017, 17:22, Brian W Lawrence kirjoitti:
> intelligent 59%

> 35% think Trump is honest

Strange people these Americans.

[Guypers]

Not strange, morons, now drumpf is going to fukk those who voted for him, all the white trash!

[The Iceberg]

who cares what this bunch of idiots think? Trump's only been in 2 months. Dumb biased pollsters were wrong about 2015 election, Brexit and even that Trump would win.

[Brian W Lawrence]

On 27/03/2017 00:47, The Iceberg wrote:

> who cares what this bunch of idiots think? Trump's only been in 2 months. Dumb biased pollsters
> were wrong about 2015 election, Brexit and even that Trump would win.

Sorry, I'm not very clear which bunch of idiots you are referring to
here? I might assume you mean the members of Quinnipiac University
faculty who control the telephone polling. Members of the student body
do the actual phone polling, but they only ask the standard questions.
Or perhaps you mean the idiots who answer the questions, after all at
least half of them were Trump voters.

Or perhaps you mean Trump voters in general? It seems that the president
doesn't really care much what they think.

I'll ignore the repetitious and uninformed nonsense in the last
sentence, no sense in wasting time on that.

[Brian W Lawrence]

So, are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to vote? Or shouldn't
be allowed to express their opinions by answering pollsters questions?
Or perhaps both?

Anyway, a typical poll asks about 1000 people over the age of 18 who
are randomly chosen, but are a representative cross section of US
society. The poll results would, on average, probably include 5 voters
from Texas say, which would most probably, all be 'native Texans'.
The ~1000 people polled should include migrants in proportion to
the percentage of migrants in the overall US population.

Who would decide what 'authentic home values' are?

[The Iceberg]

no, I mean the idiots that voted for Hillary and then whinged about Trump in this poll. Those morons can't accept Trump won, they really should get over it.

[*skriptis]

Only one solution, stopping, or at minimum, reducing immigration
that over time increases the percentage of non home population.


Once a home population loses the edge, there's nothing really
there that they could do.

E.g. how would you defend UK democracy and Westminster system if
60 million any of te following, communists, nazis or sharia
Muslims moved in and got a right to vote, and they for sure vote
according to their preferences?

>
> Anyway, a typical poll asks about 1000 people over the age of 18 who
> are randomly chosen, but are a representative cross section of US
> society. The poll results would, on average, probably include 5 voters
> from Texas say, which would most probably, all be 'native Texans'.
> The ~1000 people polled should include migrants in proportion to
> the percentage of migrants in the overall US population.
>
> Who would decide what 'authentic home values' are?

Serious about that question? Why are you trolling?

[Brian W Lawrence]

That's an unrealistic what if, no country could possibly accept a
short-term doubling of its population, infrastructure simply couldn't
cope. The UK's population doubled over roughly the last 140-150 years,
but mostly by natural growth, but post war there was considerable
immigration from Commonwealth countries, and more recently an influx
from the EU. The demographics are a lot different now to what they
were in the 1870s - but that isn't unique to the UK.


<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-born_population_of_the_United_Kingdom>

>> Anyway, a typical poll asks about 1000 people over the age of 18 who
>> are randomly chosen, but are a representative cross section of US
>> society. The poll results would, on average, probably include 5 voters
>> from Texas say, which would most probably, all be 'native Texans'.
>> The ~1000 people polled should include migrants in proportion to
>> the percentage of migrants in the overall US population.
>>
>> Who would decide what 'authentic home values' are?
>
>
> Serious about that question? Why are you trolling?

Aren't we all?

[*skriptis]

Of course it's unrealistic, it was a hypothetical example to prove
my point. Your dismissal of my argument proves you're a troll
with bad intentions.

Point was about situation in which home population gets totally
overwhelmed. But influence can be exerted even by 1%, even by one
single vote.

>>> Anyway, a typical poll asks about 1000 people over the age of 18 who
>>> are randomly chosen, but are a representative cross section of US
>>> society. The poll results would, on average, probably include 5 voters
>>> from Texas say, which would most probably, all be 'native Texans'.
>>> The ~1000 people polled should include migrants in proportion to
>>> the percentage of migrants in the overall US population.
>>>
>>> Who would decide what 'authentic home values' are?
>>
>>
>> Serious about that question? Why are you trolling?
>
>
> Aren't we all?

No.

[Brian W Lawrence]

On 28/03/2017 21:35, *skriptis wrote:

>>> E.g. how would you defend UK democracy and Westminster system if
>>> 60 million any of te following, communists, nazis or sharia
>>> Muslims moved in and got a right to vote, and they for sure vote
>>> according to their preferences?
>>
>> That's an unrealistic what if, no country could possibly accept a
>
> Of course it's unrealistic, it was a hypothetical example to prove
> my point. Your dismissal of my argument proves you're a troll
> with bad intentions.

I didn't dismiss your argument, I pointed out that your hypothetical
example had no merit nor precedent in the real world.

> Point was about situation in which home population gets totally
> overwhelmed. But influence can be exerted even by 1%, even by one
> single vote.

Which has always been the case, and should be in a democracy.

>>>> Anyway, a typical poll asks about 1000 people over the age of 18 who
>>>> are randomly chosen, but are a representative cross section of US
>>>> society. The poll results would, on average, probably include 5 voters
>>>> from Texas say, which would most probably, all be 'native Texans'.
>>>> The ~1000 people polled should include migrants in proportion to
>>>> the percentage of migrants in the overall US population.
>>>>
>>>> Who would decide what 'authentic home values' are?
>>>
>>>
>>> Serious about that question? Why are you trolling?
>>
>>
>> Aren't we all?
>
> No.

:-)

[*skriptis]

Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_...@msn.com> Wrote in message:

> On 28/03/2017 21:35, *skriptis wrote:
>
>>>> E.g. how would you defend UK democracy and Westminster system if
>>>> 60 million any of te following, communists, nazis or sharia
>>>> Muslims moved in and got a right to vote, and they for sure vote
>>>> according to their preferences?
>>>
>>> That's an unrealistic what if, no country could possibly accept a
>>
>> Of course it's unrealistic, it was a hypothetical example to prove
>> my point. Your dismissal of my argument proves you're a troll
>> with bad intentions.
>
> I didn't dismiss your argument, I pointed out that your hypothetical
> example had no merit nor precedent in the real world.
>
>> Point was about situation in which home population gets totally
>> overwhelmed. But influence can be exerted even by 1%, even by one
>> single vote.
>
> Which has always been the case, and should be in a democracy.

You've heard about gerrymandering I believe and you realize what
it means and you surely recognize how it's used.

Letting in people who share different values without forcing them
to accept yours, is a lot worse than gerrymandering.


E.g. a stupid example, why do the Germans always like turkish song
at the eurosong contest the most? It's always 12pts for Turkey.

>
>>>>> Anyway, a typical poll asks about 1000 people over the age of 18 who
>>>>> are randomly chosen, but are a representative cross section of US
>>>>> society. The poll results would, on average, probably include 5 voters
>>>>> from Texas say, which would most probably, all be 'native Texans'.
>>>>> The ~1000 people polled should include migrants in proportion to
>>>>> the percentage of migrants in the overall US population.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who would decide what 'authentic home values' are?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Serious about that question? Why are you trolling?
>>>
>>>
>>> Aren't we all?
>>
>> No.
>
> :-)
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>
>

[Brian W Lawrence]

On 29/03/2017 11:01, *skriptis wrote:
> Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_...@msn.com> Wrote in message:
>> On 28/03/2017 21:35, *skriptis wrote:
>>
>>>>> E.g. how would you defend UK democracy and Westminster system if
>>>>> 60 million any of te following, communists, nazis or sharia
>>>>> Muslims moved in and got a right to vote, and they for sure vote
>>>>> according to their preferences?
>>>>
>>>> That's an unrealistic what if, no country could possibly accept a
>>>
>>> Of course it's unrealistic, it was a hypothetical example to prove
>>> my point. Your dismissal of my argument proves you're a troll
>>> with bad intentions.
>>
>> I didn't dismiss your argument, I pointed out that your hypothetical
>> example had no merit nor precedent in the real world.
>>
>>> Point was about situation in which home population gets totally
>>> overwhelmed. But influence can be exerted even by 1%, even by one
>>> single vote.
>>
>> Which has always been the case, and should be in a democracy.
>
>
> You've heard about gerrymandering I believe and you realize what
> it means and you surely recognize how it's used.
>
> Letting in people who share different values without forcing them
> to accept yours, is a lot worse than gerrymandering.

In your opinion perhaps. Encouraging them to accept national values
perhaps, but forcing them would be repressive.

> E.g. a stupid example, why do the Germans always like turkish song
> at the eurosong contest the most? It's always 12pts for Turkey.

Well, accepting that Eurovision is a stupid or trivial contest, and that
the Turkish migrant workers in Germany would, naturally, vote for their
home country's entry; in total Germany gave Turkey 12 votes only 5
times - 1997-99, 2004, 2007. They did award 10 points on 6 occasions
as well. Telephone voting was first used in 1997, but I can't say if
Germany has used it since then, although I imagine it has.

Why would any modern, free-thinking, democratic country want to
restrict the rights of migrant workers or immigrants?

Obvious answer would be to discourage them migrating in the first place
I suppose, but there are usually easier & fairer ways to do that.

[*skriptis]

you'd think they only vote collectively when it comes to eurosong?

[Brian W Lawrence]

On 29/03/2017 14:04, *skriptis wrote:

> you'd think they only vote collectively when it comes to eurosong?

Why would I (or anyone) think that? One would think that they would
vote (individually or collectively) for the candidate that, in their
opinion(s), would best serve their needs. As in any electoral process
though, it depends on the candidates that are standing.

I'm not familiar with German politics, whether at local, regional or
national level, so I don't know if there are candidates that would
fit their needs.

[*skriptis]

Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_...@msn.com> Wrote in message:

> On 29/03/2017 14:04, *skriptis wrote:
>
>> you'd think they only vote collectively when it comes to eurosong?
>
> Why would I (or anyone) think that? One would think that they would
> vote (individually or collectively) for the candidate that, in their
> opinion(s), would best serve their needs. As in any electoral process
> though, it depends on the candidates that are standing.
>
> I'm not familiar with German politics, whether at local, regional or
> national level, so I don't know if there are candidates that would
> fit their needs.

Now I know you're trolling me.

[Brian W Lawrence]

Seems to be working so far.

[Brian W Lawrence]

A new Quinnipiac University poll has been published.

Conducted between Mar 30 - Apr 03, interviewing 1,711 voters nationwide
(landline & cell phone). Margin of error 2.9%.

Approval 35-57%

webpage: <https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2448

24pp pdf file:
<https://poll.qu.edu/images/polling/us/us04042017_U423fmbh.pdf/>

"But 52 percent of voters say they are embarrassed to have Trump as
president, while 27 percent are proud and 19 percent don't feel either
emotion."


There are three websites that combine the latest polls together to
give a potentially 'more accurate' picture.

Huffington Post (HuffPost Pollster) - 39.7-55.8%:

<http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/trump-job-approval>

fivethirtyeight.com - 40.0-53.7%:

<https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/>

and realclearpolitics - 39.8-53.3%:


<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html>