Jump to content

Majority of Americans say Trump should agree to interview with Mueller - poll


webfact

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Trouble said:

I think the fact that anyone believes a poll is stupid.  I don't care what the pollsters say, surveying 3,532 adults and coming up with percentages for the nation is hogwash.

 

Just because you don't personally understand how statistics works, does not mean it does not work.  Do you understand how photosynthesis works?  No??  Then I guess it must be hogwash too.

 

4 minutes ago, Trouble said:

Certainly did not work for the presidential election.

 

It worked just fine, if you understand what the results actually said.  From 538:

 

"the polls were pretty much as accurate as they’d been, on average, since 1968."

 

Polling organizations sampled the general population, and said there was a substantial lean towards Clinton in the popular vote.  Looking at the final popular vote (which is what all the polls were sampling), how can you say that it "certainly did not work"?  Maybe you're referring to the final electoral tally?  Unfortunately, nobody polled the electoral college.  A projection was made, giving Trump a 28.6% chance of winning.  Even with only a 1% chance of winning, that still means there was a chance that he would win.

 

4 minutes ago, Trouble said:

Pollsters are intent on one thing, selling their information to someone foolish enough to buy it.

 

And just like any other business, their reputations are at stake.  If they consistently screw up in their polling results, they'll go out of business.

 

4 minutes ago, Trouble said:

Doesn't mean a thing to most people. 

 

I don't dispute that.  There are a lot of ignorant people who, when they don't understand something, prefer to just believe it's not true.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, attrayant said:

Professional polling organizations know how to properly weight their poll responses to ensure they get a sample that accurately represents the population as a whole.  It's never a perfect representation, which is why polls have margins of error.

in this day and age of division, bias, etc... i have a hard time believing it.  many 'professional' organizations have a bias.  as i said in my post, 60% seems reasonable but i still question the pollsters and why they can't give out more info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, buick said:

in this day and age of division, bias, etc... i have a hard time believing it.  many 'professional' organizations have a bias.  as i said in my post, 60% seems reasonable but i still question the pollsters and why they can't give out more info.

Here's a link to a site that evaluates pretty much all the pollsters based on past performance and methodology:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Here's a link to a site that evaluates pretty much all the pollsters based on past performance and methodology:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

that is a great link, thanks for the info.  it is good to see a firm tracking the various pollster's accuracy.  it does appear that this relates to elections rather than a position on an issue.  obviously, the outcome of the election can be compared to the poll prior to the election.  but in this case, it isn't possible to do something like that. 

 

if trump's approval rating is 40% (i'm not sure where it is now, it might be lower than that) and this poll says 60% are in favor of an interview with mueller, does it really tell us anything ?  the division in american politics makes it nearly impossible for a democrat to say anything positive about a republican and vice versa.  any question about trump will likely lead to a number similar to this poll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, attrayant said:

Just out of curiosity, what info would you like to see?

did they ask the person polled what party they favored/voted for in the last election ?  that info would be helpful, certainly be more helpful than disclosing the state in which the person resides (which i don't think they did).

 

i tend to think the results/conclusions of various opinion polls and surveys are developed before the actual poll/survey is taken.  then, they go ahead and make the numbers fit their conclusion.  if they can't do that, they don't publish the poll/survey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, buick said:

that is a great link, thanks for the info.  it is good to see a firm tracking the various pollster's accuracy.  it does appear that this relates to elections rather than a position on an issue.  obviously, the outcome of the election can be compared to the poll prior to the election.  but in this case, it isn't possible to do something like that. 

 

if trump's approval rating is 40% (i'm not sure where it is now, it might be lower than that) and this poll says 60% are in favor of an interview with mueller, does it really tell us anything ?  the division in american politics makes it nearly impossible for a democrat to say anything positive about a republican and vice versa.  any question about trump will likely lead to a number similar to this poll.

It's about their past record and methodology. Not about what they're polling. But of course since people mostly don't vote on issues, except for referendums, there will be more objective data on political races. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It's about their past record and methodology

i clicked on the link 'read more' and all it talked about was elections.  i don't think it is possible to rate a firm on their past record of opinion polls.  but methodology could be rated.  i do see the column that notes political races called correctly and the grade they are given doesn't always correspond to how well they did on calling races (one firm got 88% correct but got an F !!!).  so methodology must be the other measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here is a poll on the recent summit.  i don't want us all to get going on the topic of the summit again.  i'm just putting this out there as an example of what looks like a 'clean' poll.  they provide some decent data on who was polled, etc...

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-north-korea-summit-popular_us_5b22b5a2e4b0a0a52779b565

 

some excerpts:

 

Generally speaking, Trump’s opponents tend to be more united in their opprobrium for his actions than his supporters are in their enthusiasm. That’s not the case with this issue. A near-universal 96 percent of Trump voters approve of the meeting, while barely over half of Hillary Clinton voters disapprove. 

 

Most Americans don’t spend a lot of time focusing on the details of foreign policy, which can make polling on it highly dependent on question wording and other context clues.  The latest polling offers reason to think that the public’s enthusiasm for the summit is likely founded more on principle than the details of the meeting. [so here it sounds like folks might opine based on party, rather than issue]

 

In Monmouth’s survey, more than half of those polled hadn’t heard that Trump had agreed to suspend the United States’ regular joint military exercises with South Korea after this meeting. Although two-thirds of the respondents to the HuffPost/YouGov poll say they followed news of the meeting at least somewhat closely, only one-quarter reported paying very close attention. [monmouth got an A+ in the link about polling firms, but it sounds like many americans might be more focused on their job and family and not so much politics]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2018 at 3:05 PM, jcsmith said:

If he has committed no crime, and truly wants to clear his name... he should do the interview. He said he would months ago. The only reason for him not to take this interview is if he is in fear of incriminating himself, or if he is such a pathological liar that he knows he can not tell the truth and will commit perjury. Either way, a guy who won't give an interview for those reasons really should not be allowed to run the most powerful nation in the world. 

As directed by the Constitution, a presidential candidate must be a natural born citizen of the United States, a resident for 14 years, and 35 years of age or older.  Failing to give an interview is not mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

As directed by the Constitution, a presidential candidate must be a natural born citizen of the United States, a resident for 14 years, and 35 years of age or older.  Failing to give an interview is not mentioned.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but for the moment the questions are about morality, not legality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding statistical analysis. It is all about probabilities. Ever bet on sporting events? I used to like the ponies. Used a statistical analysis service and a wise betting strategy. Did very well for a few years until my analyst retired and I couldn't find anyone as good/thorough. Definitely no guarentees tho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, buick said:

did they ask the person polled what party they favored/voted for in the last election ?  that info would be helpful, certainly be more helpful than disclosing the state in which the person resides (which i don't think they did).

 

Basically you want to second-guess the polling firm?  Why?  That's analogous to asking to see Richard Feynman's data on his research in the superfluidity of supercooled liquid helium, just so you can check to make sure he's doing it right.  Why not just let professionals do their jobs?

 

Anyone who thinks they can do better, either by improving their sampling methods or selection criteria is free to start their own polling firm.  If you're more accurate, you'll become an industry leader and make lots of money in the process.  If your methods and results are crap, you'll meet your well-deserved fate.

 

Quote

i tend to think the results/conclusions of various opinion polls and surveys are developed before the actual poll/survey is taken.  then, they go ahead and make the numbers fit their conclusion.  if they can't do that, they don't publish the poll/survey.

 

Why do you "tend to think" this? Do you have any evidence to back it up?  If what you say is true, why do polling firms even bother calling anybody at all?  Just make up a fake poll that says what you need it to say and publish it.  A firm that was publishing polls and then suddenly stopped publishing (because they got a bad one) would draw all kinds of speculative grief that would harm their interest, and the interest of whomever paid for the polling.

 

I recommend you stop worrying about individual pollsters and let the professionals cross-check each other.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I see it, there is no way in hell Trump's lawyers will allow him to be questioned by Mueller.   There is no upside to doing so and they know that Trump can't complete a sentence without lying.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Kelsall said:

Failing to give an interview is not mentioned.

 

Well, a lot of "things" are not mentioned as qualifications, like having a brain, or a heart.

 

That said, he did swear an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution, and with that come many, many, many responsibilities.

 

Again, he did nothing wrong, so sitting for Mueller would represent the perfect opportunity to help resolve and conclude the Special Counsel's investigation, and assuage citizens concerns about possible Russian influence in 2016 election.

 

Seems like something a leader would do?

 

He faces no legal jeopardy, as we are told by Alan Dershowitz and Rudy Guiliani.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, attrayant said:

Basically you want to second-guess the polling firm?  Why?  That's analogous to asking to see Richard Feynman's data on his research in the superfluidity of supercooled liquid helium, just so you can check to make sure he's doing it right.  Why not just let professionals do their jobs?

what i'm suggesting (see post #35) is many of these polls don't tell us anything we don't already know if the results are roughly 60% against trump and 40% for trump.  the issue being polled isn't really captured in the result, it is simply those who don't support trump versus those that do.  said another way, instead of doing the poll, you can just publish trump's approval rating.  a new 'issue' on trump comes up nearly every week, and we get a new poll.  and most are the same result (same as approval rating).  i think the poll on the summit and the splitting of kids from parents (illegal immigrants) were not 60/40.

 

i can't say that my assumption above is 100% correct.  if the pollsters published who the people voted for, then we could know for sure.  if 40% voted for trump and 40% were against the mueller interview, we've learned nothing.  if 20% voted for trump and 40% were against the mueller interview, maybe we have learned something (some 'anti' trump folks feel he shouldn't do the interview). 

 

i understand that my overall view on polls in general might be disturbing.  unfortunately, i have a general distrust of the media, polling firms, etc...  there is bias and division in the USA and individuals might be tempted to show only one side of the issue (like CNN and FOX) or skew data for a preferred outcome (polling). 

 

edit:  the OP talks about 'registered republicans' but that doesn't mean they voted for trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, buick said:

what i'm suggesting (see post #35) is many of these polls don't tell us anything we don't already know if the results are roughly 60% against trump and 40% for trump.  the issue being polled isn't really captured in the result, it is simply those who don't support trump versus those that do.  said another way, instead of doing the poll, you can just publish trump's approval rating.  a new 'issue' on trump comes up nearly every week, and we get a new poll.  and most are the same result (same as approval rating).  i think the poll on the summit and the splitting of kids from parents (illegal immigrants) were not 60/40.

 

i can't say that my assumption above is 100% correct.  if the pollsters published who the people voted for, then we could know for sure.  if 40% voted for trump and 40% were against the mueller interview, we've learned nothing.  if 20% voted for trump and 40% were against the mueller interview, maybe we have learned something (some 'anti' trump folks feel he shouldn't do the interview). 

 

i understand that my overall view on polls in general might be disturbing.  unfortunately, i have a general distrust of the media, polling firms, etc...  there is bias and division in the USA and individuals might be tempted to show only one side of the issue (like CNN and FOX) or skew data for a preferred outcome (polling). 

 

edit:  the OP talks about 'registered republicans' but that doesn't mean they voted for trump.

Do you actually think it's plausible that pollsters don't take all these factors into account?

I remember not so long ago when right wing people were protesting polls because they included more reigisterd Democrats in the sample than registered Republicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 9:12 AM, mtls2005 said:

Seems strange not to want to cooperate, given that he says has not done anything wrong re: conspiring with Russia to affect the election.

 

Spend a day or two, be honest, sort it out, clear your name and move on.

 

He has immense protections: he can't be indicted (while in office), and while he might be impeached he will never be convicted by trial in the Senate.

 

What's the big deal? 

The big deal is being entrapped by cunning questions designed to allow an accusation of "lying under oath". Mueller is, IMO, not going in as a neutral investigator.

I think Trump should agree to the interview as long as the same rules as when the FBI interviewed Clinton apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Do you actually think it's plausible that pollsters don't take all these factors into account?

I remember not so long ago when right wing people were protesting polls because they included more reigisterd Democrats in the sample than registered Republicans.

i'm not all that clear on what you mean with respect to your first sentence above ?  what factors are you referring to that are included in my post ?  i'm a registered independent, so i'm in the middle.  which makes it especially frustrating that the right and left continually bicker and can't make any compromise (as an example, i would cut military spending, not build a wall, support serious gun control, and support abortion rights, so i can't be a republican and i would take an extremely hard line on immigration and welfare so i can't be a democrat).

 

the main point i've tried to make several times, which makes sense to me but doesn't seem to catch on with anyone else, is most of the polls simply reflect the approval rating of the president, be it trump, obama, or bush.  the poll really doesn't tell you how people feel about the issue as they simply answer based on pro or anti current president.  with respect to the subject poll, i could have told you all in advance what the numbers would be.  trump supporters (roughly 40%) answer no and the anti trump (60%) will answer yes. i'll go out on a limb and say the next trump related poll released on this site will be very similar (i don't even have to know the issue being polled). so we'll see how that goes, i'm sure we'll get another one soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The big deal is being entrapped by cunning questions designed to allow an accusation of "lying under oath".

 

Just answer the questions honestly, or plead the fifth.

 

I do not believe the goal of the Muller investigation is to entrap the President.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Mueller is, IMO, not going in as a neutral investigator.

 

You have absolutely no grounds upon which to base that opinion. The entire span of control from Mueller on up is republican, and Trump always hires the very best, right?  The deck is stacked entirely in favor of team Trump. 

 

Mueller has a long and distinguished career of public service, and there are many clips of staunch conservatives lauding his career.  Mueller is so trustworthy that, when it was discovered he had some anti-Trump bias in his investigative team, the offending agent was immediately dismissed.  What more could you possibly ask for??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2018 at 5:00 PM, Kelsall said:

As directed by the Constitution, a presidential candidate must be a natural born citizen of the United States, a resident for 14 years, and 35 years of age or older.  Failing to give an interview is not mentioned.

The fact that so many of his supporters are willing to give him a pass here is insane. Keep in mind what he is refusing to speak about involves at least one (and possibly multiple) foreign governments influencing the U.S. election, and possible collusion of the president himself. And Trump and his campaign members have obstructed, lied, ommitted, and plead guilty to charges already. We know that Trump concocted the false story about the tower meeting. We know he had Russia on his mind when he fired Comey. We know he has demanded information about an investigation into himself from his justice department. And we know he his narrative has changed from no contacts, to incidental contacts, to no collusion, to even if there were collusion its not a crime, to you can't indict a sitting president.  That should concern the hell out of every American, and most of the free world. Because if Trump did collude with Russia (and possibly other governments) then a trade was made. A trade which may not be in America's best interests. 

So when you sit here and try to find ways for him to not be interviewed. To stop this investigation. You are saying that you don't care about any of that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 3:37 PM, attrayant said:

You have absolutely no grounds upon which to base that opinion. The entire span of control from Mueller on up is republican, and Trump always hires the very best, right?  The deck is stacked entirely in favor of team Trump. 

5555555555555555

Why are Mueller's investigators apparently Democrat supporters, and none Trump supporters? They are apparently the same people that exonerated Clinton before they interviewed her.

I'd say that's enough grounds on which to base my opinion, even without mentioning Wiseman.

 

BTW, many "Republicans" hate Trump. Ask Bush, or McCain for their opinions!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

BTW, many "Republicans" hate Trump. Ask Bush, or McCain for their opinions!

i would go as far as to say, 90% of elected republicans hate trump.  i'd guess 50% hate trump more than pelosi and schumer.  it is the regular people/republican voters that tolerate and support trump plus some independents. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...