The actual study in question: rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/prez_track_feb12 >The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll, Sponsored by SLANTED from Sharyl Attkisson, for Friday shows that 52% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Biden’s job performance. Forty-five percent (45%) disapprove.
>The latest figures include 36% who Strongly Approve of the job Biden is doing and 36% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of 0. (see trends)
>Now that Gallup has quit the field, Rasmussen Reports is the only nationally recognized public opinion firm that still tracks President Biden's job approval ratings on a daily basis. If your organization is interested in a weekly or longer sponsorship of Rasmussen Reports' Daily Presidential Tracking Poll, please send e-mail to [email protected].
Pic related is the chart compared to Trump and the ratio of approve/disapprove. Notice Trump was STILL higher than he is for the same days on his term. NBC literally just lies to you about a study. Study has a number in it? Change the number and hope no one notices. You'll find a way to defend it too, Bunkercuck.
They literally just took the actual number and bumped it up ten points.
Xavier Reed
>Rasmussen >creditable Pick only one
Colton Young
You had your chance to oppose the rise of fascism. You did not dissent. You let it happen. What will you tell your children when they ask you why you didn't do anything? "Always keep you head down!"? "Comply or die!"?
Carson Cooper
What the fuck are you talking about? The 62% number comes from NBC's own survey, it has nothing to do with Rasmussen's.
Jonathan Ross
Rasmussen polls are extraordinarily rightwing biased They kept predicting Trump would win in a landslide which is why it was his favorite poll, until the eve of the election when even they finally admitted he was totally fucked and would lose super duper biggly to attempt to maintain even a slight semblance of credibility.
Nicholas Baker
Imagine thinking Rassmussen was ever a credible polling organization.
Dylan Gray
facts man, all they do is lie. All they do is stir the fear and anger in people and lie right in front of u, fuck mainstream media
Angel Brown
Trump won on a landslide until the 3am fix was in.
Anthony James
A pack of fucking goof nuts - every last one of you. Your cult leader lost. Get over it.
Hudson Gray
Rasmussen has done that with every single Trump poll in its history. It's no surprise they report numbers that are 10% down from a credible source when it comes to Biden
Julian Sullivan
Don't remember a 7 million vote loss as a landslide win. Even the supposed 3 AM fix could not have supplied that
Levi Wood
In the VERY first paragraph they cite the data is from the "CNBC All-America Economic Survey" - nothing to do with Rasmussen.
Kevin Price
Biden won by about 150 000 votes dipshit. Popular vote does not matter, has never mattered and will never matter.
Luis Ortiz
>will never matter That's not at all true. Even w/o a Constitutional Amendment eliminating the Electoral College there's a movement which 15 States comprising 196 electoral votes have signed onto awarding their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The movement is picking up steam after the debacle where Trump was almost able to steal the election.
As great as getting rid of the electoral college would be, the NPVIC will never work. It's unconstitutional (compact clause) and the SCOTUS won't let it happen. We're stuck with the EC for the foreseeable future, our best options are to give statehood to DC and Puerto Rico and maybe split up Cali for more electoral votes.
Colton Reed
>and the SCOTUS won't let it happen. lol
Asher Price
Considering the Constitution specifically says States shall conduct their elections and appoint electors as they determine, I wouldn't be certain about that. A caveman majority SC might very well side with States rights. At any rate, it hasn't been challenged yet.
Jonathan Scott
This is fucking brilliant, since it means you only need to court those states and ignore all the red states that refuse to sign on. Let them die.
Aiden Murphy
Unfortunately there aren't anywhere near enough blue states to support it, since it needs to go through state legislature, and even in federally blue-leaning swing states like Minnesota or Nevada the state government tends to be Republican-leaning.
Anthony White
Few people realize this but America is red state with some blue cities. They look at the electoral map and think blue = blue state.
Jack White
Except for TX which will be turning blue in the near future, red States are de-populated desert hellholes whose State governments only function by the influx of Federal tax dollars collected from blue States anyway, so they really don't matter. They already have far too much over-representation in the Senate with fucking WY having 2 Senators the same as NY or CA. Utter bullshit.
If the swing States sign on getting the electoral votes to 270+, we'd never again have to fear another Dear Leader Fuhrer attempting to overthrow Democracy. Solves a number of problems and makes everyone's vote count even if you live in a red State shithole.
Benjamin Davis
>where most people live, cities, determines if a State is blue Yes, surprisingly we don't live in the 1870's when the majority of people lived in rural areas as farmers/ranchers. Baffling how times change!
Ian Rogers
Even if Texas becomes majority Democratic, it won't turn blue in practice. The Texas state government will do anything it takes to keep the state in Republican hands, and are already planning to implement a state level electoral college system so that things like the governorship are decided by a majority of the counties, rather than the majority of the voters.
Carson Mitchell
Democrats need to do 3 things. 1. Judicial reform where they add seats all 3 levels of the federal bench so it minimizes the chance that Trump appointees can fuck things up. 2. Pass legislation to stop Republican election fraud, voter suppression and gerrymandering. 3. Aggressively take control of states that are winnable and not wasting resources on fools gold like Texas.
Xavier Perry
Who here believes the left control all cities when they have to cheat in cities to win elections?
Ethan Cox
There was no significant voter fraud in 2020.
Henry Reed
If the left controlled all cities, they wouldn't have to do anything to win elections, as they'd have 90% of the population on their side.
David Stewart
>it's another conservatives can't comprehend population density thread
Sebastian Sanchez
It's credible dumbass
Eli Phillips
According to whom?
Cooper Sanchez
Trump, Mypillowguy and Rasmussen.
Henry Hernandez
>it's another liberals make endless excuses for corporate media thread
Isaac Foster
lmao don't worry user you're never gonna have children.
Jayden Cook
>and will never matter. You better hope and pray every night that this remains true or your kind are gonna die out twice as fast as they already are.
Caleb Brooks
It's not that the left controls anything, it's that left values are more intelligent and morally correct so places with lots of civilized educated people vote left. Guns and God don't matter in the modern era.
Isaiah Nelson
>it's that left values are more intelligent and morally correct so places with lots of civilized educated people vote left. And yet the average Republican earns more than the average Democrat.
hhhmmmm.....
Evan Miller
>it's that inner cities are full of poor people kept poor by corrupt Democrats, who continuously promise them more welfare in exchange for votes in order to perminantley keep them dependent. FTFY
>Guns and God don't matter in the modern era. The fact that cretins like yourself exist this is why they're more important than ever, because even you don't believe this. You believe the only God is the State, and only that the State should have guns.
Josiah Williams
Source? Oh, your ass.
Samuel Jackson
Literally nobody believes that CNBC made a totally-legit poll that puts Biden 10 points higher than every other President when every other poll puts him at about the same point that every president was in their first few months of Office. Get over yourself and stop shlurping the dick of government propaganda.
If you believe that the CNBC poll is the legit one when Reuters, Rasmussen, Fox, AP, and ABC all report him being significantly lower, you are a low-IQ mouthbreathing retard. Doubly so when he is posting national guardsmen on every street corner in DC because he's terrified of that American public who loves him so much. You are a low IQ retard.
Anthony Scott
Also you have a hole in your head if you think getting rid of the Electoral college is a good thing. A great way for every election to be bought by Google, Apple, and wall street you bootlicking fascists. It's literally removing one of the few roadblocks that keep billionaires from buying a handful of senators and mayors who live in specifically blue cities.
I thought lefties were supposed to bash the fash, not go and join them when convenient.
Jayden Morgan
You're an idiot. NBC's survey uses a different methodology than Rasmussen's, hence the significantly different outcomes.
The electoral college is responsible for the exact thing you're fearmongering over - candidates and their parties only needing to campaign in a few key areas to win. Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan get nearly every campaign event because they're the only states worth campaigning in. Every other state, from California to Wyoming, is a complete waste of time and money. If there was no electoral college, candidates would need to work to win the support of voters from all across the country in order to win instead of focusing entirely on a few big swing states.
Why do you speak so confidently about things you know nothing about?
Jeremiah Bennett
>Why do you speak so confidently about things you know nothing about? Amazing of you to say that, given everything you just said about the Electoral College is completely and wildly incorrect, and based on leftover leftist propaganda from the eternal NPC asspain that was the 2016 election.
Austin Carter
Cope. It's entirely true and the electoral college is nothing more than an undemocratic measure to enshrine conservative power.
Lucas Ward
>creditable Kek, this is what you get when you lower 50 cent Army pay to 20 communist cents/post
Jose Anderson
>It's entirely true Nope. Cry more more about it. the EC isn't going anywhere.
>electoral college is nothing more than an undemocratic measure to enshrine conservative power The fact that you honestly say this and think you aren't brainwashed by leftover leftist propaganda from the eternal NPC asspain that was the 2016 election is astounding. We are a Democratic Republic, the EC has worked fine for 200+ years and never becomes an issue until Democrats don't get what they want. You're not going to be able to use urban centers to take away everyone else's representation via tyranny of the majority, which is that the EC is specifically designed to do.
Want to change it? Get 2/3 of congress to agree on it. Can't do that? Quit crying or move out. "Change the rules until we always win and you always lose" is fascism.
Jonathan Fisher
>Nope. Cry more more about it. the EC isn't going anywhere. >Want to change it? Get 2/3 of congress to agree on it. Can't do that? Quit crying or move out. "Change the rules until we always win and you always lose" is fascism. None of this has anything to do with the truthfulness of my statement. The electoral college is an anti-democratic institution that harms the country and should be abolished, this is true regardless of whether removing it is politically feasible or not.
>We are a Democratic Republic, the EC has worked fine for 200+ years and never becomes an issue until Democrats don't get what they want. Never heard of the 1824 and 1876 elections?
>You're not going to be able to use urban centers to take away everyone else's representation via tyranny of the majority, which is that the EC is specifically designed to do. Even if every single person in America's 50 largest cities voted for the exact same candidate, they wouldn't be able to win the national popular vote. The idea that without the electoral college candidates could win by appealing to just a few major cities is complete fantasy.
Nolan Hernandez
Another conservative making illogical assumptions about a news article.
So in your confused mind:
CBS quotes polls.
You believe only Rasmussen poll is legit
You look up Rasmussen numbers
You see that those numbers are different
You have discovered CBS lying and have proof!
You take this mountain of evidence to Dab Forums to expose the liars!
Fake news defeated!
Is that how this works for you OP?
Gabriel Flores
>None of this has anything to do with the truthfulness of my statement. There is no truthfulness in your statement. >The electoral college is an anti-democratic This is an opinion, a bad one at that. Cope.
>Never heard of the 1824 and 1876 elections? You mean the last time Democrats felt entitled to the labor of others against their will? There's a reason we don't listen to you people.
>Even if every single person in America's 50 largest cities voted for the exact same candidate, they wouldn't be able to win the national popular vote. Your entire praxis operates on the fantasy that every person of voting age in the US does vote. They do not.
>The idea that without the electoral college candidates could win by appealing to just a few major cities is complete fantasy. Then why do people who want to abolish the EC make this exact argument in its defense? Are you also one of those retards who doesn't understand how the Senate works, who gets mad because California and Wyoming both have the same number of state senators?
Jace Sullivan
>repukelicant presidential candidates lose the popular vote in the last 7 out of 8 elections >electoral college is good 'cause it empowers the people and democracy Your brain on rightwing authoritarian, fascist anti-democratic logic, folks!
Aaron Gray
>agree to an election not decided by popular vote >complain when you win popular vote but don't win the election "I never thought I'd actually be beholden to the rules I agreed to be beholden to, woe is me!"
Caleb Thompson
>Then why do people who want to abolish the EC make this exact argument in its defense? They don't. The argument in favour of the abolition of the EC is that all citizens would have their vote for president equally represented regardless of where they live. Under the current system, your vote is functionally worthless if you live anywhere but the small handful of competitive swing states.
Nothing else you said has any relevance to my points. You need to practice your critical thinking skills.
Carter Adams
CNBC lies
Rasmussenreports lies
Even most tRump supporters don't like him.
He's just the lesser of 2 evils
Brandon Ross
>They don't. They do. Cope.
>The argument in favour of the abolition of the EC >favour Ah, so this is why you peddle retarded asspained opinions about American politics- you don't live here. Excuse us if we don't take seriously the political opinion of someone who still bows to a monarch.
>Under the current system, your vote is functionally worthless if you live anywhere but the small handful of competitive swing states. So changing the system so that your vote is functionally worthless if you don't live in, and vote with several major urban centers across the country, is somehow better?
>Nothing else you said has any relevance to my points. Your points are garbage and based on asspain. >You need to practice your critical thinking skills. You need to stop crying about losing and demanding the rules be changed so you always win.
Wyatt Gutierrez
I'm half British/half American (one US parent, one UK parent), I currently live in the US but my early childhood was in Britain so that's where I learned to write. Regardless, my nationality has nothing to do with the truthfulness of my statements.
>So changing the system so that your vote is functionally worthless if you don't live in, and vote with several major urban centers across the country, is somehow better? Again, those major urban centers are nowhere near as oppressive as you claim. Candidates could not win races simply by appealing to big cities, they would need to work to attract voters from all across the country to win, unlike today where they only have to worry about Michigan, PA, Florida, and a few other states.
Robert Ward
>I currently live in the US doubt.jpg. >but my early childhood was in Britain so that's where I learned to be retarded FTFY >Regardless, my nationality has nothing to do with the truthfulness of my statements. It does, because you seem to come from a backwards yuropoor shithole that thinks opinions are factual and truthful statements. They're not, no matter how much to cry and stomp your feet.
>Again, those major urban centers are nowhere near as oppressive as you claim Then why do people keep fleeing them, especially the heavily leftist ones?
> Candidates could not win races simply by appealing to big cities, they would need to work to attract voters from all across the country to win, unlike today where they only have to worry about Michigan, PA, Florida, and a few other states. The exact opposite happens right now, which further proves my point that you don't live in the US. Hillary tried the "only worry about a few states" tactic in 2016 and it failed. Trump visited every fucking state specifically to attract and he won the election because of it. He flipped the proverbial blue wall in several states that according to you, would have never changed because of the EC. The exact opposite of everything you claim happens in reality, rejecting it and substituting your own doesn't work on this side of the pond m8.
David Brooks
You seem to be confusing polling data with facts
Mason Long
>The exact opposite happens right now, which further proves my point that you don't live in the US. >Hillary tried the "only worry about a few states" tactic in 2016 and it failed. Trump visited every fucking state specifically to attract and he won the election because of it. He flipped the proverbial blue wall in several states that according to you, would have never changed because of the EC. The exact opposite of everything you claim happens in reality, rejecting it and substituting your own doesn't work on this side of the pond m8. nationalpopularvote.com/campaign-events-2016 Trump visited a few unusual states for campaign events (probably because he's an egotist who just wanted to hear people cheering for him regardless of the political usefulness of it) but the vast majority of his visits were still concentrated in the small handful of competitive swing states. Hillary spent about just as much of her time campaigning in the blue wall states as Trump did, she just spent less time campaigning in general. Half the states still didn't receive a single campaign visit from either candidate at all.
Why don't you do the bare minimum to verify your claims before you make them?
Connor Green
>Why don't you do the bare minimum to verify your claims before you make them? Using bogus websites that peddle false data is not "verifying your claims", and you definitely don''t live in the US if this is your fucking source
>new york >massachussets >oklahoma These are events for the Republican primaries you retard. They aren't included in the campaign events count because they have nothing to do with the electoral college. >louisiana Not a campaign event either, he went to Louisiana to support the relief efforts after a flood there. Yes, it was for publicity and to increase his support nationally but that's not the same as performing a rally or town hall on the campaign trail.
Again, you need to work on your critical thinking skills.
