Trump is recording levels higher than those seen after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

A CNN/SSRS survey of 1,245 U.S. adults shows that 63 percent are unhappy with Trump’s performance as president, the highest figure of either of his terms.#

    • IninewCrow@lemmy.caEnglish
      8·
      3 months ago

      Gotta keep an eye on that 37% because they seem to be the only ones that matter to the country … at the expense of everyone else.

      Sure takes the “demos” out of “democracy”

    • Dr. Moose@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      3 months ago

      I guess you could attribute a fair share to self-destructive and contrarians but 37% is still too high.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      3 months ago

      37% isn’t sure or approves

      I mean, there’s a lot of gray area in that stat. If 37% of Americans were looking at the President, giving a deep sigh, and saying “None of my business”, I’d prefer that to 37% waving big foam MAGA fingers and shouting “Four More Wars! Four More Wars!”

  • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
    28·
    3 months ago

    I’m downvoting every headline like this until it’s referring to more than a 1 or 2% drop as “the lowest ever”. It is always a 60/40 split. Every time.

  • Numinous_Ylem@lemmy.world
    24·
    3 months ago

    Do polls even matter anymore in this era of politics?Are 1,245 US adults enough to gather anything truly meaningful? What type of people tend to take these polls and are they really reflective of the general population?

    Been seeing these bs “disastrous polling for Trump” headlines since his first term

    • EvilBit@lemmy.world
      6·
      3 months ago

      Disregarding sampling bias and other effects, sure, 1,245 is enough for a statistically significant representative sample. You can’t do a lot of subsampling or cohort analysis from it, but if you just want to infer the behavior and attitudes of “Americans” and you sample that many Americans effectively enough, you’re fine.

      But practically speaking, no. You’re not going to sample that many Americans effectively enough. Polling is a shitshow these days.

    • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
      5·
      3 months ago

      It matters but Trump’s polling is remarkably stable. Headlines are overstating the changes which are barely measurable.

    • prole
      3·
      3 months ago

      Take a statistics class if this is a legitimate question.

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    15·
    3 months ago

    As a community can we just try to get sources that aren’t paywalled?

    We can really consider paywalled/ adwalled journalism.

    • ebolapie@lemmy.world
      2·
      3 months ago

      I share your preference but I find it odd to say it’s not journalism if it’s not available for free. Newspapers weren’t free but they were definitely journalism.

      • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
        2·
        3 months ago

        but I find it odd to say it’s not journalism if it’s not available for free. Newspapers weren’t free but they were definitely journalism.

        As an author, I think it depends on where you think things begin and end. I publish in scientific journals, and its quite literally not possible to do the kind of work that I do if the information isn’t available. If I can’t access your work, I can’t “do science” on it because I can’t both a) be critical of it, and b) use it as the basis of my own work. Journalism, is in this sense, all the same; its transformative work that builds on things that already exist which the author themselves did not create.

        The beginning of an article on the war on terror doesn’t begin or and when the author picks up the pen. That author will draw on sources and writing and journalism which already exists; while it may be transformative, it doesn’t exist as an island to itself. If I can’t read your work, I can’t audit it or build on it. Journalism has the same knowledge-building logic. Reporting is transformative work that stands on prior reporting; it’s meant to be checked, contextualized, and advanced by others, and barriers that prevent that from happening.

        And to be clear, I spend real money every month on journalists whose coverage I think is good and important and should be supported. But I specifically support journalists who put their work out there freely; I don’t support operations that don’t put there work out there for all to consume.

        • prole
          1·
          3 months ago

          I publish in scientific journals, and its quite literally not possible to do the kind of work that I do if the information isn’t available. If I can’t access your work, I can’t “do science” on it

          Ok so maybe I have no idea what I’m talking about, but scientific journals are not free.

          • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
            1·
            3 months ago

            There are plenty that are always free. And most will have some additional fee you can pay to make your article available for free.

            Don’t get me started on the horse shit scam which is modern scientific publishing though.

            sci hub or die

  • Victor@lemmy.world
    10·
    3 months ago

    And this comes right after he boasts on… Truth Social, was it? about how incredibly popular he is. Interesting.

  • Makeitstop@lemmy.worldEnglish
    9·
    3 months ago

    Particularly noteworthy here is the way the 5-7% who are “unsure” in all previous polls have disappeared in the past few months.

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      3 months ago

      I’d love to know what part of that percentage is because some people are so tuned out that they don’t pay attention at all and have just realized politics cares about them, too, and under Taco, that’s not a good thing? Or how many were okay with everything Taco was doing, as long as they thought they wouldn’t be impacted, because fuck everyone else, and now realize that they may be impacted?