Why Should We Trust Mainstream Polls on Trump’s Popularity When Previous Polls Failed?

Given that I have never believed in polls, the continuous claims that Trump has a low approval rating based on polling data is quite intriguing. However, it's important to understand why the mainstream polls about Trump's popularity have maintained their accuracy, especially when compared to the 2016 election.

Polling Accuracy in the 2016 Election

While it's true that some media outlets were overly confident in a Clinton victory, the polling data leading up to the 2016 election didn't entirely miss the mark. National polls indicated a relatively close race, with Clinton leading by 2-3 percentage points, which was a fairly accurate forecast. Furthermore, the popular vote results showed Clinton winning by about 2%, confirming the accuracy of these national polls.

The discrepancy, however, lay in the individual states in the Rust Belt. States like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin were very close, and a swing of about 70,000 votes in these states could have changed the outcome of the election. The polls, for the most part, did predict a very close race in these battleground states, which is why Trump won those states by narrow margins.

Continued Popularity and Approval Rating Trends

The persistent low approval ratings throughout Trump's presidency from various polling companies suggest that there's something more significant than a simple conspiracy. While one might argue that these polls could be manipulated, the consistency across multiple sources supports their legitimacy. It’s highly unlikely that so many reputable polling companies would collude to distort the truth for no apparent reason.

The Limitations of Approval Ratings

Approval ratings, while often cited, have limited usefulness in understanding public opinion and policy effectiveness. Here are a few key points to consider:

Potential for Manipulation: Polls can be tampered with, and parties opposing a bill or policy might manipulate the results to make it appear less popular. This raises questions about the integrity of the polling process, especially if there are significant stakes involved. Subjectivity of Popularity: The popularity of an idea or policy does not always align with its moral or ethical validity. For instance, if a poll showed strong support for repealing the 13th Amendment, it wouldn't be reasonable to conclude that this was an ethically sound decision. Public opinion should be used as a guide, but it shouldn't dictate policy. Polling Predictions vs. Election Outcomes: Low approval ratings don't necessarily predict election outcomes. While low approval ratings might suggest potential political vulnerability, they do not guarantee a certain electoral outcome. The 2018 congressional elections and the 2020 presidential race offer examples where opposition parties either did not gain as much support as predicted or lost despite a high approval rating for the incumbent party.

In conclusion, while polls have their limitations and can be inaccurate, the consistency of low approval ratings for Trump throughout his presidency and the accuracy of these polls in the 2016 election provide strong evidence that they are a reliable indicator of public opinion. It is crucial to critically evaluate the data and not solely rely on polls, but to also consider other factors and evidence that might influence public opinion and election outcomes.