Question
Atualizado em
5 mai 2018
- Japonês
-
Inglês (EUA)
Pergunta sobre Inglês (EUA)
5th paragraph says "Trump should have lost by 9 points given the difference between Obama"
Q1: In order to achieve what, should Trump have lost by 9 points?
Q2: Trump competed with Hillary. Why does it say "given the difference between Obama"??
Context>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The political future of President Donald Trump and the Republican Party over the next two years really comes down to one question: Do traditional measures of popularity mean anything when it comes to Trump?
If they do, the Republican Party and Trump could be in major trouble.
Usually, we wouldn't even think to ask whether a president with around a 40% approval rating would end up hurting his political party. Yet Trump did something that was seemingly impossible in 2016: He won the presidency, despite being the most unpopular candidate since at least 1952 and with Americans seeming to like the status quo.
President Barack Obama's net favorability rating in the final Gallup poll using a -5 to +5 scale was +16 percentage points. Trump came in with a -25 percentage point net favorability rating in the same scale. That 41-point difference should have been electoral poison for Trump.
Based upon Gallup polling from the previous six presidential elections without the incumbent running for reelection, Trump should have lost by 9 points given the difference between Obama (the incumbent president) and Trump's rating. He only lost the popular vote by 2 percentage points and won the Electoral College, however.
Although six data points drawn from previous elections without an incumbent running are a far smaller sample size than I would like, the clear separation between 2016 and what previous years predicted makes it pretty clear that something unusual happened in 2016.
The easy answer is that elections without the incumbent running are also about the candidates who fill the shoes of the incumbents on their party's presidential tickets. In this case, Hillary Clinton was also very unpopular. In the network exit polls, Clinton had a net favorability rating of -12 percentage points to Trump's -22 percentage points. This made for the first presidential election in polling history in which both candidates were disliked by more voters than they were liked.
5th paragraph says "Trump should have lost by 9 points given the difference between Obama"
Q1: In order to achieve what, should Trump have lost by 9 points?
Q2: Trump competed with Hillary. Why does it say "given the difference between Obama"??
Context>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The political future of President Donald Trump and the Republican Party over the next two years really comes down to one question: Do traditional measures of popularity mean anything when it comes to Trump?
If they do, the Republican Party and Trump could be in major trouble.
Usually, we wouldn't even think to ask whether a president with around a 40% approval rating would end up hurting his political party. Yet Trump did something that was seemingly impossible in 2016: He won the presidency, despite being the most unpopular candidate since at least 1952 and with Americans seeming to like the status quo.
President Barack Obama's net favorability rating in the final Gallup poll using a -5 to +5 scale was +16 percentage points. Trump came in with a -25 percentage point net favorability rating in the same scale. That 41-point difference should have been electoral poison for Trump.
Based upon Gallup polling from the previous six presidential elections without the incumbent running for reelection, Trump should have lost by 9 points given the difference between Obama (the incumbent president) and Trump's rating. He only lost the popular vote by 2 percentage points and won the Electoral College, however.
Although six data points drawn from previous elections without an incumbent running are a far smaller sample size than I would like, the clear separation between 2016 and what previous years predicted makes it pretty clear that something unusual happened in 2016.
The easy answer is that elections without the incumbent running are also about the candidates who fill the shoes of the incumbents on their party's presidential tickets. In this case, Hillary Clinton was also very unpopular. In the network exit polls, Clinton had a net favorability rating of -12 percentage points to Trump's -22 percentage points. This made for the first presidential election in polling history in which both candidates were disliked by more voters than they were liked.
Q1: In order to achieve what, should Trump have lost by 9 points?
Q2: Trump competed with Hillary. Why does it say "given the difference between Obama"??
Context>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The political future of President Donald Trump and the Republican Party over the next two years really comes down to one question: Do traditional measures of popularity mean anything when it comes to Trump?
If they do, the Republican Party and Trump could be in major trouble.
Usually, we wouldn't even think to ask whether a president with around a 40% approval rating would end up hurting his political party. Yet Trump did something that was seemingly impossible in 2016: He won the presidency, despite being the most unpopular candidate since at least 1952 and with Americans seeming to like the status quo.
President Barack Obama's net favorability rating in the final Gallup poll using a -5 to +5 scale was +16 percentage points. Trump came in with a -25 percentage point net favorability rating in the same scale. That 41-point difference should have been electoral poison for Trump.
Based upon Gallup polling from the previous six presidential elections without the incumbent running for reelection, Trump should have lost by 9 points given the difference between Obama (the incumbent president) and Trump's rating. He only lost the popular vote by 2 percentage points and won the Electoral College, however.
Although six data points drawn from previous elections without an incumbent running are a far smaller sample size than I would like, the clear separation between 2016 and what previous years predicted makes it pretty clear that something unusual happened in 2016.
The easy answer is that elections without the incumbent running are also about the candidates who fill the shoes of the incumbents on their party's presidential tickets. In this case, Hillary Clinton was also very unpopular. In the network exit polls, Clinton had a net favorability rating of -12 percentage points to Trump's -22 percentage points. This made for the first presidential election in polling history in which both candidates were disliked by more voters than they were liked.
Respostas
Ler mais comentários
- Inglês (EUA)
- Inglês (Reino Unido)
"Based upon Gallup polling from the previous six presidential elections without the incumbent running for reelection"
All your answers are right here... Trump AND Clinton can both be compared to Obama due to Obama's not being able to run again. The writer is making a point of how popular Obama was when running for president and conversely how unpopular Trump was.
Highly-rated answerer
Esta resposta foi útil?
- Japonês
@ShikaarM
Thank you very much for answering to my question.
I am still confused.
From where, does "9 points" come from?
Thank you very much for answering to my question.
I am still confused.
From where, does "9 points" come from?
- Inglês (EUA)
- Inglês (Reino Unido)
@monica8 I have no idea. It's all American political mumbo-jumbo. Lol
Highly-rated answerer
Esta resposta foi útil?
[Notícias] Ei você! Aquele que está aprendendo um idioma!
Você sabe como melhorar suas habilidades no idioma❓ Tudo o que você precisa fazer é ter sua escrita corrigida por um falante nativo!
Com a HiNative, você pode ter sua escrita corrigida por falantes nativos gratuitamente ✍️✨.
Com a HiNative, você pode ter sua escrita corrigida por falantes nativos gratuitamente ✍️✨.
Registar
Problemas semelhantes
Problemas semelhantes
- In this paragraph, What means 'The subjects agreed'? The subjects means the people? -- Dr. St...
- Would you read the paragraph aloud for the other students? soa natural?
- this paragraph from the It's Time lyrics by Imagine Dragons And I am left to sell The path to...
Trending questions
- how can I discribe black people hair, can I say curly, the books don't teach us..
- Which sounds more natural, "Go two blocks" or "Go for two blocks," when giving directions?
- I loooooooooooove aussie accent.... I loooooooooooove Australia so much. I'd like to go back th...
- Do these have the same meaning? When do you usually say these? That's just how things work here. ...
- What does UP mean here ? Is this an abbreviation of something? "Greyhound are seeking experie...
Newest Questions (HOT)
- Essas frases têm totalmente o mesmo sentido? 1 Faz três anos que saí do meu país. 2 Há três ano...
- Qual frase é mais correta? 1 Amanhã, venha o mais rápido à empresa sem atrasar nenhum minuto. 2...
- I have a question for a native Portuguese speaker who can speak English fluently. Do you think t...
- Qual frase é mais correta? 1 Meu amigo está sentado na frente de mim. 2 Meu amigo está sentado ...
- "Só se vive uma vez" Qual é a função de 'se' nessa frase?
Newest Questions
- qual é mais natural? maçãs e pêras crescem nas árvores. ou maçãs e pêras crescem em árvores
- Essas frases têm totalmente o mesmo sentido? 1 Faz três anos que saí do meu país. 2 Há três ano...
- Hello everyone! I've created Portuguese subtitles for my video. I would really appreciate it if y...
- Qual frase é mais correta? 1 Amanhã, venha o mais rápido à empresa sem atrasar nenhum minuto. 2...
- I have a question for a native Portuguese speaker who can speak English fluently. Do you think t...
Pergunta anterior/Próxima pergunta
Obrigado! Fique tranquilo, o seu comentário não será exibido a outros usuários.
Muito obrigado! O seu comentário é muito bem-vindo.