4 ms·

That implies an equal number of each party or general affiliation - it wasn't. 9 of the 166 respondents considered themselves conservative. Trump is not a good

That implies an equal number of each party or general affiliation - it wasn't. 9 of the 166 respondents considered themselves conservative. Trump is not a good president, don't get me wrong, but that's just not good science.

throwaway5752 8y ago
It's not science, it's a survey. And you know that about the respondents because they were transparent about their data. And the self-identified conservatives rated him in the bottom five, too.
- ameister14 8y ago
  Surveys are very much a scientific tool. This one surveyed social scientists, who use surveys (like this one) regularly as part of conducting social science. Yes, they were transparent. You, on the other hand, implied equal numbers. Nobody likes Trump. There's no need to inflate how bad he is - it's very apparent.
  - throwaway5752 8y ago
    It bothered me the first time you posted this and didn't say anything then, but I didn't imply equal numbers of respondents and I don't know why you think I did. Unless you have some kind of deeper knowledge about partisan alignment in the population, for all we know this is representative. The rankings are very consistent regardless of party identification in the responses across the board, party identification of respondent seems to be a weak factor in the rankings.
    - ameister14 8y ago
      I do actually have deeper knowledge about partisan alignment in the greater population. Even if I didn't, the conservatives did not rank Trump worst. They ranked Buchanan worst, Trump was #40. When you say this: "Donald Trump is objectively (ranked by presidential historians of all political parties) as the worst president in the 242 year history of the US." That usually means that presidential historians of all parties ranked him worst, or at least that a poll controlling for party/political leaning as a variable concluded that he was worst. Neither was the case here.

throwaway5752 8y ago

It's not science, it's a survey. And you know that about the respondents because they were transparent about their data. And the self-identified conservatives rated him in the bottom five, too.

ameister14 8y ago
Surveys are very much a scientific tool. This one surveyed social scientists, who use surveys (like this one) regularly as part of conducting social science. Yes, they were transparent. You, on the other hand, implied equal numbers. Nobody likes Trump. There's no need to inflate how bad he is - it's very apparent.
- throwaway5752 8y ago
  It bothered me the first time you posted this and didn't say anything then, but I didn't imply equal numbers of respondents and I don't know why you think I did. Unless you have some kind of deeper knowledge about partisan alignment in the population, for all we know this is representative. The rankings are very consistent regardless of party identification in the responses across the board, party identification of respondent seems to be a weak factor in the rankings.
  - ameister14 8y ago
    I do actually have deeper knowledge about partisan alignment in the greater population. Even if I didn't, the conservatives did not rank Trump worst. They ranked Buchanan worst, Trump was #40. When you say this: "Donald Trump is objectively (ranked by presidential historians of all political parties) as the worst president in the 242 year history of the US." That usually means that presidential historians of all parties ranked him worst, or at least that a poll controlling for party/political leaning as a variable concluded that he was worst. Neither was the case here.