very bad ratings for this reality TV performance.

they have a gd 1/2 brain between them?

Thank Goodness it was BAD.. it was suppose to be his BIG RESET. "Wind at his back" and all that.

You know conservatives are wanting to make this look like Trump was truly being presidential, and it sounds like it's only going to work on about 33% of the people (same ones who had a positive view of him before the speech). I didn't watch it, but it seems like other than a few Trumpisms and saber-rattling, it was pretty dry, and he stayed on script, which is what they wanted and hoped would make him seem more presidential. I wonder if Trump will exit his bubble long enough to listen to people not complimenting him on the speech.

TlalocW

Spinning that as 'bad' takes some work ... BTW it's unclear ... is 57% the rating of Obama's first SOTU or is 48%?

Democrats by a sizeable margin, making Trump's record low positive reaction doubly bad.

handing THEIR country over to Russia.

For real.

I followed the live blog on Daily Kos. I can not watch that buffon. I was hoping he would go totally off the record.

One other poll released tonight showed that, true to form, more members of the current President's party watched it than the opposition. It has always been thus: more Democrats than Republicans watched during the Clinton and Obama years, more Republicans during the Bush(s) and Twitler presidencies. If the audience tonight skewed 60/40 Republican, that 48% suddenly looks rather unimpressive.

The 57% was from Trump's first speech before Congress. The 48% was from his speech last night. According to CNN, Obama's net positive score for his first State of the Union address was 78%.

Overall, the article was very poorly written. If I were a Republican I would say the article showed extreme bias. It is likely that the net positive of Trump's speech last night was 78%, or higher. Obama's first State of the Union address had the same rating of 48% of viewers had a very positive reaction to the speech. So, President Obama's speech was also the least positively accepted speech in 20 years. In addition, CNN failed to mention Trump's net positive rating. So, it is very possible that each speech was accepted at the same rate by those who watched them.

[link:https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/11/07/politics/political-prediction-market-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/index.html|

No matter how terribly the orange man read his script from the TelePrompTer shipped in from Russia. I still always have doubts about polls

Lately? That article is a tad old.

is two years ago LATELY?

the subject here is PUTIN'S BOY......*PAY ATTENTION*

Yes most people overestimated Clinton's chances, but the overall national polls were very accurate.

How wrong could the predictions be? 77,000 more votes and she wins the electoral college.
The were off 77,000 out of 100 million! 0.077% on polls with a 90 - 95% confidence interval.
Sounds pretty accurate to me!

and denies either are happening.

That's 90 minutes of my life I will never get back.

The people who boycotted that speech saved themselves a lot of misery.

Maybe next week's episode will be better.

I hate to say it, but this type of writing is what allows Republicans to claim CNN has a liberal bias. Why not just title the article "48% of viewers approved of Donald Trump's speech"? Maybe the writer intended the title to be click bait in that he/she may have thought Donald Trump opponents would not attempt to read the speech if its title seemed to be positive towards Trump. However, that title would make it easy for a Republican to claim that CNN has a bias against Donald Trump.

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player. That struts and frets his hour upon the stage. And then is heard no more. It is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,. Signifying nothing.
(Macbeth, Act V, sc v)