If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(American Thinker)   "Rasmussen's business is polling America and reporting accurate results"   (americanthinker.com) divider line 90
    More: Unlikely, Scott Rasmussen, bond credit rating, SurveyUSA, Pew Research  
•       •       •

800 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Oct 2012 at 9:20 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



90 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-02 09:47:40 AM
Let's take a look at Rasmussen track record for presidential elections in 2008

Rasmussen Reports 11/1 - 11/3 3000 LV 2.0 52 46 Obama +6
Rasmussen Reports 10/24 - 10/26 3000 LV 2.0 51 46 Obama +5
Rasmussen Reports 10/16 - 10/18 3000 LV 2.0 51 45 Obama +6


So what were the election results?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/

Obama 53 - McCain 46
 
2012-10-02 09:48:58 AM
Rasmussen is actually very accurate...in the final few days before an election. They need to be to maintain the fiction that they're a reputable firm.

But, in the months and months preceding an election? Not so much.
 
2012-10-02 09:51:06 AM

Monual: Rasmussen has never been particularly accurate. I swear his results can easily be replicated by averaging all the other polls and adding 2% to the Republican.


BRILLIANT!!! Wanna steal some Republican money?
 
2012-10-02 09:53:21 AM

TalenLee: There is no sadder sight than to watch the squalling, moist death throes of a god. To see that thing that they once revered, prostate, helpless, unable to raise its head, each shuddering thrust of its legs only enough to grind its shoulders forwards against the gravelled floor of its former temple. So proud, so powerful, so real and true, it stood above them, and its breath was proud and easy, then. Proclamations so eternal as to echo through kings' ears and from their mouths, now nothing but a flopping, helpless, barely-cogniscant thing. Let it lay there, oh ye wanderers, let it lay, ye who discover its hallowed places, and give it the dignity of its end. Watch from the temple steps as the last drops of its blood slither from its suppurating rends, and watch the last of its ever-mythic trickling down.


Yeah, it's hard to trickle down when you have prostate problems that mean you are unable to raise your head. It gets a little floppy and helpless, so I hear.
 
2012-10-02 09:57:05 AM

bmongar: Carn: JokerMattly: To be fair, Rasmussen is doing better this year isn't it?
Still skewed slightly but almost every pollster has a house bias.

/Trusting one poll is bad science.

For several weeks they were 6-8 points skewed right from the average of the rest of the polls. They are much closer to the average the last couple of weeks.

My understanding is that you approach the election Rasmussen converges with other polls so that they can show accuracy in their predictions.


Well, of course! Gotta keep up appearances.
 
2012-10-02 09:58:19 AM

TheOther: Monual: Rasmussen has never been particularly accurate. I swear his results can easily be replicated by averaging all the other polls and adding 2% to the Republican.

BRILLIANT!!! Wanna steal some Republican money?


Is it really fleecing people if the actively WANT to be fleeced?
 
2012-10-02 09:58:27 AM
The meat of the polls is probably pretty accurate depending on rassmussen's definition of conservative. Even Obama is more on the conservative side of things than most neocons would like to believe. It just that the GOP has gone so far off the deep end that anyone seems like a liberal commie pikno socialist by comparison.
 
2012-10-02 09:59:41 AM

randomjsa: Let's take a look at Rasmussen track record for presidential elections in 2008

Rasmussen Reports 11/1 - 11/3 3000 LV 2.0 52 46 Obama +6
Rasmussen Reports 10/24 - 10/26 3000 LV 2.0 51 46 Obama +5
Rasmussen Reports 10/16 - 10/18 3000 LV 2.0 51 45 Obama +6

So what were the election results?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/

Obama 53 - McCain 46


Assessment following last National election:

"The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight's database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

Moreover, Rasmussen's polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen's polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases - that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.
"
~Nate Silver

Full article. Interesting reading.
Link
 
2012-10-02 10:02:00 AM

eraser8: TheOther: Monual: Rasmussen has never been particularly accurate. I swear his results can easily be replicated by averaging all the other polls and adding 2% to the Republican.

BRILLIANT!!! Wanna steal some Republican money?

Is it really fleecing people if the actively WANT to be fleeced?


That's called Legitimate Fleecing.
 
2012-10-02 10:03:59 AM

randomjsa: Let's take a look at Rasmussen track record for presidential elections in 2008

Rasmussen Reports 11/1 - 11/3 3000 LV 2.0 52 46 Obama +6
Rasmussen Reports 10/24 - 10/26 3000 LV 2.0 51 46 Obama +5
Rasmussen Reports 10/16 - 10/18 3000 LV 2.0 51 45 Obama +6

So what were the election results?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/

Obama 53 - McCain 46


His track record more than 3 weeks away from election day are generally being called into question. He had to be accurate in the lead up to election day to keep any sort of credibility.

In his defense, the 2008 election is probably hard to track simply because the polls were close to even until the economy hit the shiatter in early to mid-September of '08.
 
2012-10-02 10:04:35 AM

randomjsa: Let's take a look at Rasmussen track record for presidential elections in 2008

Rasmussen Reports 11/1 - 11/3 3000 LV 2.0 52 46 Obama +6
Rasmussen Reports 10/24 - 10/26 3000 LV 2.0 51 46 Obama +5
Rasmussen Reports 10/16 - 10/18 3000 LV 2.0 51 45 Obama +6

So what were the election results?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/

Obama 53 - McCain 46


How about 2010?

The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight's database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

Moreover, Rasmussen's polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen's polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases - that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.
 
2012-10-02 10:06:22 AM
"Rasmussen's business is polling America and reporting accurate results"

...and business is potato.

// if there's a new way
// I'll herp the derp in line
// but it better work, because the 47% damn lazy freeloaders are leeching America so we unskewed the polls and furthermore...this time
 
2012-10-02 10:08:41 AM

eraser8: Rasmussen is actually very accurate...in the final few days before an election. They need to be to maintain the fiction that they're a reputable firm.

But, in the months and months preceding an election? Not so much.


Yep. It's so people can post statements like randomjsa did right above you.

It's literally bait and switch, and for some reason republicans defend the hell out it, even though its playing them for suckers.
 
2012-10-02 10:16:04 AM

BSABSVR: eraser8: Rasmussen is actually very accurate...in the final few days before an election. They need to be to maintain the fiction that they're a reputable firm.

But, in the months and months preceding an election? Not so much.

Yep. It's so people can post statements like randomjsa did right above you.

It's literally bait and switch, and for some reason republicans defend the hell out it, even though its playing them for suckers.


It's allowing the derpers to not lose hope is what it's doing. They were already suckers the minute they thought tax breaks as far as the eye can see were the path to their salvation.

Holographic Romney - Help me, Scott Rasmussen, you're my only hope.
 
2012-10-02 10:20:51 AM

Lost Thought 00: Rasmussen is in the business of selling stuff that their customers want to buy. No one wants to buy polls which tell them they are losing


Sane people might want to purchase the truth, so they could adjust accordingly, rather than thinking "hey, this strategy is working, I should continue, only harder".

This concept has a number of venues of application.
 
2012-10-02 10:26:15 AM

Rincewind53: I love it. Their actual argument is that because Rasmussen makes people pay for their results, logically through the free market they are a better polling firm.


And that argument makes sense, if you buy the premise that people *only* want accurate poll results in order to make correct decisions. It completely ignores the fact that you might want inaccurate results in order to influence donors or the public.
 
2012-10-02 10:30:54 AM

coeyagi: BSABSVR: eraser8: Rasmussen is actually very accurate...in the final few days before an election. They need to be to maintain the fiction that they're a reputable firm.

But, in the months and months preceding an election? Not so much.

Yep. It's so people can post statements like randomjsa did right above you.

It's literally bait and switch, and for some reason republicans defend the hell out it, even though its playing them for suckers.

It's allowing the derpers to not lose hope is what it's doing. They were already suckers the minute they thought tax breaks as far as the eye can see were the path to their salvation.

Holographic Romney - Help me, Scott Rasmussen, you're my only hope.


No, there is another: www.unskewedpolls.com

The tard is strong with them.
 
2012-10-02 10:31:00 AM
i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-10-02 10:31:07 AM
i1125.photobucket.com

/So, Rasmussen's polls are accurate, according to Rasmussen.
//Allllllll righty then!
 
2012-10-02 10:32:47 AM

Summer Glau's Love Slave: [i1125.photobucket.com image 468x328]

/So, Rasmussen's polls are accurate, according to Rasmussen.
//Allllllll righty then!


You can trust them because they're honest. You're forgetting to account for the lieberal agenda 'skewing' everyone else's polls.
 
2012-10-02 10:43:00 AM

palelizard: Lost Thought 00: Rasmussen is in the business of selling stuff that their customers want to buy. No one wants to buy polls which tell them they are losing

Sane people might want to purchase the truth, so they could adjust accordingly, rather than thinking "hey, this strategy is working, I should continue, only harder".

This concept has a number of venues of application.


Sane people would never purchase pre-conducted poll results in the first place, they'd commission their own poll
 
2012-10-02 10:46:35 AM
Republicans: "Our polls show Romney with a strong lead. Obama might as well start packing."
Dems: "Your polls are skewed. Our polls show Obama getting 1,200 electoral votes and Mitt being set adrift on an ice floe."
R: "Those polls are all skewed left. It's obviously a conspiracy and an attempt by the LSM to influence the election!"
D: "No, YOUR polls are stupid and are just a desperate attempt to push a false narrative!"
R: "No, YOUR polls suck and are just a desperate attempt to discourage Republican voters! OUR polls are 100% accurate!"
D: "You're a butthead with a face like a butt and your butt stinks!"
R: "You're a doody-head mean face with poopy pants!"
D: "No, YOU are!"
R: "No, YOU are!" *poops in hand, throws it*
D: "NO, YOU!!" *poops in hand, throws it*

Wash, rinse and repeat until election day, and then whichever side loses will scream that the election was stolen through voter fraud or voter suppression, thus guaranteeing that no matter who wins, a substantial portion of Americans sees the results as illegitimate.
 
2012-10-02 10:48:27 AM

Epoch_Zero: eraser8: TheOther: Monual: Rasmussen has never been particularly accurate. I swear his results can easily be replicated by averaging all the other polls and adding 2% to the Republican.

BRILLIANT!!! Wanna steal some Republican money?

Is it really fleecing people if the actively WANT to be fleeced?

That's called Legitimate Fleecing.


But doesn't the Free Market have a way of shutting that whole thing down?

(Answer: No, no it doesn't. If it thinks it's legitimate, it can't lie back and take it fast, long, or hard enough.)
 
2012-10-02 10:49:15 AM

mod3072: Republicans: "Our polls show Romney with a strong lead. Obama might as well start packing."
Dems: "Your polls are skewed. Our polls show Obama getting 1,200 electoral votes and Mitt being set adrift on an ice floe."
R: "Those polls are all skewed left. It's obviously a conspiracy and an attempt by the LSM to influence the election!"
D: "No, YOUR polls are stupid and are just a desperate attempt to push a false narrative!"
R: "No, YOUR polls suck and are just a desperate attempt to discourage Republican voters! OUR polls are 100% accurate!"
D: "You're a butthead with a face like a butt and your butt stinks!"
R: "You're a doody-head mean face with poopy pants!"
D: "No, YOU are!"
R: "No, YOU are!" *poops in hand, throws it*
D: "NO, YOU!!" *poops in hand, throws it*

Wash, rinse and repeat until election day, and then whichever side loses will scream that the election was stolen through voter fraud or voter suppression, thus guaranteeing that no matter who wins, a substantial portion of Americans sees the results as illegitimate.


I feel like you're trying to inform me about something involving both of the parties.
I'm hoping you're going to give me a suggestion on how to vote from it.

/One side lies about poll results. One side doesn't. You're welcome to guess which.
 
2012-10-02 10:57:02 AM

mod3072: Republicans: "Our polls show Romney with a strong lead. Obama might as well start packing."
Dems: "Your polls are skewed. Our polls show Obama getting 1,200 electoral votes and Mitt being set adrift on an ice floe."
R: "Those polls are all skewed left. It's obviously a conspiracy and an attempt by the LSM to influence the election!"
D: "No, YOUR polls are stupid and are just a desperate attempt to push a false narrative!"
R: "No, YOUR polls suck and are just a desperate attempt to discourage Republican voters! OUR polls are 100% accurate!"
D: "You're a butthead with a face like a butt and your butt stinks!"
R: "You're a doody-head mean face with poopy pants!"
D: "No, YOU are!"
R: "No, YOU are!" *poops in hand, throws it*
D: "NO, YOU!!" *poops in hand, throws it*

Wash, rinse and repeat until election day, and then whichever side loses will scream that the election was stolen through voter fraud or voter suppression, thus guaranteeing that no matter who wins, a substantial portion of Americans sees the results as illegitimate.


It's pretty obvious that the ship is sinking - why else would a) gerrymandering be so commonplace in GOP / Democratic districts where GOP governance can shift the vote with redistricting, b) voter ID laws are so commonplace in GOP-held states, and c) accusations and strong evidence of institutional GOP voter registration fraud coming to light recently?

So tell me again why / how both sides are bad? Lower expectations perhaps? In order to... Vote.... Republican?
 
2012-10-02 10:57:45 AM

mod3072: Republicans: "Our polls show Romney with a strong lead. Obama might as well start packing."
Dems: "Your polls are skewed. Our polls show Obama getting 1,200 electoral votes and Mitt being set adrift on an ice floe."
R: "Those polls are all skewed left. It's obviously a conspiracy and an attempt by the LSM to influence the election!"
D: "No, YOUR polls are stupid and are just a desperate attempt to push a false narrative!"
R: "No, YOUR polls suck and are just a desperate attempt to discourage Republican voters! OUR polls are 100% accurate!"
D: "You're a butthead with a face like a butt and your butt stinks!"
R: "You're a doody-head mean face with poopy pants!"
D: "No, YOU are!"
R: "No, YOU are!" *poops in hand, throws it*
D: "NO, YOU!!" *poops in hand, throws it*

Wash, rinse and repeat until election day, and then whichever side loses will scream that the election was stolen through voter fraud or voter suppression, thus guaranteeing that no matter who wins, a substantial portion of Americans sees the results as illegitimate.


Your summation is unfair. Not everything has to have a right/left side to it. Facts are not up for debate (or they shouldn't be).

When Liberals have a candidate behind in the polls, they most frequently respond with "that sucks my candidate is behind in the polls". When unemployment rate increases, GOP: this is horrible. Liberals: this does suck. When unemployment rate goes down: GOP: this is fake/meaningless. Liberals: this is good.

Both sides spin but Conservatives are more likely to view facts and malleable/debatable issues than Liberals.
 
2012-10-02 11:08:34 AM

Lost Thought 00: Sane people would never purchase pre-conducted poll results in the first place, they'd commission their own poll


Well, yes.
 
2012-10-02 11:12:49 AM

mod3072: Republicans: "Our polls show Romney with a strong lead. Obama might as well start packing."
Dems: "Your polls are skewed. Our polls show Obama getting 1,200 electoral votes and Mitt being set adrift on an ice floe."
R: "Those polls are all skewed left. It's obviously a conspiracy and an attempt by the LSM to influence the election!"
D: "No, YOUR polls are stupid and are just a desperate attempt to push a false narrative!"
R: "No, YOUR polls suck and are just a desperate attempt to discourage Republican voters! OUR polls are 100% accurate!"
D: "You're a butthead with a face like a butt and your butt stinks!"
R: "You're a doody-head mean face with poopy pants!"
D: "No, YOU are!"
R: "No, YOU are!" *poops in hand, throws it*
D: "NO, YOU!!" *poops in hand, throws it*

Wash, rinse and repeat until election day, and then whichever side loses will scream that the election was stolen through voter fraud or voter suppression, thus guaranteeing that no matter who wins, a substantial portion of Americans sees the results as illegitimate.



It is profoundly humbling to be in the presence of a superior being, an entity that somehow manages to be above it all.

How is it that you deign to even address such lowly beings as us?
 
2012-10-02 11:28:33 AM
Rasmussen is fair and accurate, and I'm just loving this filet mignon I got at the McDonald's drive-thru while riding my octopus.
 
2012-10-02 12:12:20 PM
www.rankopedia.com
"Rasmussen's business is polling America and reporting accurate results... and we're all out of accurate results!"
 
2012-10-02 12:24:32 PM

impaler: The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows President Obama attracting looting support from 50% of voters nationwide, while Mitt Romney earns the vote from 47%.


There we go.
 
2012-10-02 12:52:18 PM

Dog Welder: His track record more than 3 weeks away from election day are generally being called into question. He had to be accurate in the lead up to election day to keep any sort of credibility.

In his defense, the 2008 election is probably hard to track simply because the polls were close to even until the economy hit the shiatter in early to mid-September of '08.


Well let's see... Hrm

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_ele c tion_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#polls

Every single solitary poll showed Obama ahead as far back as 9/21/08 where one (not Ras) was off from the others. Though for the week Ras did show it as a tie. Even the the LA Times and USA Today showed McCain winning way back in January of 2008, Ras showed Obama winning only to have McCain winning a week later. How far out is this "up until close to the election" scheme running? Because in June of 2008 Obama was also ahead.

Oh and his polling data "just before the election" turned out to be more accurate than the so called "better" sources who showed Obama winning by a larger or smaller margin. So what, Ras gets it right closer to the elections and the other outlets get it wrong? What does this say?
 
2012-10-02 01:25:49 PM

randomjsa: So what, Ras gets it right closer to the elections and the other outlets get it wrong? What does this say?


It says that Rasmussen should use the same techniques during the whole campaign cycle, not a separate (more accurate) methodology for the week before an election.

Silver's takedown of Rasmussen was totally numbers-based. He threw in some speculation about WHY it may be happening, but the 2-4 point "house effect" (which Silver has also calculated for other, less well-known pollsters) Rasmussen adds in for all their polls until late October is statistically palpable.

Why is Rasmussen an outlier for so much of the campaign?
 
2012-10-02 01:36:16 PM

randomjsa: Dog Welder: His track record more than 3 weeks away from election day are generally being called into question. He had to be accurate in the lead up to election day to keep any sort of credibility.

In his defense, the 2008 election is probably hard to track simply because the polls were close to even until the economy hit the shiatter in early to mid-September of '08.

Well let's see... Hrm

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_ele c tion_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#polls

Every single solitary poll showed Obama ahead as far back as 9/21/08 where one (not Ras) was off from the others. Though for the week Ras did show it as a tie. Even the the LA Times and USA Today showed McCain winning way back in January of 2008, Ras showed Obama winning only to have McCain winning a week later. How far out is this "up until close to the election" scheme running? Because in June of 2008 Obama was also ahead.

Oh and his polling data "just before the election" turned out to be more accurate than the so called "better" sources who showed Obama winning by a larger or smaller margin. So what, Ras gets it right closer to the elections and the other outlets get it wrong? What does this say?


Why go back to 2008 when you can look at how they did in 2010? Weighting based on turn-out is something that is evolving. If they haven't updated their shiat since 2008 (evidence being 2010) obviously they are no longer that accurate. Anybody can pick one race right like 2008. They farked up hundreds of polls in 2010.

Try and apply some critical thinking. Perhaps Rasmussen applied some accurate weighting in 2008 but they got it wrong in 2010. Very very wrong. They seem to be an outlier today. What does Occam's Razor tell you?
 
2012-10-02 02:16:30 PM
Yes, they certainly are polling Americans.
 
2012-10-02 02:56:22 PM

randomjsa: Dog Welder: His track record more than 3 weeks away from election day are generally being called into question. He had to be accurate in the lead up to election day to keep any sort of credibility.

In his defense, the 2008 election is probably hard to track simply because the polls were close to even until the economy hit the shiatter in early to mid-September of '08.

Well let's see... Hrm

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_ele c tion_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#polls

Every single solitary poll showed Obama ahead as far back as 9/21/08 where one (not Ras) was off from the others. Though for the week Ras did show it as a tie. Even the the LA Times and USA Today showed McCain winning way back in January of 2008, Ras showed Obama winning only to have McCain winning a week later. How far out is this "up until close to the election" scheme running? Because in June of 2008 Obama was also ahead.

Oh and his polling data "just before the election" turned out to be more accurate than the so called "better" sources who showed Obama winning by a larger or smaller margin. So what, Ras gets it right closer to the elections and the other outlets get it wrong? What does this say?


Or, you know, don't take my word for it and maybe respond to the people who posted actual data on how skewed Rasmussen is. I notice you didn't bother with those posts.
 
2012-10-02 03:42:38 PM
If Nate Silver correctly predicts 49 out of 50 states again in this presidential election, any discussion over polling firms bias will be moot. I don't care if one polling firm is biased or not, because Nate seems to know how to harmonize the statistical quirks and actually make useful predictions from all the biased B.S. And, so far, Nate has predicted that for this election Obama will win handily, something all the Republicans are trying to ignore. The fear of the Republicans at this point is laughingly obvious.
 
2012-10-02 05:14:18 PM

steerforth: Yeah, it's hard to trickle down when you have prostate problems that mean you are unable to raise your head. It gets a little floppy and helpless, so I hear.


That was the imagery I, somewhat sleep deprived, was trying for.
 
2012-10-02 05:33:53 PM

RyogaM: If Nate Silver correctly predicts 49 out of 50 states again in this presidential election, any discussion over polling firms bias will be moot. I don't care if one polling firm is biased or not, because Nate seems to know how to harmonize the statistical quirks and actually make useful predictions from all the biased B.S. And, so far, Nate has predicted that for this election Obama will win handily, something all the Republicans are trying to ignore. The fear of the Republicans at this point is laughingly obvious.


Which is why they're doing everything they can, both legally and illegally, to stack the deck in their favor - not just for Obama, but also for the Congressional spots up for grabs. Remember, even if Obama wins a second term, a relatively static Congress can just screw America for four more years as punishment for daring to elect a blah man to the Oval Office again.

It's not enough that Obama wins - there must also be enough turnover in Congress to break the cloture/filibuster deadlock with which Republicans have held this country in bondage for the last four years, to say nothing of the stupidity that occured during the Dubya Debacle.
 
2012-10-02 05:34:00 PM

RyogaM: If Nate Silver correctly predicts 49 out of 50 states again in this presidential election, any discussion over polling firms bias will be moot.


The interesting question is how well he'll be able to call the margins of victory.
 
Displayed 40 of 90 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report