Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, just as I said - you had to wait for Nate to spoon feed you.
So he lists one race, Hawaii, and includes that in his calculation - OF COURSE that ONE race will provide him the results he's looking for.
But can YOU name another race? Did Nate?
Of course you can't, cause Nate really didn't go race by race, did he, so that has you stumped.
and lets also note that while Rasmussen's numbers were off, Rasmussen had the democrat winning BIG.
AND in his analysis he also pointed out that the democrat had won previosly by 50 points.
Rasmussen didnt get a single race wrong on who would win. and his numbers were PREDICTIONS OF THE FUTURE and many of his last polls were done a month or more before the vote was held.
Liberals for some reason have decided that the need to bash Rasmussen.
and lets also note that while Rasmussen's numbers were off, Rasmussen had the democrat winning BIG.
AND in his analysis he also pointed out that the democrat had won previosly by 50 points.
Rasmussen didnt get a single race wrong on who would win. and his numbers were PREDICTIONS OF THE FUTURE and many of his last polls were done a month or more before the vote was held.
Liberals for some reason have decided that the need to bash Rasmussen.
that is what this is about.
add it to bashing Palin, Angle, Rush, Glenn, FOX, etc. They must think they are making an impression on someone. As a whole, I do not see the Democrats bashing anyone as much. I am not saying there are no Right Winger here that never bash, but not to the degree.
add it to bashing Palin, Angle, Rush, Glenn, FOX, etc. They must think they are making an impression on someone. As a whole, I do not see the Democrats bashing anyone as much. I am not saying there are no Right Winger here that never bash, but not to the degree.
Nita
Look, the proof is there right in front of you. Rasmussen was not only biased this cycle but they were unreliable. It's not about bashing, it's about facts.
Look, the proof is there right in front of you. Rasmussen was not only biased this cycle but they were unreliable. It's not about bashing, it's about facts.
First of all Nate, for some strange reason, lumped Ras with the POR/Fox Ras polls, which is ridiculous.
You STILL can't name ONE race, outside of the HI race, with your own eyes and intellect, that says Ras was biased.
Nate's chart was predetermined when he decided to include the other polls numbers.
I wonder what the number would be if it EXCLUDED the POR polls? Go ahead, see if you can figure it out - or most likely, you'll have to wait on Nate to do it for you.
And yet here we are, with Silver combining the Fox News/Pulse Opinion Research polls with the Rasmussen Reports polls, and the result is that Rasmussen is credited with 105 polls, a total number that no other pollster is even close to. Second place is Public Policy Polling, way down at 45.
And now you know how Nate got the number he wanted.
Also not that Rasmussen ran more than 100 polls. No other polling company ran half that number.
I also know from looking at Rasmussen's polls that his last poll in a race could have been a month or more before the election. Are these being counted?
Can one suggest honestly that a month or two month old poll is a reflection on the outcome of a race? really?
HI was the only seriously flawed poll that Rasmussen did. the others were far closer. this is silly.
Also not that Rasmussen ran more than 100 polls. No other polling company ran half that number.
I also know from looking at Rasmussen's polls that his last poll in a race could have been a month or more before the election. Are these being counted?
Can one suggest honestly that a month or two month old poll is a reflection on the outcome of a race? really?
HI was the only seriously flawed poll that Rasmussen did. the others were far closer.
Look, the proof is there right in front of you. Rasmussen was not only biased this cycle but they were unreliable. It's not about bashing, it's about facts.
in an effort to further disprove your silly reliance on a biased fellow with a need to bash Rasmussen... lets review the PA results....
In the Pennsylvania Senate Race the average spread by the pollsters was 4.5%
Rasmussen had a 4% spread while the actual result was a 2% spread.
Only Susquehanna had a closer spread they were correct with a 2% spread. Morning Call also had a 4% spread but neither of those two actually got the real numbers right.
Toomey beat Sestak 51% to 49%
Susquehanna had the race at 46% to 44%
Morning Call had it at 48% to 44%
Rasmussen was more accurate with 50% to 46%
PPD (democrat poll), Qunnipiac, and McClatchy/Marist were all much more off with 5 and 7 point spreads.
Based on Silvers approach Rasmussen would be considered more baised than Susquehanna. However a closer look reviels something very different.
If one were to use Rasmussen's results, it would show the race close but with a republican lead
Sus. however shows a closer race but one that cannot be used to determine anything. they report 46% to 44% that doesnt show any clear idea of a winner.
Rasmussen on the other hand clearly gets closer to being used to make a call.
I would argue that while Susquehanna has a smaller spread, an argument can be made that this poll is biased toward the democrat in the race by making it appear more close than it really was.
Silvers argument is hollow at best and in reality just another left wing hack doing his best to blast someone he needs to bash.
I do not understand the need but it is clear....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
