U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-11-2012, 09:41 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 39,491,899 times
Reputation: 7107

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor View Post
Good luck with that.
Rasmussens' record lately is horrid.

"...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..."


Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com

No single polling company is a reliable source - that's why I always refer to the "poll of polls" - which is a compilation of ALL major polling firms (and THAT doesn't look good for the GOP at all).

RealClearPolitics - President Obama vs. Republican Candidates

Ken
Says....NYTimes.

What's wrong with this picture?

http://www.538host.com/pollacc1.png (broken link)

Pew and Rasmussen were the most accurate of 2008.

http://www.fordham.edu/images/academ...20election.pdf

Oh look, the NYTimes was .......19 out of 20.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-11-2012, 09:42 PM
 
Location: NC
10,005 posts, read 8,993,200 times
Reputation: 3073
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
That left-wing poster you quoted constantly calls Republicans fascists and defends Democrats no matter what they do.

That poster suggested that polls other than Rasmussen would have Romney at 20 points ahead of Obama. Funny...I haven't seen any polls where Obama has been anywhere close to 20 points ahead of Romney and the Gallup poll where Romney and Obama were tied was conducted around the same time.

Even so he was hardly touting Rasmussen as you suggest

The Gallup poll was a radical outlier? Hahaha. The average has Obama leading Romney by 3.6 points. They were tied in the Gallup poll, meaning there's a 3.6 point difference between Gallup and the average. Obama led Romney by 10 points in the Politico/George Washington University Battleground poll, which is 6.4 points ahead of the average. Yet of course you don't consider it an outlier because of your bias.

Yes Gallup and Rasmussen always overstate GOP strength, that is just what they do. That is not to say Politico is any better, as I said I am a Survey USA and PPP follower, the others I think are sub par

But I'm sure you didn't consider Rasmussen an outlier or a bad poll when it had Obama leading Romney by 10 points right?
Uh yes. They are a bad poll regardless of what they say. You don't props for vacellating wildly the fact of the matter is Rasmussen missed a race in 2010 by 40% the most in polling history. With a record like that I could probably make up numbers from whole cloth and have them be more accurate then Rasmussen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2012, 09:44 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 39,491,899 times
Reputation: 7107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
Politico GWU is potentially an outlier as well. With that said of all the polls on RCP Gallup and Rasmussen are substantially less friendly to Obama and always have been, with a few blips, been the most unfriendly to Obama. As I said, the only 2 I really would put stock in are PPP and Survey USA.
Well, why of course. PPP is a democrat pollster.

Polls of adults are virtually useless....at this stage of the game.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2012, 09:45 PM
 
23,851 posts, read 19,794,466 times
Reputation: 9381
Democrats and Liberals are severely underestimating the dislike for Barack Obama in this country. I've said this several times since the election season began, and I sincerely believe it still holds true today.

As an aside, I saw a large production standup comedy show in Seattle last week and every joke that had some sort of anti-Democrat/anti-Obama bent to them evoked a huge reaction from the crowd in the form of cheering and clapping. That this happened in a staunchly liberal part of the country is saying something in my view.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2012, 09:48 PM
 
Location: NC
10,005 posts, read 8,993,200 times
Reputation: 3073
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Well, why of course. PPP is a democrat pollster.

Polls of adults are virtually useless....at this stage of the game.
PPP is a Democratic pollster but more importantly they are an accurate pollster. As I showed in the Tennessee and Ohio GOP primaries their polls taken on the same day as Rasmussen polls were objectively more accurate when compared side by side with said Rasmussen polls.

If you want more of a drubbing on this check out Georgia. Again same day polls side by side and PPP nails Gingrich's number while Rasmussen is off by 10%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...mary-1602.html

Either put up or shut up.

EDIT: and because I like rubbing salt in the wounds.

South Carolina: Overlaping time periods PPP off by 3% Rasmussen off by 7.5%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...mary-1590.html

Last edited by Randomstudent; 03-11-2012 at 09:59 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2012, 10:04 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 39,491,899 times
Reputation: 7107
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
Democrats and Liberals are severely underestimating the dislike for Barack Obama in this country. I've said this several times since the election season began, and I sincerely believe it still holds true today.

As an aside, I saw a large production standup comedy show in Seattle last week and every joke that had some sort of anti-Democrat/anti-Obama bent to them evoked a huge reaction from the crowd in the form of cheering and clapping. That this happened in a staunchly liberal part of the country is saying something in my view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
PPP is a Democratic pollster but more importantly they are an accurate pollster. As I showed in the Tennessee and Ohio GOP primaries their polls taken on the same day as Rasmussen polls were objectively more accurate when compared side by side with said Rasmussen polls.

OH....WOW. Look at that! PPP had Santorum up by.....5 and Rasmussen had Santorum up by.....4. My gosh...a whole...one point difference. Looks like they were BOTH a bit off.

If you want more of a drubbing on this check out Georgia. Again same day polls side by side and PPP nails Gingrich's number while Rasmussen is off by 10%

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Georgia Republican Presidential Primary

Either put up or shut up.
Oh my...look here;

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus

PPP had PAUL a winner in Iowa. Rasmussen had Romney by 1. Hey, I put up.

And here!

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Michigan Republican Presidential Primary

Now, THIS is embarrassing;

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Colorado Republican Presidential Caucus

I put up...so much for PPPs accuracy.

Quote:
EDIT: and because I like rubbing salt in the wounds.
Yeah, me too...look up. It's fun cherry picking, isn't it?

PAUL in IOWA. And Romney by 10, 14 in Colorado....WHO won CO? Santorum.........ooopppppsssss..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2012, 10:12 PM
 
Location: NC
10,005 posts, read 8,993,200 times
Reputation: 3073
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Oh my...look here;

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus

PPP had PAUL a winner in Iowa. Rasmussen had Romney by 1. Hey, I put up.

OMG!!!! Cacuses are hard to poll notice how Rasmussen epic fails to get close to Santorum's margin. With that said 1% differences between leading candidates are not anything to write home about that is why margins of error exist. With that said MoEs cannot cover an 8.5% epic fail like Rasmussen had in Iowa w/Santorum.

And here!

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Michigan Republican Presidential Primary

Now, THIS is embarrassing;

Oh noes again a 1% point lead in a poll is statistically insigificant. Again Rasmussen fails to perform much better then PPP here PPP was slightly more accurate on Santorum's actual numbers and Rasmussen was slightly more accurate on Romney's. It is not like the 10% fail Rasmussen had in GA or the ridiculous under polling Rasmussen had in Ohio.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Colorado Republican Presidential Caucus

Again it is a caucus PPP states that caucuses are hard to poll they specifically state that since turnout is often extremely low. With that said at least PPP attempted it which is more then can be said for Rasmussen. If I had to rely on Rasmussen for Colorado, I quite literally might as well have just guessed.

I put up...so much for PPPs accuracy.



Yeah, me too...look up. It's fun cherry picking, isn't it?

PAUL in IOWA. And Romney by 10, 14 in Colorado....WHO won CO? Santorum.........ooopppppsssss..

Last edited by Randomstudent; 03-11-2012 at 10:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2012, 10:28 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 39,491,899 times
Reputation: 7107
Quote:
OMG!!!! Cacuses are hard to poll notice how Rasmussen epic fails to get close to Santorum's margin. With that said 1% differences between leading candidates are not anything to write home about that is why margins of error exist. With that said MoEs cannot cover an 8.5% epic fail like Rasmussen had in Iowa w/Santorum.
Excuses, excuses. Rasmussen has ROMNEY at 1 in Iowa. YOUR favorite pollster had PAUL winning...now THAT is epic fail.

Quote:
Oh noes again a 1% point lead in a poll is statistically insigificant. Again Rasmussen fails to perform much better then PPP here PPP was slightly more accurate on Santorum's actual numbers and Rasmussen was slightly more accurate on Romney's. It is not like the 10% fail Rasmussen had in GA.
Gobbledegook for the italic. YOU are the one arguing that Ras is always wrong and PPP is just perfect.

How about the epic, classic fail in CO for PPP? They picked Romney by 14...SANTORUM won. Hilarious!!

Quote:
Again it is a caucus PPP states that caucuses are hard to poll they specifically state that since turnout is often extremely low. With that said at least PPP attempted it which is more then can be said for Rasmussen. If I had to rely on Rasmussen for Colorado, I quite literally might as well have just guessed.
Better than NOT putting up a poll you can't credibly rely on than putting up such an embarrassing fail poll. I'm sure the people VOTING weren't waiting with baited breath for such a poll. I'm sure the world wouldn't come to an end if there wasn't a poll.

Rasmussen apparently was a LOT smarter than the folks at PPP with their embarrassing poll.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2012, 10:37 PM
 
Location: NC
10,005 posts, read 8,993,200 times
Reputation: 3073
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Excuses, excuses. Rasmussen has ROMNEY at 1 in Iowa. YOUR favorite pollster had PAUL winning...now THAT is epic fail.

And Santorum won, with that said caucuses are hard to poll so it is hard to fault either organization.

Gobbledegook for the italic. YOU are the one arguing that Ras is always wrong and PPP is just perfect.

PPP is not always perfect, they are just better then Rasmussen. If your best example is Rasmussen was as accurate as PPP in their single most accurate poll then that would seem to suggest exactly this.

How about the epic, classic fail in CO for PPP? They picked Romney by 14...SANTORUM won. Hilarious!!

Again caucuses are hard to poll due to low turnout though at least PPP tried which is more then can be said for Rasmussen.

Better than NOT putting up a poll you can't credibly rely on than putting up such an embarrassing fail poll. I'm sure the people VOTING weren't waiting with baited breath for such a poll. I'm sure the world wouldn't come to an end if there wasn't a poll.

Rasmussen apparently was a LOT smarter than the folks at PPP with their embarrassing poll.
I have to disagree with you here. If everyone was as afraid of having a crappy poll then we would not have any polling of caucus states. I would rather have a poll that shows a change in momentum even if it is way off then no polling at all. PPP was the only one who polled that state and they should get props for at least trying to put some info on the table. With that said when there is a slew of polls it is best to look at the ones that are the best and Rasmussen is crap.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2012, 10:40 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,868 posts, read 22,719,590 times
Reputation: 7167
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Pew and Rasmussen were the most accurate of 2008.
Ah - Yeah, in 2008. In 2010 they were pretty poor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Says....NYTimes.

What's wrong with this picture?

http://www.538host.com/pollacc1.png (broken link)

http://www.fordham.edu/images/academ...20election.pdf

Oh look, the NYTimes was .......19 out of 20.
Yeah, so?
How does that NEGATE the what the article says about Rasmussen?
As I already wrote - NO SINGLE SOURCE is that reliable. That's WHY I refer to "polls of polls".

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top