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.
Well, I don't think it's me who's having the problem, since I've had to school here on more than one occasion.
Anything else I can explain for you about the polls? We've already covered the "less than" 100% of other pollsters VS Rasmussen, we've covered what a trend looks like, we've covered how pollsters skew their party affiliation to get the answer they want/need.
Look at Gallup and Rasmussen - presidential approval - now THAT is a trend.
Not everyone polls every day like Rasmussen does. If you watch the Rasmussen numbers over time, and whether or not you believe they are wrongly weighted, they do make following trends very easy. This one is clear.
Rasmussen was one of the worse in 2010. They were off by 40% in one race. Their polls skewed Republican by about 4% over actual results, the second worst of any polling firm.
"The analysis covers all polls issued by firms in the final three weeks of the campaign, even if a company surveyed a particular state multiple times. In our view, this provides for a more comprehensive analysis than focusing solely on a firm’s final poll in each state, since polling has a tendency to converge in the final days of the campaign, perhaps because some firms fear that their results are an outlier and adjust them accordingly."
What possible relevance does a poll taken three weeks out have to do with anything?
Was an election held three weeks out to measure the polls?
Only the last one before the election can be measured so it's the only one that matters.
Obviously the NYT is manipulating numbers (unless you believe three weeks was selected for a reason other than cherry-picking numbers) to present a false picture while accusing Rasmussen of doing the same.
What the NYT did is speculation at best with no objective, verifiable proof of anything.
True enough, provided we are looking only at new polls and not mixing old polls with new.
True to a point. When looking at the average of polls, I wouldn't exactly put a couple polls now in with some polls from a month ago, nor would I say using the average method is all that good when you are taking into consideration polls before and after a major news story. However, I don't see an issue with going back the past week or two and taking the average of that point.
Going back and looking at the last five or six polls and taking the average method (even if its going back to two weeks) are bound to have a better chance of being accurate than just a single poll from a day or two ago.
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.
