57% of Americans Support a Public Option

[nodoginnafight]

Plymco_Pilgrim, here you go. Only cause you asked though.

Rasmussen and Pew tied.

Most Accurate Pollsters in 2008 election | Political Vindication

Anyone other than NYcarbineer surprised? Anyone?

Only if you leave out the polls that beat them - like ipsos/mcclatchy, CNN, etc ....

Get the WHOLE story
RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 National Head-to-Head Polls

Rassmusen predicted a spread of 6.0, the following pollsters were more accurate in predicting the eventual 7.3 spread: IDB/TIPP, Fox news, NBC News/Wall Street Journal, Ipsos McClatchy, CNN Opinion Research, and Gallup Traditional.

In addition Ipsos McClatchy and Cnn Opinion Research were also more accurate in predicting the actual percentages.

Then Rassmussen could have finished no better than ninth - the numbers are there - just take a peek.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Plymco_Pilgrim, here you go. Only cause you asked though.

Rasmussen and Pew tied.

Most Accurate Pollsters in 2008 election | Political Vindication

Anyone other than NYcarbineer surprised? Anyone?

You need to stop believing everything the wingnut propaganda machine tells you.

The study you cited used an ESTIMATED 6.15 margin of victory for Barack Obama.

http://www.fordham.edu/images/acade...ccuracy in the 2008 presidential election.pdf


Right there plain as day in the 1st paragraph. The ACTUAL margin of victory for Obama was 7.3 points.

The study is fatally flawed, and WRONG. Again, stop believing everything the wingnuts tell you.

Ohhhh THAT is rich!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

1) It is relevant as you are claiming a Poll to be the Absolute truth on people's opinions about a Public Option that is intended by its implimenters to become Socialized Single Payer Health care.

2) Who was it, i dont doubt it wasn't rasmussen but you appear to know who it was and i'd like to know too.


P.S. Can someone give me a for even commenting in this crazy thread

I made no such claim.

You were posting in a way that created that appearance to me, my bad if you dont think it is an accurate representation of people's opinion on the public option.

I'm not going after other people because I already showed you polls that contradict this poll. I dont think that polls, by themselves, are accurate indicators of anything.

My only claim was that the liberal/conservative/moderate breakdown of the participants was reasonably accurate, and I backed it up with what I believed was evidence.

I also challenged anyone to dispute the representative accuracy of that breakdown, and no one will, except to deflect. You are welcome to try yourself if you don't think they're representative.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So let's use the REAL numbers - K?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Plymco_Pilgrim, here you go. Only cause you asked though.

Rasmussen and Pew tied.

Most Accurate Pollsters in 2008 election | Political Vindication

Anyone other than NYcarbineer surprised? Anyone?

You need to stop believing everything the wingnut propaganda machine tells you.

The study you cited used an ESTIMATED 6.15 margin of victory for Barack Obama.

http://www.fordham.edu/images/acade...ccuracy in the 2008 presidential election.pdf


Right there plain as day in the 1st paragraph. The ACTUAL margin of victory for Obama was 7.3 points.

The study is fatally flawed, and WRONG. Again, stop believing everything the wingnuts tell you.

Ohhhh THAT is rich!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I'll bet you a donut not a single rightie on this forum will acknowledge that they have been WRONG for a year. This is an etched in stone Rightwing Myth.

 

[JakeStarkey]

To my fellow GOP brethren and sistren on the far satellite loony wings to the right, right, right.

Either we come up with a solid leader with a moderate voice as well as solid conservative platform, or we are going to get murdered in next year's elections.

Understand this, doofi of the right ~ health insurance reform is going to happen, whether you want it or not. This was decided last fall. Not having reform is not an option. As long as you hold out, you empower BHO and the Democratic Party.

 

[saveliberty]

Plymco_Pilgrim, here you go. Only cause you asked though.

Rasmussen and Pew tied.

Most Accurate Pollsters in 2008 election | Political Vindication

Anyone other than NYcarbineer surprised? Anyone?

You need to stop believing everything the wingnut propaganda machine tells you.

The study you cited used an ESTIMATED 6.15 margin of victory for Barack Obama.

http://www.fordham.edu/images/acade...ccuracy in the 2008 presidential election.pdf

Right there plain as day in the 1st paragraph. The ACTUAL margin of victory for Obama was 7.3 points.

The study is fatally flawed, and WRONG. Again, stop believing everything the wingnuts tell you.

Since you quoted the Fordham report, how do explain this? "Pre-election projections for two organizations’ final polls—Rasmussen and Pew—were perfectly in agreement with the actual election result ." You doing better than perfect?

 

[saveliberty]

Plymco_Pilgrim, here you go. Only cause you asked though.

Rasmussen and Pew tied.

Most Accurate Pollsters in 2008 election | Political Vindication

Anyone other than NYcarbineer surprised? Anyone?

Only if you leave out the polls that beat them - like ipsos/mcclatchy, CNN, etc ....

Get the WHOLE story
RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 National Head-to-Head Polls

Rassmusen predicted a spread of 6.0, the following pollsters were more accurate in predicting the eventual 7.3 spread: IDB/TIPP, Fox news, NBC News/Wall Street Journal, Ipsos McClatchy, CNN Opinion Research, and Gallup Traditional.

In addition Ipsos McClatchy and Cnn Opinion Research were also more accurate in predicting the actual percentages.

Here's the thing. If you use your measuring stick, Fox News is tied for number one. Also, the whole point of me looking up the most accurate, was the failure of NYcarbineer to show us one. Then, BEFORE he even checks the source, he is ready to call it false. What does that tell you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Plymco_Pilgrim, here you go. Only cause you asked though.

Rasmussen and Pew tied.

Most Accurate Pollsters in 2008 election | Political Vindication

Anyone other than NYcarbineer surprised? Anyone?

Only if you leave out the polls that beat them - like ipsos/mcclatchy, CNN, etc ....

Get the WHOLE story
RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 National Head-to-Head Polls

Rassmusen predicted a spread of 6.0, the following pollsters were more accurate in predicting the eventual 7.3 spread: IDB/TIPP, Fox news, NBC News/Wall Street Journal, Ipsos McClatchy, CNN Opinion Research, and Gallup Traditional.

In addition Ipsos McClatchy and Cnn Opinion Research were also more accurate in predicting the actual percentages.

Here's the thing. If you use your measuring stick, Fox News is tied for number one. Also, the whole point of me looking up the most accurate, was the failure of NYcarbineer to show us one. Then, BEFORE he even checks the source, he is ready to call it false. What does that tell you?

I already knew the source was wrong. In fact I posted here about it yesterday.

What does that tell you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Plymco_Pilgrim, here you go. Only cause you asked though.

Rasmussen and Pew tied.

Most Accurate Pollsters in 2008 election | Political Vindication

Anyone other than NYcarbineer surprised? Anyone?

You need to stop believing everything the wingnut propaganda machine tells you.

The study you cited used an ESTIMATED 6.15 margin of victory for Barack Obama.

http://www.fordham.edu/images/acade...ccuracy in the 2008 presidential election.pdf

Right there plain as day in the 1st paragraph. The ACTUAL margin of victory for Obama was 7.3 points.

The study is fatally flawed, and WRONG. Again, stop believing everything the wingnuts tell you.

Since you quoted the Fordham report, how do explain this? "Pre-election projections for two organizations’ final polls—Rasmussen and Pew—were perfectly in agreement with the actual election result ." You doing better than perfect?

He's calling the estimate the election result. Since Rasmussen and Pew were both at 6 pts and the ACTUAL election was 7.3 pts, they can't possibly have been right. How hard is that for you to understand? Are you one more tedious rightwinger who thinks if he doesn't admit he was wrong he won't BE wrong?

See, I knew this wouldn't cost me a donut.

What's funnier yet, in a week or two, or next month, or next year, everyone here will see more rightwingers posting that Rasmussen had the most accurate final poll in the 2008 election. You can't kill rightwing myths.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Anyone know what news outlet was said to have the most balanced coverage of the 2008 election?

Fox news.

You are right and i find that totally odd (that being that fox was judged the most fair during the elections). Especially considering the accepted opinion about fox news and in light of Obama's recent domestic war against that station.



http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf

 

[saveliberty]

"Pre-election projections for two organizations’ final polls—Rasmussen and Pew—were perfectly in agreement with the actual election result ." Doesn't use the word estimate does it?

Did you ever consider they were measuring the poll's range of deviation and other measures relating to accuracy? Oh, no, we just look at raw data and jump to a conclusion. Did you think they had the other measures there for decoration?

If you say Obama will win with a 7% margin plus or minus 4% and I say 6% with a range of 2%, my poll is more accurate. Not quite as close to the actual number, but very close with more precise polling. In polling, they count that as accuracy.

 

[Maple]

To my fellow GOP brethren and sistren on the far satellite loony wings to the right, right, right.

Either we come up with a solid leader with a moderate voice as well as solid conservative platform, or we are going to get murdered in next year's elections.

Understand this, doofi of the right ~ health insurance reform is going to happen, whether you want it or not. This was decided last fall. Not having reform is not an option.

I know of no one that is not for reform Jake, it's just how we get there:

Why not-
1. Tort reform
2. Health savings plans.
3. Opening up competition.
4. Group small business.
5. High deductible catastrophic plans.
6. Pass laws that make insurance portable and making it unlawful to exempt pre-existing conditions.

All of this can be done without spending another 1 trillion dollars because it can be done through the legislative process.

All to start with instead of a massive takeover by a government that has bankrupted Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, The Postal Service, Freddie and Fannie.

BTW- we don't need any moderates, we need CONSERVATIVES.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Pre-election projections for two organizations’ final polls—Rasmussen and Pew—were perfectly in agreement with the actual election result ." Doesn't use the word estimate does it?

Did you ever consider they were measuring the poll's range of deviation and other measures relating to accuracy? Oh, no, we just look at raw data and jump to a conclusion. Did you think they had the other measures there for decoration?

If you say Obama will win with a 7% margin plus or minus 4% and I say 6% with a range of 2%, my poll is more accurate. Not quite as close to the actual number, but very close with more precise polling. In polling, they count that as accuracy.

The guy used the wrong number, period. But thanks for proving my point about rightwingers.

Maybe you should back and read the .pdf, for starters.

 

[Oldandtired]

Soooo.....ONE government plan will create the necessary competition....but opening state lines and allowing 1300 companies to compete will not.

And the likes of Schumer, Pelosi and Reid seem to believe the American people are naive enough to believe this.

That does not bother you? IT SHOULD!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Soooo.....ONE government plan will create the necessary competition....but opening state lines and allowing 1300 companies to compete will not.

And the likes of Schumer, Pelosi and Reid seem to believe the American people are naive enough to believe this.

That does not bother you? IT SHOULD!

Getting rid of the anti-trust exemption is now on the table.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's the multi-poll average of party ID

 

[saveliberty]

"Pre-election projections for two organizations’ final polls—Rasmussen and Pew—were perfectly in agreement with the actual election result ." Doesn't use the word estimate does it?

Did you ever consider they were measuring the poll's range of deviation and other measures relating to accuracy? Oh, no, we just look at raw data and jump to a conclusion. Did you think they had the other measures there for decoration?

If you say Obama will win with a 7% margin plus or minus 4% and I say 6% with a range of 2%, my poll is more accurate. Not quite as close to the actual number, but very close with more precise polling. In polling, they count that as accuracy.

The guy used the wrong number, period. But thanks for proving my point about rightwingers.

Maybe you should back and read the .pdf, for starters.

I did my homework. I also understand what the chart was trying to tell us. I even explained it to you. Your lack of understanding of what poll accuracy means does not make you correct. At this point I'm going to stop arguing with an uninformed person.

Summary: Rasmussen and Pew were the most accurate.

 

[saveliberty]

Here's the multi-poll average of party ID

What is that supposed to tell us? What polls were "averaged"? The time line is pretty useless too. The biggest problem I see is what people actually did in the Presidential election. The gap is less than 8% in reality. NYcarbineer, your the last one who should use a graph or chart.

 

[nodoginnafight]

"Pre-election projections for two organizations’ final polls—Rasmussen and Pew—were perfectly in agreement with the actual election result ." Doesn't use the word estimate does it?

Did you ever consider they were measuring the poll's range of deviation and other measures relating to accuracy? Oh, no, we just look at raw data and jump to a conclusion. Did you think they had the other measures there for decoration?

If you say Obama will win with a 7% margin plus or minus 4% and I say 6% with a range of 2%, my poll is more accurate. Not quite as close to the actual number, but very close with more precise polling. In polling, they count that as accuracy.

The guy used the wrong number, period. But thanks for proving my point about rightwingers.

Maybe you should back and read the .pdf, for starters.

I did my homework. I also understand what the chart was trying to tell us. I even explained it to you. Your lack of understanding of what poll accuracy means does not make you correct. At this point I'm going to stop arguing with an uninformed person.

Summary: Rasmussen and Pew were the most accurate.

Only if you leave out the ones that neat them.
Sorry, saveliberty - I enjoy our respectful disagreements and even some agreement so I hope I don't sabotage that by just calling it flat out.
In the national - Rassmussen missed the spread by more than many pollsters and they missed actual percentages by more than CNN and Ipsos McClatchy.

Looking at the state polls shows a consistent and persistent over-reprentation of McCain support and under-representation of Obama support. I've looked myself - it was a little time consuming but the "lean" is unmistakable.