Execellent article on polling

[nodoginnafight]

"The awful Rasmussen polls? Now who's being obtuse? The Rasmussen polls have been, pound-for-pound, the most reliable in recent years as measured against actual outcomes. Post-game outcomes. Objective fact! Empirical fact!"

Unfortunately the facts and emprical data contradict your position. Rassmussen has been one of the worst in terms of predicting outcomes.



A nonpartisan statistical approach to Rasmussen data

 

[mamooth]

Rasmussen was the least accurate of all the major pollsters in 2010.

Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com
---
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.
...
Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average.
---

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rasmussen was the least accurate of all the major pollsters in 2010.

Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com
---
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.
...
Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average.
---

I think Ras is still using that demographic model for its 2012 polls.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm not claiming anything of the sort, numbskull.

Yes you did. You said this:

The media and polls clearly showed a close race where it didnt exist.


The polls showed a 6 point race just before the actual vote. Walker won by 6.

If the polls showed it closer a month before that, how do you know it wasn't?

That's what you're claiming, so how do you know it.

Jerk off. I posted numerous articles from before the election all showing the election was neck and neck.
Pay attention or don't post.

You were supporting the claim that the POLLS were SKEWED to show the election was close when it wasn't. Prove that.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes you did. You said this:

The media and polls clearly showed a close race where it didnt exist.


The polls showed a 6 point race just before the actual vote. Walker won by 6.

If the polls showed it closer a month before that, how do you know it wasn't?

That's what you're claiming, so how do you know it.

Jerk off. I posted numerous articles from before the election all showing the election was neck and neck.
Pay attention or don't post.

You were supporting the claim that the POLLS were SKEWED to show the election was close when it wasn't. Prove that.

I did. The polls were reported as a dead heat. The race was not a dead heat, nor was it ever, as most people had made their minds up weeks if not months before.
What about this is difficult to understand?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Rasmussen was the least accurate of all the major pollsters in 2010.

Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com
---
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.
...
Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average.
---

That's the first time I've seen a state-by-state analysis of the various senatorial and congressional races of 2010 with regard to Rasmussen. Rasmussen was, however, among the top three most accurate in the nationwide, presidential race of 2008. Rasmussen's evaluations have always been among the most reliable with regard to commercial- or business-related polling, a function of the firm's particular interests. In political polling at the various state and local levels, however, this plus could very well be a serious impediment, errantly skewing the weight away from traditionally Democratic demographics, though the Times article suggests that it's a function of party bias. Hmm. Be willing to bet it simply goes to the demographics of business concerns, i.e., an incidental correlation.

I will have to give this a closer look. Thanks.

But in any event, Rasmussen is just one of the polls that I consider in my calculi, which for complex reasons that make my head hurt should be fine within an average of the various polls. As far as the key, swing states go, I may have to reevaluate the facility of including Rasmussen or adjust for what might be an undesirable bias.

But I also consider the historical precedents of economic and social trends.

I'm not worried at this point. Reagan and Bush Senior were behind Carter and Dukakis, respectively, at this point in the general polling too, and we know what happened then. (In fact, Reagan was even further behind than Romney before the debates.)

The debates in the current race are going to matter a lot. They will decide it. This talk about Romney walking around with a fork in him before the debates is nonsense. It's this aspect of the reporting that we're getting from certain news organizations among the MSM that is an attempt to suppress Republican enthusiasm and turnout. Call that conspiracy theorizing all you want. I've been around and know what that's all about. It's no mystery, and based on history it's way premature. Foolish. These whores either don't know that history or are counting on the fact that most of the members of their audiance don't know the history. Which is it?

This year's presidential race is weirder than most. There is, it seems to me, a certain social dynamic affecting the electorate more so now than ever before: on average the electorate has never been more stupid than it is today. That does not help the cause of the vastly superior moral and intellectual concerns of conservatism.

I don't know what's going to happen.

Romney has to nail the debates. He has to come out swinging, though be likable and passionate, to win in November.

In any event, it seems clear to me that Obama is currently ahead, both nationally and in the handful of key, swing states, though not as far ahead as some polls show, particularly those bandied about by NBC.

Finally, nodoginnafight, the info at the end of your link does not tell us what you think it does; mamooth's info might with regard to federal races at the state level. I reserve judgment on that for now.

But mamooth still doesn't know what the hell he's talking about when it comes to the nuts and bolts of election-poll calculi. I repeat: all good election polls do weight for demographics thought to be underrepresented in the sampling or raw data, based on past experience. mamooth's confounds its nature and dynamics. That's all. He's got the first part right, but makes the same mistake as others, albeit, conversely. His argument is a strawman, a mirage. His claims are factually wrong and naïve. His pretense of expertise, absurd.

Sorry, but that's true, as any honest person should be able to see by now. The veracity of my evaluation of his claims should be self-evident. I'm not an expert either, obviously. I wasn't even aware of the challenges to Rasmussen's state-level polling because I rely on an average that included Rasmussen based on its track record for commercial and political polling at the national level. An average. It's folly to rely on any one poll alone. But I know infinitely more about this than mamooth.

I'm not peddling any conspiracies or engaging in wishful thinking. I'm a realist. I just want to make sure that the Republicans reading this take heart. There's reason for concern, but it ain't over for us by any means. If Romney does well in the debates, he has an excellent chance, based on historical precedent, to win. He is well within striking distance to pull it off given our on-going economic troubles and a collasping foriegn policy. He has to convince the winning slice in the middle that he does understand its plight and can fix it.