Poll Reading 101

A job approval poll is not an election poll. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

The approval polls are taken during the election polls. My fucking God. They don't do one poll to see who people support for president and a completely different poll for job approval. They ask both questions (plus about 20 more) in the same fucking interview. So when your election poll is LV your approval poll will be.....GASP....LV too. Holy fucking shit. What a God damned revelation. Hopefully I have led you to a realization that would be easy pickin's for a fourth grade education.

Now dude....do you realize that even if we use the liberal hero Nate Silver's "I hate Rasmussen" cooked numbers that the difference in accuracy between Rasmussen at #20 and Field Poll at #1 is less than 1%? Now I want you to think about this for a second. Really let it cook inside that troubled little brain of yours. The difference according to even that liberal fuck is less than 1% where the standard margin of error is 3.5%-4%.

In other words this is day three that you have tenaciously argued a point that is completely statistically insignificant. And you wonder why I have resorted to calling you a fucking idiot.

Now let me explain to you, in detail, what is happening in your head. You heard somewhere that Rasmussen is biased toward the GOP. Without bothering to really try to understand the difference between LV polls, A polls, and RV polls; who uses them, why they use them, when they use them, why they use them when they do, etc you went with it because probably someone showed you a chart much like the one you tried to throw at me earlier. Your ignorance of the difference in polling methodology made you say "ahhhh....well look at that. It's true." Well that's exactly what the left was hoping you would conclude because early in the race, when everyone else is using RV polls, the Democratic candidate will have the appearance of a superior position.

It's is their hope that this will create a bandwagon effect so that when everyone shifts to LV polls and their data suddenly starts to come in line with Rasmussen and SurveyUSA (not the other way around), the Democratic candidate will have created enough of a lead from that bandwagon effect to overcome any bandwagon effect that results from the Republican candidate's resulting surge in the polls when everyone switches to LV. Now it's not the polling agencies themselves that are involved in this evil plot. They do RV polls early because it's cheaper, but that doesn't stop the liberal establishment from using that to their advantage and creating the illusion of a far stronger position than they really have.

In other words: "congratulations, you have just been played for a fool by the liberal establishment".

Now I want to reiterate something: this is day three that you have tenaciously argued a point that is completely statistically insignificant.. I am not going to continue to waste my time arguing a statistically insignificant point just so you can look for something.....anything....that will allow you to comfortably ignore one specific pollster because the liberal establishment claims they are biased and you lack the intelligence and objectivity to look deeper into the situation and realize the illusion created by the RV and LV difference.

So here's what I want you to do, chum. So far about the only thing you haven't argued is that Scott Rasmussen is bald and bald men are Republican sympathizers so Rasmussen is biased according to the owner's follicle deficiencies. But I am sure you will come up with something. So take some time today and really think hard about all this. Ask yourself: "do I really want to spend another day arguing a statistically insignificant point?", "do I really want to be seen spending a third day arguing a statistically insignificant point - do I want to proudly display that for all to see?"

If the answer is "no", then shut the fuck up and quit cherry picking one single poll that relates to one single element in the overall theme of the OP and throwing a tantrum over it. If the answer is "yes", then wrap up all your further arguments into a single post (however long it might be....feel free to indulge yourself) and I will discredit them all in one fell swoop.

I will say again: this is day three that you have argued a point that is completely statistically insignificant. I am not going to give you a fourth.
 
Blue Phantom - you're wasting your time on Carbs... He will spin like a top and play word games all day...

He knows about as much about polling as a 3rd grader does about Quantum Mechanics...
 
Blue Phantom - you're wasting your time on Carbs... He will spin like a top and play word games all day...

He knows about as much about polling as a 3rd grader does about Quantum Mechanics...

So I have gathered. I suppose; however, that there is a benefit to his illustrious parade of incomprehension. The next time some liberal tool starts crying about Rasmussen's "bias" hopefully a few people will understand the illusion created by the difference in methodology and can educate their liberal colleague accordingly. ;)
 
My main place for a poll is Rasmussen.

it shouldn't be. there are much better polls.

my own favorite is realclearpolitics average. it seems by averaging all of the top polls, we get a more accurate view.

and my own personal guru is nate silver... though i know at least one of my board friends takes issue with him.
 
Methodology and how the questions are phrased have always been the keys for me. Great thread Blue Phantom.

I've found it most interesting that many of the latest polls conducted by the liberal networks are based on adults not voters.
 
My main place for a poll is Rasmussen.

it shouldn't be. there are much better polls.

agreed. As I said in my OP I, personally, place more value in SurveyUSA and Quinnipiac. But that's not to say that Rasmussen should be ignored either.

my own favorite is realclearpolitics average. it seems by averaging all of the top polls, we get a more accurate view.

EXACTLY....you listening NYC? If you won't listen to me then at least listen to her.

and my own personal guru is nate silver... though i know at least one of my board friends takes issue with him.

That would be me. :lmao: It's not that I necessarily disregard Silver. I have two areas of concern with the guy:

1) I have caught him cooking the numbers several times. His pollster rankings are an absolutely perfect example. A) he penalizes pollsters for not being part of specific polling organizations (which have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not they are accurate), and B) he bases his rankings on PIE (pollster introduced error) but refuses (despite multiple requests by several agencies) to release his criteria between what is "unavoidable error" and what is "pollster error" that is avoidable; which is the primary criteria for his rankings. So I see some hypocrisy there. On one hand he hammers certain pollsters for refusing to join an organization that forces transparency, yet on the other hand he refuses to be transparent about his calculations. In the end, as I said, it's pretty much irrelevant because the difference between #1 and #30 is statistically insignificant but I see far more bias and avoidable error in his methods than a lot of the agencies he likes to hammer....and a lot of his colleagues seem to agree.

2) Let's be honest. The guy is overrated. People think he is the best because he has a website and writes for the NY Times and that gives him credibility. But think of Stephen Hawking. Everyone knows who he is, he gets all the press, he gets all the public adoration. But is he the top mind in theoretical physics? Hell no. Not even close. Leonard Susskind blows him out of the water. John Preskill forced him to eat his words and publicly concede defeat. Hawking gets the press and the recognition but as good as he is, there are far better that work in the background that no one knows about. So it is for Silver. He is good...frankly he's damned good, but he is not as great as everyone thinks he is and certainly not as great as he thinks he is. The danger is that when you get that much recognition you begin to take things for granted. You start to believe you can get away with "a little nip here and a little tuck there" and that's when things happen like Tiger Woods getting busted for his affairs, Richard Nixon losing the presidency because he thought he could never lose a fight, and Nate Silver getting called out by the pollster community for refusing to release his criteria for what is "unavoidable" and what is "pollster introduced". He won't release it because he knows if he does he will join Woods and Nixon in the "BUSTED Hall of Fame"
 
Last edited:
A job approval poll is not an election poll. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

The approval polls are taken during the election polls. My fucking God. They don't do one poll to see who people support for president and a completely different poll for job approval. They ask both questions (plus about 20 more) in the same fucking interview. So when your election poll is LV your approval poll will be.....GASP....LV too. Holy fucking shit. What a God damned revelation. Hopefully I have led you to a realization that would be easy pickin's for a fourth grade education.

Now dude....do you realize that even if we use the liberal hero Nate Silver's "I hate Rasmussen" cooked numbers that the difference in accuracy between Rasmussen at #20 and Field Poll at #1 is less than 1%? Now I want you to think about this for a second. Really let it cook inside that troubled little brain of yours. The difference according to even that liberal fuck is less than 1% where the standard margin of error is 3.5%-4%.

In other words this is day three that you have tenaciously argued a point that is completely statistically insignificant. And you wonder why I have resorted to calling you a fucking idiot.

Now let me explain to you, in detail, what is happening in your head. You heard somewhere that Rasmussen is biased toward the GOP. Without bothering to really try to understand the difference between LV polls, A polls, and RV polls; who uses them, why they use them, when they use them, why they use them when they do, etc you went with it because probably someone showed you a chart much like the one you tried to throw at me earlier. Your ignorance of the difference in polling methodology made you say "ahhhh....well look at that. It's true." Well that's exactly what the left was hoping you would conclude because early in the race, when everyone else is using RV polls, the Democratic candidate will have the appearance of a superior position.

It's is their hope that this will create a bandwagon effect so that when everyone shifts to LV polls and their data suddenly starts to come in line with Rasmussen and SurveyUSA (not the other way around), the Democratic candidate will have created enough of a lead from that bandwagon effect to overcome any bandwagon effect that results from the Republican candidate's resulting surge in the polls when everyone switches to LV. Now it's not the polling agencies themselves that are involved in this evil plot. They do RV polls early because it's cheaper, but that doesn't stop the liberal establishment from using that to their advantage and creating the illusion of a far stronger position than they really have.

In other words: "congratulations, you have just been played for a fool by the liberal establishment".

Now I want to reiterate something: this is day three that you have tenaciously argued a point that is completely statistically insignificant.. I am not going to continue to waste my time arguing a statistically insignificant point just so you can look for something.....anything....that will allow you to comfortably ignore one specific pollster because the liberal establishment claims they are biased and you lack the intelligence and objectivity to look deeper into the situation and realize the illusion created by the RV and LV difference.

So here's what I want you to do, chum. So far about the only thing you haven't argued is that Scott Rasmussen is bald and bald men are Republican sympathizers so Rasmussen is biased according to the owner's follicle deficiencies. But I am sure you will come up with something. So take some time today and really think hard about all this. Ask yourself: "do I really want to spend another day arguing a statistically insignificant point?", "do I really want to be seen spending a third day arguing a statistically insignificant point - do I want to proudly display that for all to see?"

If the answer is "no", then shut the fuck up and quit cherry picking one single poll that relates to one single element in the overall theme of the OP and throwing a tantrum over it. If the answer is "yes", then wrap up all your further arguments into a single post (however long it might be....feel free to indulge yourself) and I will discredit them all in one fell swoop.

I will say again: this is day three that you have argued a point that is completely statistically insignificant. I am not going to give you a fourth.

Seriously? In 2009 Rasmussen was doing Obama vs Romney polls in their approval poll?

Again the question is:

How did Rasmussen manage to give Bush above average approval ratings and then on a dime start giving Obama below average approval ratings,

if they are not intentionally biased in favor of the GOP?
 
agreed. As I said in my OP I, personally, place more value in SurveyUSA and Quinnipiac. But that's not to say that Rasmussen should be ignored either.

rasmussen's problem is less it's methodology than its questions. they seem, to me, at least, to be slanted to elicit a desired response. i think that's a problem with a polling organization. so it's not that ignore them. it's more that i take them with an incredibly large grain of salt.

EXACTLY....you listening NYC? If you won't listen to me then at least listen to her.

lol..

That would be me. :lmao: It's not that I necessarily disregard Silver. I have two areas of concern with the guy:

i know that would be you. lol..

1) I have caught him cooking the numbers several times. His pollster rankings are an absolutely perfect example. A) he penalizes pollsters for not being part of specific polling organizations (which have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not they are accurate), and B) he bases his rankings on PIE (pollster introduced error) but refuses (despite multiple requests by several agencies) to release his criteria between what is "unavoidable error" and what is "pollster error" that is avoidable; which is the primary criteria for his rankings. So I see some hypocrisy there. On one hand he hammers certain pollsters for refusing to join an organization that forces transparency, yet on the other hand he refuses to be transparent about his calculations. In the end, as I said, it's pretty much irrelevant because the difference between #1 and #30 is statistically insignificant but I see far more bias and avoidable error in his methods than a lot of the agencies he likes to hammer....and a lot of his colleagues seem to agree.

2) Let's be honest. The guy is overrated. People think he is the best because he has a website and writes for the NY Times and that gives him credibility. But think of Stephen Hawking. Everyone knows who he is, he gets all the press, he gets all the public adoration. But is he the top mind in theoretical physics? Hell no. Not even close. Leonard Susskind blows him out of the water. John Preskill forced him to eat his words and publicly concede defeat. Hawking gets the press and the recognition but as good as he is, there are far better that work in the background that no one knows about. So it is for Silver. He is good...frankly he's damned good, but he is not as great as everyone thinks he is and certainly not as great as he thinks he is. The danger is that when you get that much recognition you begin to take things for granted. You start to believe you can get away with "a little nip here and a little tuck there" and that's when things happen like Tiger Woods getting busted for his affairs, Richard Nixon losing the presidency because he thought he could never lose a fight, and Nate Silver getting called out by the pollster community for refusing to release his criteria for what is "unavoidable" and what is "pollster introduced". He won't release it because he knows if he does he will join Woods and Nixon in the "BUSTED Hall of Fame"

i understand you feel there are flaws in nate silver's methodology. and i know that you think that the manner in which he weights certain polling organizations doesn't sit well with you.

but the reality is that he was dead on in 2008 and 2010... so whatever issues he had in the past, he seems to have corrected them.

as forwhy he won't release his criteria... i disagree with you. i think he won't release his criteria because he doesn't want anyone else to be able to duplicate his results using his own methodology.

just my feelings on the subject.
 
Last edited:
Seriously? In 2009 Rasmussen was doing Obama vs Romney polls in their approval poll?

Ok jack ass...you have about three more hours before your time is up. Do you think that all agencies poll is presidential elections? They do various election polls all the time (not just Romney v. Obama) but gubernatorial polls, midterm polls, state legislature polls, etc. They are always polling for some race that is coming up whether it's federal, state, or local. The approval polls are included in those other interviews.


Again the question is:

How did Rasmussen manage to give Bush above average approval ratings and then on a dime start giving Obama below average approval ratings,

if they are not intentionally biased in favor of the GOP?

What is your magic number dude? How many times do I have to tell you the same fucking thing before it sinks into your cone of a head? I answered that question in posts #101, #98, and #96 most recently. Three fucking times on the front fucking page.

Is your name Gary?

emimage-custom_url-http:--i209.photobucket.com-albums-bb236-siphonlust-Retard6.jpg_0.jpg
 
rasmussen's problem is less it's methodology than its questions. they seem, to me, at least, to be slanted to elicit a desired response. i think that's a problem with a polling organization. so it's not that ignore them. it's more that i take them with an incredibly large grain of salt.

Currently I do not have a subscription to their service that will allow me to analyze that claim. I won't buy one until around August when the polls start to have some realistic value. As such I lack the availability to information that will allow me to support or oppose your position on that specific point.


i understand you feel there are flaws in nate silver's methodology. and i know that you think that the manner in which he weights certain polling organizations doesn't sit well with you.

but the reality is that he was dead on in 2008 and 2010... so whatever issues he had in the past, he seems to have corrected them.

Well I think the point is....and a point that is currently being completely lost on another poster whose name I won't mention but starts with NYC....that it's really not all that important statistically. It's a question of minutia that in the grand scheme isn't going to have a very dramatic effect when taken as a whole. Nate can do his numbers his way, I can do them my way, you can do them your way...at the end we will probably disagree by about 1/2 a percent and all of us will probably be within the statistical margin of error.

So when it comes down to it, it's not as much a statistical argument so much as it's a political one. Silver has a tendency to attack Rasmussen in his work for NYT and 538...but in reality he knows good and well that once everyone switches to LV it's statistically irrelevant...frankly it is even before that when you approach the polls as an average. This is basically what NYC is up to. There is not a shred of statistical basis for his argument, it's an argument of politics. The difference is that Silver, myself, and I would assume you are perfectly aware of it, and NYC is not.


as forwhy he won't release his criteria... i disagree with you. i think he won't release his criteria because he doesn't want anyone else to be able to duplicate his results using his own methodology.

just my feelings on the subject.

Well that's his argument, yes and in fairness there is some basis there because no agency will release their criteria for what makes a "likely voter" as opposed to an "unlikely voter". This is why there is discrepancy between SUSA and Rasmussen even though both use LV exclusively, even in the "off-season". According to their history of accuracy it seems apparent that SUSA's criteria is superior to Rasmussen's and SUSA is certainly not too eager to make their criteria common knowledge. BUT....they are dealing with results for which they are paid to accumulate. Silver's rankings are not a commodity for hire and it's Silver himself who chose to penalize pollsters for a "lack of transparency". Don't you see some irony in that?
 
Currently I do not have a subscription to their service that will allow me to analyze that claim. I won't buy one until around August when the polls start to have some realistic value. As such I lack the availability to information that will allow me to support or oppose your position on that specific point.

fair enough. :)

Well I think the point is....and a point that is currently being completely lost on another poster whose name I won't mention but starts with NYC....that it's really not all that important statistically. It's a question of minutia that in the grand scheme isn't going to have a very dramatic effect when taken as a whole. Nate can do his numbers his way, I can do them my way, you can do them your way...at the end we will probably disagree by about 1/2 a percent and all of us will probably be within the statistical margin of error.

well, if it's not significant, how do you explain nate silver's success?

true re us being within a statistical margin of error. but if you think about it, in a competitive market, those fractions matter... and you know there are polling companies that aren't on the mark at all. i was looking at RPC...and there are 6 obama v romney polls that are being averaged... half go one way in a significant amount... half go the other way in not as significant a number...

someone's simply off base. that said we all know that polls are nothing more than a snapshot and one individual poll doesn't mean much. it's the long term analysis of trends that become significant.

So when it comes down to it, it's not as much a statistical argument so much as it's a political one. Silver has a tendency to attack Rasmussen in his work for NYT and 538...but in reality he knows good and well that once everyone switches to LV it's statistically irrelevant...frankly it is even before that when you approach the polls as an average. This is basically what NYC is up to. There is not a shred of statistical basis for his argument, it's an argument of politics. The difference is that Silver, myself, and I would assume you are perfectly aware of it, and NYC is not.

well, i think silver is correct for attacking rasmussen just based on what i've observed. like i said, i do believe their questioning is flawed. have they improved? they may well have. we'll see how they do this go-round.

i think nate's point and NYC's point is that there IS politics involved that colors some of the polling. rasmussen seems to have, at times, questions that were one step away from push polling. again, that may no longer be true. so we'll see.

Well that's his argument, yes and in fairness there is some basis there because no agency will release their criteria for what makes a "likely voter" as opposed to an "unlikely voter". This is why there is discrepancy between SUSA and Rasmussen even though both use LV exclusively, even in the "off-season". According to their history of accuracy it seems apparent that SUSA's criteria is superior to Rasmussen's and SUSA is certainly not too eager to make their criteria common knowledge. BUT....they are dealing with results for which they are paid to accumulate. Silver's rankings are not a commodity for hire and it's Silver himself who chose to penalize pollsters for a "lack of transparency". Don't you see some irony in that?

i always thought 'likely voter' had to do with past voting patterns. i don't know if nate's modified that.

technically, nate isn't a pollster, but a statistician, imo. he analyzes other people's polls. so i think there's a different standard.
 
Seriously? In 2009 Rasmussen was doing Obama vs Romney polls in their approval poll?

Ok jack ass...you have about three more hours before your time is up. Do you think that all agencies poll is presidential elections? They do various election polls all the time (not just Romney v. Obama) but gubernatorial polls, midterm polls, state legislature polls, etc. They are always polling for some race that is coming up whether it's federal, state, or local. The approval polls are included in those other interviews.


Again the question is:

How did Rasmussen manage to give Bush above average approval ratings and then on a dime start giving Obama below average approval ratings,

if they are not intentionally biased in favor of the GOP?

What is your magic number dude? How many times do I have to tell you the same fucking thing before it sinks into your cone of a head? I answered that question in posts #101, #98, and #96 most recently. Three fucking times on the front fucking page.

Is your name Gary?

http://www.goddamnlazybastards.com/sites/default/files/emimage-custom_url-http:--i209.photobucket.com-albums-bb236-siphonlust-Retard6.jpg_0.jpg[/IM[/QUOTE]

You admit that Rasmussen's polls were above average for Bush and below average for Obama?

That is a yes or a no.
 
My main place for a poll is Rasmussen.

it shouldn't be. there are much better polls.

agreed. As I said in my OP I, personally, place more value in SurveyUSA and Quinnipiac. But that's not to say that Rasmussen should be ignored either.

my own favorite is realclearpolitics average. it seems by averaging all of the top polls, we get a more accurate view.

EXACTLY....you listening NYC? If you won't listen to me then at least listen to her.

and my own personal guru is nate silver... though i know at least one of my board friends takes issue with him.

That would be me. :lmao: It's not that I necessarily disregard Silver. I have two areas of concern with the guy:

1) I have caught him cooking the numbers several times. His pollster rankings are an absolutely perfect example. A) he penalizes pollsters for not being part of specific polling organizations (which have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not they are accurate), and B) he bases his rankings on PIE (pollster introduced error) but refuses (despite multiple requests by several agencies) to release his criteria between what is "unavoidable error" and what is "pollster error" that is avoidable; which is the primary criteria for his rankings. So I see some hypocrisy there. On one hand he hammers certain pollsters for refusing to join an organization that forces transparency, yet on the other hand he refuses to be transparent about his calculations. In the end, as I said, it's pretty much irrelevant because the difference between #1 and #30 is statistically insignificant but I see far more bias and avoidable error in his methods than a lot of the agencies he likes to hammer....and a lot of his colleagues seem to agree.

2) Let's be honest. The guy is overrated. People think he is the best because he has a website and writes for the NY Times and that gives him credibility. But think of Stephen Hawking. Everyone knows who he is, he gets all the press, he gets all the public adoration. But is he the top mind in theoretical physics? Hell no. Not even close. Leonard Susskind blows him out of the water. John Preskill forced him to eat his words and publicly concede defeat. Hawking gets the press and the recognition but as good as he is, there are far better that work in the background that no one knows about. So it is for Silver. He is good...frankly he's damned good, but he is not as great as everyone thinks he is and certainly not as great as he thinks he is. The danger is that when you get that much recognition you begin to take things for granted. You start to believe you can get away with "a little nip here and a little tuck there" and that's when things happen like Tiger Woods getting busted for his affairs, Richard Nixon losing the presidency because he thought he could never lose a fight, and Nate Silver getting called out by the pollster community for refusing to release his criteria for what is "unavoidable" and what is "pollster introduced". He won't release it because he knows if he does he will join Woods and Nixon in the "BUSTED Hall of Fame"

Prove he cooked the numbers, with something coherent and comprehensible.
 
My main place for a poll is Rasmussen.

it shouldn't be. there are much better polls.

my own favorite is realclearpolitics average. it seems by averaging all of the top polls, we get a more accurate view.

and my own personal guru is nate silver... though i know at least one of my board friends takes issue with him.

Silver's use of trends turned out to be the most accurate of the three sites that combine polls in 2008.
 
[

It's is their hope that this will create a bandwagon effect so that when everyone shifts to LV polls and their data suddenly starts to come in line with Rasmussen and SurveyUSA (not the other way around), the Democratic candidate will have created enough of a lead from that bandwagon effect to overcome any bandwagon effect that results from the Republican candidate's resulting surge in the polls when everyone switches to LV. Now it's not the polling agencies themselves that are involved in this evil plot. They do RV polls early because it's cheaper, but that doesn't stop the liberal establishment from using that to their advantage and creating the illusion of a far stronger position than they really have.

In other words: "congratulations, you have just been played for a fool by the liberal establishment".

.

The claim above is that LV polls were used to create the impression of an Obama lead early in the race.

THAT IS UNSUPPORTED BY THE FACTS. IT IS SIMPLY A LIE.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - General Election: McCain vs. Obama

There is no meaningful bias towards Obama in the RV polls, vs. the LV polls.

All you conservatives in this thread who are fawning over BP because he's telling you what you want to hear really need to wake up and use your heads.
 
well, if it's not significant, how do you explain nate silver's success?

Well the same way I would explain mine. My spreadsheet over the last several elections has come up with pretty much the same result. The methods differ; he calculates it differently than I do and run it through a far greater number of statistical turnstiles, but one of the big arguments against Silver is that he "makes three left turns to make a right". In other words, and this is just my opinion, he's a businessman who is a master of dazzling people with bullshit. People are impressed when you talk about "the r correlation" and "after running a regression analysis", blah, blah, blah. In the end if you just average out the most recent polls and compare them to Silver's calculations, Silver's will be more accurate...by about 1/10th of a percent. Silver hasn't done anything that Pollster.com com or I haven't done using Excel. It's just that Silver comes up with these grand mathematical schemes that are repetition. In other words he has a habit of saying "the square root of two squared" instead of just "two". Well the former sounds a lot more impressive and so he gets a lot more attention. :lol:

true re us being within a statistical margin of error. but if you think about it, in a competitive market, those fractions matter... and you know there are polling companies that aren't on the mark at all. i was looking at RPC...and there are 6 obama v romney polls that are being averaged... half go one way in a significant amount... half go the other way in not as significant a number...

someone's simply off base. that said we all know that polls are nothing more than a snapshot and one individual poll doesn't mean much. it's the long term analysis of trends that become significant.

Precisely!!!! Bravo!!! On the nosey!!!! Let the campaign managers get all worked up in a froth over a 1/10th of a point in a margin of error of 4. They can't make any more statistical sense of that than we can, but at least they get paid to look like they are frothing over it.

Now in regard to the current RCP average....I agree...the polls seem pretty split. Half show a pretty good Romney lean and the other half show a pretty strong Obama lean. But this comes back to the OP where I talked about timing. Right now, with Santorum just dropping out of the race, things have gotten thrown up into the air like a game of boggle and they haven't settled down yet. Agencies that use a rolling average will be slower to respond, LV pollsters will show a quicker reaction than RV pollsters. Right now it's just in turmoil and things have yet to settle down. We really wont start to get a good grasp on things for another month yet maybe once the transition has mellowed out.


well, i think silver is correct for attacking rasmussen just based on what i've observed. like i said, i do believe their questioning is flawed. have they improved? they may well have. we'll see how they do this go-round.

As I said before I will have enough information to address that point with you in August. All I can say now is that your opinion is noted and filed for future reference. ;)


i think nate's point and NYC's point is that there IS politics involved that colors some of the polling. rasmussen seems to have, at times, questions that were one step away from push polling. again, that may no longer be true. so we'll see.

Honestly I don't think any respectable polling agency intentionally biases their data. The key word there of course is "respectable" because certainly there are those who will do that. What I do see is talking heads on each side that attempt to twist the data to create that bandwagon effect I have referred to. It's undeniable that LV data is more accurate..if not then we would not see everyone switch to that as the election nears. It's also undeniable that GOP candidates perform better in LV polls, but not because the poll is biased, but because GOP voters are more active than Democratic voters. That is also well documented. So right now while almost everyone is running RV polls the illusion is that Rasmussen and SUSA are giving an unfair advantage to the GOP. In reality they are just running a more accurate LV poll and when everyone switches to LV methodology in September their data will begin to mimic Rasmussen and SUSA.


i always thought 'likely voter' had to do with past voting patterns. i don't know if nate's modified that.

It includes that. I got into it pretty deeply in post #68.

technically, nate isn't a pollster, but a statistician, imo. he analyzes other people's polls. so i think there's a different standard.

That's absolutely correct...that also means he is not subject to the same standards of non-partisanship that respectable pollsters are subject to. He is an "interpreter of polls" on the payroll of the New York Times.....you know as well as I do that data is what you make of it. As he has a financial benefit in interpreting that data according to a specific agenda, isn't it reasonable and appropriate to approach his interpretation with a healthy skepticism?
 
You admit that Rasmussen's polls were above average for Bush and below average for Obama?

That is a yes or a no.



I see I am going to have to go over this a FOURTH fucking time for our friend Corky. Yes but not because the Rasmussen poll was biased toward the GOP. It's because Rasmussen and SUSA run LV polls 365 days a year every year while everyone else runs RV polls until September and October of election years. Since Republicans vote at a higher rate than Democrats then RV polls will naturally favor the Democratic candidate and bring the majority of them out of line with those who run LV polls consistently. When they all shift to LV polls they all suddenly start saying very similar things.


That's the last time I am telling you. The next time you ask the same question I already answered four times, just come back to this post.
 
The claim above is that LV polls were used to create the impression of an Obama lead early in the race.

Stop stop stop stop stop....stop right fucking there. You don't even have a fucking understanding of what "the argument" is. With that statement you have yet again displayed your total inability to comprehend anything but 2+2=4....or is it 3?

RV polls favor the Democrat douchebag....RV...it would be RV that were used to create the impression of an early Obama lead by the liberals, not the pollsters themselves.

THREE FUCKING DAYS AND YOU STILL CAN'T FIGURE OUT THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RV AND LV!!!!

Your time is up, Corky.
 
Last edited:
THAT IS UNSUPPORTED BY THE FACTS. IT IS SIMPLY A LIE.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - General Election: McCain vs. Obama

There is no meaningful bias towards Obama in the RV polls, vs. the LV polls.

All you conservatives in this thread who are fawning over BP because he's telling you what you want to hear really need to wake up and use your heads.

OH really!?!?!?!? Have a look at the dates and the graph dip shit. On your own fucking link McCain took the lead on 9/7/2008 and held it through 9/16/2008. Now look at the fucking DATES on the polls. Notice how right around that time they suddenly start switching from RV to LV...notice also that Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy and the market crashed on 9/15/2008 the day before Obama re-took the lead.

So let's engage in some reasonable speculation. Right around September 7th polling agencies started to shift from RV to LV...suddenly McCain took the lead. Holy fucking shit! How did that happen? Then the market crashed and Obama took it back. How fucking astonishing that before the 7th they are mostly RV polls and right on that very date the majority starts to become LV polls. What an incredible fucking coincidence!!!!

Now that's it....your time is up and I even gave you a bonus answer with this post. Now piss off until you can make a decent argument. Believe me this is an act of mercy....I am saving my time and what remains of your dignity.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top