Rasmussen Is a Neo-Con Tool

[amrchaos]

No doubt... it is a tricky ploy by the DEMs... but even if they do this, it will bite them even harder in 2012.. for the government will not grow the economy or make it better in the long run... business must do that... and to keep funding their government expansion, they have to tax all of us and business that much more

1) The Republicans cannot 'delay' the recovery
2) Recovery will happen without government. Always has and always will. It is just to what extent and how much the government hinders the process with excessive taxation...
3) It is funny how any president or party will try and take credit for many economic successes... stating how their policies were responsible.. yet you never see them proclaim the influence of their policies when things go the other way

In the end result, targeted tax cuts are the exact same thing as Stimulus spending.

In one scenario, the government gives money to people through giving them breaks on their taxes. In the other they give money to people through giving them the money AFTER taxes.

Since the Republicans have been claiming tax cuts spur the economy for years now, logically you can't deny that stimulus spending does the same thing.

I mean, you can deny it, but it would be illogical to do so.

The problem is with tax increases and increased government spending toward "stimulus" is less effective, because of increased government red tape and bureaucracy... when the populous has more of their earnings in their own hands to invest and spend, it is better for the economy than when the government makes the spending decisions

Stimulus spending and government expansion only empowers and stimulates the government, not the private economy... it weakens the individual for the benefit of the government

I keep hearing that taxes increased, but the only thing in which taxes increased on was Tobacco products.


Can you name the other tax increases?

 

[Vast LWC]

Seems I remember during the election that the Rasmussen poll was the darling of the left when they predicting a win for OL'BO. Rasmussen was spot on then.

Now the Rasmussen is saying BO's numbers are dropping. They were using the exact same techniques during the election as they are now. The left now says they are biased. Hmmmm Funny how that works. Also funny what a difference a year makes doncha know???

Everyone was predicted an Obama win.

Rasmussen has NEVER been favored by the left.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

These Polls are all biased "Outlier" Polls. Unless they bow and worship the Hopey Changey One. Those Polls are the only good kind of Polls according to the warped Hopey Changey boot lickers. What a scam.

 

[Oldandtired]

Seems I remember during the election that the Rasmussen poll was the darling of the left when they predicting a win for OL'BO. Rasmussen was spot on then.

Now the Rasmussen is saying BO's numbers are dropping. They were using the exact same techniques during the election as they are now. The left now says they are biased. Hmmmm Funny how that works. Also funny what a difference a year makes doncha know???

Everyone was predicted an Obama win.

Rasmussen has NEVER been favored by the left.

Has Rasmussen been proven to cook the numbers?
Do you not think that if they did, they would be exposed?

 

[Vast LWC]

The problem is with tax increases and increased government spending toward "stimulus" is less effective, because of increased government red tape and bureaucracy... when the populous has more of their earnings in their own hands to invest and spend, it is better for the economy than when the government makes the spending decisions

Stimulus spending and government expansion only empowers and stimulates the government, not the private economy... it weakens the individual for the benefit of the government

While I would agree that government red tape does decrease some of the efficiency of the stimulus, this effect is offset by the fact that the government can specify specific useful targets designed to stimulate growth.

If you simply give tax cuts, there's no way to be sure that the recipients will use the money the way you want them to.

For instance, the Bush administration gave tax cuts to the Oil Industry, nominally to spur re-investment in infrastructure and R&D. Instead, the Oil Industry mainly used the money to add to stockholder dividends.

 

[Vast LWC]

Has Rasmussen been proven to cook the numbers?
Do you not think that if they did, they would be exposed?

As has been discussed, Rasmussen uses different methodology than all the other polling agencies, and, especially lately, achieves significantly different results from all the other agencies.

In 2008 and before, the difference was there, but not quite as obvious. This past year, however, Rasmussen has been beyond the margin of error a majority of the time.

But the issue is not really Rasmussen skewing his numbers. If he's used as a right-hand out-lier and averaged in with the rest, then it's not really that big of a deal, after all, there are one or two left-ish biased out-lier polls that are out there.

The problem is when media outlets use ONLY Rasmussen, or when posters here on the boards use only Rasmussen, and then claim that he's the "most trustworthy", which is clearly untrue.

 

[Oldandtired]

The problem is with tax increases and increased government spending toward "stimulus" is less effective, because of increased government red tape and bureaucracy... when the populous has more of their earnings in their own hands to invest and spend, it is better for the economy than when the government makes the spending decisions

Stimulus spending and government expansion only empowers and stimulates the government, not the private economy... it weakens the individual for the benefit of the government

While I would agree that government red tape does decrease some of the efficiency of the stimulus, this effect is offset by the fact that the government can specify specific useful targets designed to stimulate growth.

If you simply give tax cuts, there's no way to be sure that the recipients will use the money the way you want them to.

For instance, the Bush administration gave tax cuts to the Oil Industry, nominally to spur re-investment in infrastructure and R&D. Instead, the Oil Industry mainly used the money to add to stockholder dividends.

Tax cuts and stimulus have the exact same purpose...and Reagan, Bush and Obama...not to mention all memebrs of congress...decided the American People on the most part are too naive to realize it.

Neither kick off or stimulate economic growth. Instead, they are designed to alleviate the pain.

To give a company money to manufacture more is useless if people will not be buying.
To take less tax money from a company so they can invest it into increasing manufacturing is useless if people will not be buying.

For anyone to think that a stimulus creates jobs, then they are clueless baout basic economics in a free trade country.

For anyone to think that a tax cut will stimulate economic growth, they too are clueless about economics.

Pain alleviation...and pandering to the voter base is wha6t it is all about.

The only real difference between the two? Tax cuts cost us nothing...Stimulus costs us billions a day in interest.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yea like this current administration doesn't cook the books. How bout all those "Stimulus" dollars going to zip codes that don't exist? How bout all those "Saved" jobs? Hopey Changeys really should watch that hypocrisy stuff. Rasmussen is not even in the same league as this administration when it comes to cooking the books. Yikes!

 

[Oldandtired]

Has Rasmussen been proven to cook the numbers?
Do you not think that if they did, they would be exposed?

As has been discussed, Rasmussen uses different methodology than all the other polling agencies, and, especially lately, achieves significantly different results from all the other agencies.

In 2008 and before, the difference was there, but not quite as obvious. This past year, however, Rasmussen has been beyond the margin of error a majority of the time.

But the issue is not really Rasmussen skewing his numbers. If he's used as a right-hand out-lier and averaged in with the rest, then it's not really that big of a deal, after all, there are one or two left-ish biased out-lier polls that are out there.

The problem is when media outlets use ONLY Rasmussen, or when posters here on the boards use only Rasmussen, and then claim that he's the "most trustworthy", which is clearly untrue.

I do not look at the name of the poll...I look at the demographics polled. You will find the dempographics at the bottom of the poll.

Rasmussen demograpohics are virtually even across the board of "likely voters" in the case of voters....usually 40% rep...40% dem....20% ind.

Other polls I have seen such as the NY Times poll have as much as 60% dem....20% rep....20% independant.

Read the fine print....you will see why there is such a disparity between the polls.

 

[Vast LWC]

Yea like this current administration doesn't cook the books. How bout all those "Stimulus" dollars going to zip codes that don't exist? How bout all those "Saved" jobs? Hopey Changeys really should watch that hypocrisy stuff. Rasmussen is not even in the same league as this administration when it comes to cooking the books. Yikes!

Oh, you mean those "zip codes that don't exist" that you provided no proof of? Those zip codes?

That's called a "Straw Man" argument.

And yeah, how about those saved jobs? There are quite a lot of them.

 

[Vast LWC]

I do not look at the name of the poll...I look at the demographics polled. You will find the dempographics at the bottom of the poll.

Rasmussen demograpohics are virtually even across the board of "likely voters" in the case of voters....usually 40% rep...40% dem....20% ind.

Other polls I have seen such as the NY Times poll have as much as 60% dem....20% rep....20% independant.

Read the fine print....you will see why there is such a disparity between the polls.

Ah, but there we come to the crux of the problem.

During the last election cycle, there was a large shift in party affiliation from Republican to Democrat to the point where Democrats outnumbered Republicans. As you can see from this chart:

Now, whether these people will still be voting Democratic or Republican is a different story, but the fact remains that if Rasmussen is using EQUAL numbers of registered Republicans and registered Democrats, then his results will be skewed.

Since you indicate that he uses "40% rep...40% dem....20% ind", you answer your own question.

 

[Oldandtired]

I do not look at the name of the poll...I look at the demographics polled. You will find the dempographics at the bottom of the poll.

Rasmussen demograpohics are virtually even across the board of "likely voters" in the case of voters....usually 40% rep...40% dem....20% ind.

Other polls I have seen such as the NY Times poll have as much as 60% dem....20% rep....20% independant.

Read the fine print....you will see why there is such a disparity between the polls.

Ah, but there we come to the crux of the problem.

During the last election cycle, there was a large shift in party affiliation from Republican to Democrat to the point where Democrats outnumbered Republicans. As you can see from this chart:

Now, whether these people will still be voting Democratic or Republican is a different story, but the fact remains that if Rasmussen is using EQUAL numbers of registered Republicans and registered Democrats, then his results will be skewed.

Since you indicate that he uses "40% rep...40% dem....20% ind", you answer your own question.

Interesting evaluation...and one that I would be nothing but a hack if I responded without looking ito it.
On the outside...you may have made an excellent point.
On the inside...you may have as well....just need time to analyze.

 

[Claudette]

Seems I remember during the election that the Rasmussen poll was the darling of the left when they predicting a win for OL'BO. Rasmussen was spot on then.

Now the Rasmussen is saying BO's numbers are dropping. They were using the exact same techniques during the election as they are now. The left now says they are biased. Hmmmm Funny how that works. Also funny what a difference a year makes doncha know???

Everyone was predicted an Obama win.

Rasmussen has NEVER been favored by the left.

Have to disagree on that one. Not everyone was predicting a win for OL'BO and yes. Rasumssens poll was all over the networks. MSNBC, FOX, CNNN, ABC, NBC and CBS. I may be old but I sure know what I saw and heard. FOX is the only right leaner in that group.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Rasmussen demograpohics are virtually even across the board of "likely voters" in the case of voters....usually 40% rep...40% dem....20% ind.

The exact source of the inaccurate GOP slant. Vast LWC cites a good study. But are another couple of poll averages concerning party identification:

All Adults:

Republican - 25.6%; Democrat 31.5%; Independent 36%

And among Likely or Registered Voters:

Republican - 33.9%; Democrat 39.1%; Independent 24.3%

Even Rassmussen gives the Democratic Party the edge in a Jan. 03 poll with 35.5% Democrats and 34%Republican. So what is their justification for using a different formula for determining their own demographics??????

 

[nodoginnafight]

Rassmussen lagged way behind the other polls in predicting the OBL win. In fact - if you look at their state polling (where they appartently didn't make the correction) they called virtually EVERY battleground state wrong with a consistent 4 to 5% McCain lean.

The reason it was significant when they adjusted for reality in their national polls was because everyone knew that if even Rassmussen couldn't spin a McCain lead - he was in DEEP kaa kaa

 

[Vast LWC]

Now, again, don't get me wrong, there are definitely leftward leaning polls out there. I'm not saying there aren't.

I'm just saying that Rasmussen is right-leaning.

That's why I tend to trust averages, like RealClearPolitics, or try to find polls that have been consistently average in their results.

That method is of course not necessarily completely accurate either, I just believe it to be slightly more accurate.

 

[Oldandtired]

Rasmussen demograpohics are virtually even across the board of "likely voters" in the case of voters....usually 40% rep...40% dem....20% ind.

The exact source of the inaccurate GOP slant. Vast LWC cites a good study. But are another couple of poll averages concerning party identification:

All Adults:

Republican - 25.6%; Democrat 31.5%; Independent 36%

And among Likely or Registered Voters:

Republican - 33.9%; Democrat 39.1%; Independent 24.3%

Even Rassmussen gives the Democratic Party the edge in a Jan. 03 poll with 35.5% Democrats and 34%Republican. So what is their justification for using a different formula for determining their own demographics??????

second time that point was made.

Interestring.....the more I think about it, the more Ineed to re-evaluate what exactly "even demographics" means.

And to think...I was a pro at stat in college...and I let that get by me.

Thanks.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Now, again, don't get me wrong, there are definitely leftward leaning polls out there. I'm not saying there aren't.

I'm just saying that Rasmussen is right-leaning.

That's why I tend to trust averages, like RealClearPolitics, or try to find polls that have been consistently average in their results.

That method is of course not necessarily completely accurate either, I just believe it to be slightly more accurate.

My feelings EXACTLY.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Rasmussen demograpohics are virtually even across the board of "likely voters" in the case of voters....usually 40% rep...40% dem....20% ind.

The exact source of the inaccurate GOP slant. Vast LWC cites a good study. But are another couple of poll averages concerning party identification:

All Adults:

Republican - 25.6%; Democrat 31.5%; Independent 36%

And among Likely or Registered Voters:

Republican - 33.9%; Democrat 39.1%; Independent 24.3%

Even Rassmussen gives the Democratic Party the edge in a Jan. 03 poll with 35.5% Democrats and 34%Republican. So what is their justification for using a different formula for determining their own demographics??????

second time that point was made.

Interestring.....the more I think about it, the more Ineed to re-evaluate what exactly "even demographics" means.

And to think...I was a pro at stat in college...and I let that get by me.

Thanks.

You got ME by a longshot there. I had one stat class for political science and one for psychology and I absolutely stunk up the place in BOTH of 'em.

 

[Oldandtired]

The exact source of the inaccurate GOP slant. Vast LWC cites a good study. But are another couple of poll averages concerning party identification:

All Adults:

Republican - 25.6%; Democrat 31.5%; Independent 36%

And among Likely or Registered Voters:

Republican - 33.9%; Democrat 39.1%; Independent 24.3%

Even Rassmussen gives the Democratic Party the edge in a Jan. 03 poll with 35.5% Democrats and 34%Republican. So what is their justification for using a different formula for determining their own demographics??????

second time that point was made.

Interestring.....the more I think about it, the more Ineed to re-evaluate what exactly "even demographics" means.

And to think...I was a pro at stat in college...and I let that get by me.

Thanks.

You got ME by a longshot there. I had one stat class for political science and one for psychology and I absolutely stunk up the place in BOTH of 'em.

Well...seeing as the Rasmussen "equal demographics" got past me....seems I learned squat and simply did well becuase I memorized.