Rasmussen Polls Biased

[Toro]

I believe that Rasmussen is a professional organization which puts accuracy above all else. But their polls this election were biased towards the Republicans. I expect these problems to be fixed.

While waiting for the remaining results to trickle in from states like Colorado and Alaska, I did a quick check on the accuracy of polls from the firm Rasmussen Reports, which came under heavy criticism this year — including from FiveThirtyEight — because its polls showed a strong lean toward Republican candidates.

Indeed, Rasmussen polls quite consistently turned out to overstate the standing of Republicans tonight. Of the roughly 100 polls released by Rasmussen or its subsidiary Pulse Opinion Research in the final 21 days of the campaign, roughly 70 to 75 percent overestimated the performance of Republican candidates, and on average they were biased against Democrats by 3 to 4 points.

Every pollster is entitled to a bad cycle now and again — and Rasmussen has had some good cycles in the past. But their polling took a major downturn this year.

and

I haven’t checked this in detail yet, but it appears as though the worst poll of the political cycle will be the Rasmussen Reports survey of Hawaii, which had the incumbent Daniel Inoyue defeating Cam Cavasso by just 13 points. Mr. Inouye is ahead by 55 points right now. If Mr. Inouye’s margin holds, the 42-point error would be by far the worst general election poll in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls since 1998; the previous record was 29 points.

Live Blogging Election Night - NYTimes.com

I believe that any problems with polling comes from sampling methodologies, not from trying to shape a political agenda, an argument that generally comes from extremely partisan people. However, the argument that Rasmussen is "the best" pollster, as the other extremely partisan side sometimes maintains, was clearly wrong during this election.

 

[Trajan]

interesting. I had the same thught his morning looking at the returns especially for Nevada,(but aside from haw and neveada what other races did they blow?)

Anyway, I expect that ras will explain. they are in this bus. as their livelihood and no one will pay an prg. that is not accurate so they have plenty of impetus.

 

[HUGGY]

Rasmussen Polls Biased


Ya think?

 

[Revere]

Rasmussen did not puff the number of Senate and House GOP pickups. He was right on some and wrong on others.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Scott under-counted the non-living.

 

[Revere]

He nailed the 2008 POTUS results, too.

 

[Toro]

Rasmussen did not puff the number of Senate and House GOP pickups. He was right on some and wrong on others.

According to 538, Rasmussen was wrong much more than most other pollsters.

 

[Revere]

Rasmussen did not puff the number of Senate and House GOP pickups. He was right on some and wrong on others.

According to 538, Rasmussen was wrong much more than most other pollsters.

Link.

 

[Toro]

Rasmussen did not puff the number of Senate and House GOP pickups. He was right on some and wrong on others.

According to 538, Rasmussen was wrong much more than most other pollsters.

Link.

Dude ... ?

Trundle a whole seven posts upwards.

 

[Revere]

Because he blew Hawaii?

Shit, that's weak.

 

[Iowa10000]

Polls are stupid, and they are used in more bad ways than good. Why not just let the elections go to the vote, why do we need to know any results before hand.

It's the way poll questions are asked a lot of times and then people take groups of answers and group them as one.

Like 40% of people don't like the health bill, and 25% of those who do don't think it went far enough so they are added together as against Health care.

All I know for sure is this election was well bought and paid for by the right, now lets see who those people they got elected stand up for, the rich and the corp's or the general population. You want to take a poll on that.

 

[HUGGY]

Americans are ignorant knee jerk moron sheep that demand immediate bumper sticker answers to complex questions.

What is seldom said on this or any other MB except from yours truly is that from the media's perspective elections are a huge windfall. They try to "even up" the odds to make elections more interesting and winnable for both parties. Polls are used as a betting board to facilitate the proccess.

Everyone wants reform in election funding EXCEPT TV RADIO and PRINT!!! These organizations actually plan their infrastructure improvements based on what they make in extra profits from election spending.

I'm not saying the media "rigs" elections overtly. But what they do all of the time is under report clear leaders and over report those that struggle to get in the game making the opponents engage in a never ending spending campaign to the benefit of WHO??? students??? A clear example of this was the "Witch". Back in the sixties or the seventies she would have never even had 15 minutes of fame but she is given millions in free "comentary" time and millions in direct and indirect funding to "sell" her to the public. Jesus Christ on a pogo stick!!! She was no more worthy of leadership than OctoMom!!!

Polls COULD be usefull to the public...BUT they are far more useful to media fund raising.

 

[LiberalNut]

Polling is as much an art as a science. When done properly, you can be about 95% sure that the numbers are correct within the stated margin of error. Pretty standard stats. Thing is, there is tremendous pressure to be better than everyone else, more accurate. It isn't really possible but that doesn't stop people from trying. So, they come up with mathematical patches to the straightforward stats. They come up with exotic likely voter definitions and esoteric turnout models. One year, one person will, by accident, get it more accurate than the rest. Then that pollster will be the wonder boy. With that comes power. All of a sudden, people want to interview you on the TV box.

Scott Rassmussen let it go to his head. He left the realm of science all together and decided to use his new power to be the partisan hack that he is. Rather than just massage the numbers in an attempt to be more accurate, he deliberately shaded question wording so as to get desired results. Rather than his polls reflecting public opinion, he tried to have his polls drive public opinion. For this he was paid handsomely by the usual suspect (right wing "think tanks" funded by various corporate interests).

Well, Scott is the wonder boy no more. Just like John Zogby is the wonder boy no more. Watch this game long enough, you will see them come and go.

 

[HUGGY]

Polling is as much an art as a science. When done properly, you can be about 95% sure that the numbers are correct within the stated margin of error. Pretty standard stats. Thing is, there is tremendous pressure to be better than everyone else, more accurate. It isn't really possible but that doesn't stop people from trying. So, they come up with mathematical patches to the straightforward stats. They come up with exotic likely voter definitions and esoteric turnout models. One year, one person will, by accident, get it more accurate than the rest. Then that pollster will be the wonder boy. With that comes power. All of a sudden, people want to interview on the TV box.

Scott Rassmussen let it go to his head. He left the realm of science all together and decided to use his new power to be the partisan hack that he is. Rather than just massage the numbers in an attempt to be more accurate, he deliberately sahded question wording so as to get desired results. Rather than his polls reflecting public opinion, he tried to have his polls drive public opinion. For this he was paid handsomely by the usual suspect (right wing "think tanks" funded by various corporate interests).Well, Scott is the wonder boy no more. Just like John Zogby is the wonder boy no more. Watch this game long enough, you will see them come and go.

Exactly!

 

[boedicca]

This is a bunch of nonsense.

Given the actual results of 52 D (including the 2 independents) vs. 46 R (Alaska and Washington are not scored yet), Rasmussen's predictions look pretty spot on:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ections/election_2010_senate_balance_of_power

 

[Revere]

What did Rasmussen miss in this election? Hawaii?

 

[uptownlivin90]

I try to pay less attention to individual polls but poll trends instead.

There were only two big surprises for me last night. Toomey almost loosing to Sestak and Harry Reid winning with such a large margin.

I saw Ken Bucks loss coming after the separation of church and state debacle. Joe Miller was a no-brainer.

I also didn't think they'd declare Rand Paul as the winner so quickly, but I knew he'd win by a huge margin.

 

[Revere]

This is a bunch of nonsense.

Given the actual results of 52 D (including the 2 independents) vs. 46 R (Alaska and Washington are not scored yet), Rasmussen's predictions look pretty spot on:

He's as accurate, or more accurate, than anyone.

 

[Annie]

This is a bunch of nonsense.

Given the actual results of 52 D (including the 2 independents) vs. 46 R (Alaska and Washington are not scored yet), Rasmussen's predictions look pretty spot on:

Election 2010: Senate Balance Of Power - Rasmussen Reports

Without the charts, I was going to say the same. He got the big picture right, even a bit undercounting for Republicans. Individual races? Yeah, some were off, but not generally in the win/loss column.

 

[LiberalNut]

He got the big picture right

So, he polled "the big picture"? How did he manage that?

Individual races? Yeah, some were off

Well, individual races would be what is actually polled, right? And the ones he got wrong, his numbers always showed more republican votes than showed up, right?

Wonder boy no more.