Rasmussen's Bias Proven...

[Polk]

That doesn't really show bias. It does show how question wording can effect results.

Intentionally using an alternative method when you know what results the method will produce, and those results are anti-Obama is bias.

The link also points out that Rasmussen's use of likely voters skews the results to the right. Rasmussen knows this.

If bias is not the motive, tell us what the motive is. There has to be a reason that you abandon a standard practice and switch to a non-standard one. Give me a plausible reason or reasons that Rasmussen would do this.

Rasmussen has always used this method though. It's not new. They used the same survey method while Bush was President.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That doesn't really show bias. It does show how question wording can effect results.

Intentionally using an alternative method when you know what results the method will produce, and those results are anti-Obama is bias.

The link also points out that Rasmussen's use of likely voters skews the results to the right. Rasmussen knows this.

If bias is not the motive, tell us what the motive is. There has to be a reason that you abandon a standard practice and switch to a non-standard one. Give me a plausible reason or reasons that Rasmussen would do this.

Rasmussen has always used this method though. It's not new. They used the same survey method while Bush was President.

When did they start? Bush's Rasmussen numbers were always slightly higher than the averages for as long I followed them, which is only a few years ago. In fact on one of those other forums I remember arguing this and citing another Rasmussen admission that his methodology was raising Bush's approval number 3 or 4 points.

And using the likely voters sub group is a known bias to the right.

At the very least Rasmussen should not be in realclear's averages; and orange doesn't belong with the apples.

 

[amrchaos]

That doesn't really show bias. It does show how question wording can effect results.

Exactly.... but then again, never stops the likes of carbineer from trying to trash anyone or anything that does not suck Obama's dick like he does

Everyone knows Rasmussen is biased. You're just in denial.

Actually, Rasmussen's method is acceptable. You are the one that is upset. Not everyone is a Hopey Changey kool-aid sniffing leftwing madman like you. Get over it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

And using the likely voters sub group is a known bias to the right.

I would agree but I think it depends on how you determine "likely." Starting with an assumption that people who self-report as Republicans are more likely to vote than people who self-report as Democrats is problematic right off the bat.

Another problem that has been revealed is in the sampling demographics. Rassmussen has been busted oversampling self-reported Republicans on a 30-30-40 split when it was clear that fewer than 30% of likely voters were actually self-reporting as Republicans.

And since all the errors point (or favor) in the same direction, it's not too big a jump to assume motive.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That doesn't really show bias. It does show how question wording can effect results.

Does it fit this definition of 'bias'?

3. Statistics. a systematic as opposed to a random distortion of a statistic as a result of sampling procedure.

(that's not a rhetorical question)

 

[Truthmatters]

Rassmusen always comes up with polls that are right of all other polls. Thats enough evidence for me they are biased

 

[elvis]

That doesn't really show bias. It does show how question wording can effect results.

Exactly.... but then again, never stops the likes of carbineer from trying to trash anyone or anything that does not suck Obama's dick like he does

Everyone knows Rasmussen is biased. You're just in denial.

I suppose you think Gallup is biased in favor of the right as well.

 

[Misty]

The only poll I care about is the one on election day.

I don't like the media trying to make me think one way or the other.

But you are correct. Different polls are biased in one way or another.

 

[Sarah G]

Exactly.... but then again, never stops the likes of carbineer from trying to trash anyone or anything that does not suck Obama's dick like he does

Everyone knows Rasmussen is biased. You're just in denial.

I suppose you think Gallup is biased in favor of the right as well.

Nope. Just Rasmussen and FOX. If they weren't on the list at Real Clear Politics, the averaging would be more true.

But it's ok, you'll all find out election day.

 

[DiamondDave]

Getting respondents to give an answer other than "don't know" is proof of bias?

I hope you didn't spend a lot of time trying to dig that up.

He probably picked up the piece over at HuffPo or DailyKos, no effort required...

Since I linked to where I actually found it, and since the data is from RASMUSSEN himself,

what particular sort of nitwit does that make you, in general category of nitwit?

No, you dumb ass... what it comes down to is that what you posted, no matter where you heard the original idea behind it, does not prove or even hint at a bias.. unless you are some brain-dead winger... which indeed you are

 

[Immanuel]

That doesn't really show bias. It does show how question wording can effect results.

Intentionally using an alternative method when you know what results the method will produce, and those results are anti-Obama is bias.

The link also points out that Rasmussen's use of likely voters skews the results to the right. Rasmussen knows this.

If bias is not the motive, tell us what the motive is. There has to be a reason that you abandon a standard practice and switch to a non-standard one. Give me a plausible reason or reasons that Rasmussen would do this.

I have to disagree with you.

The fact is that the Rasmussen Poll simply provides slightly more accurate information by giving a broader range of choices. Have you ever answered a poll question and felt that the "multiple choice" answers provided simply didn't fit your position but were limited by the required answers? Adding "somewhat" in there gives me the option of giving the President a "B" instead of an "A" or a "D" instead of an "F".

Either way if I approve of the President's actions so far, I am going to "approve". If I disapprove, I will "disapprove"

Also, there is not a polling institute on the face of the planet that is not biased.

Immie

 

[DiamondDave]

That doesn't really show bias. It does show how question wording can effect results.

Intentionally using an alternative method when you know what results the method will produce, and those results are anti-Obama is bias.

The link also points out that Rasmussen's use of likely voters skews the results to the right. Rasmussen knows this.

If bias is not the motive, tell us what the motive is. There has to be a reason that you abandon a standard practice and switch to a non-standard one. Give me a plausible reason or reasons that Rasmussen would do this.

I have to disagree with you.

The fact is that the Rasmussen Poll simply provides slightly more accurate information by giving a broader range of choices. Have you ever answered a poll question and felt that the "multiple choice" answers provided simply didn't fit your position but were limited by the required answers? Adding "somewhat" in there gives me the option of giving the President a "B" instead of an "A" or a "D" instead of an "F".

Either way if I approve of the President's actions so far, I am going to "approve". If I disapprove, I will "disapprove"

Also, there is not a polling institute on the face of the planet that is not biased.

Immie

This is PRECISELY it....

 

[nodoginnafight]

Rassmusen always comes up with polls that are right of all other polls. Thats enough evidence for me they are biased

well yeah - I don't think the substantive debate was on WHETHER there is bias - that's obvious and demonstrated. I think the debate is on HOW that bias is achieved. I disagree with some of the positions state on how that bias is achieved, but the bias itself is a given.

The fact that it is consistent suggests it is not unintentional.

 

[elvis]

Intentionally using an alternative method when you know what results the method will produce, and those results are anti-Obama is bias.

The link also points out that Rasmussen's use of likely voters skews the results to the right. Rasmussen knows this.

If bias is not the motive, tell us what the motive is. There has to be a reason that you abandon a standard practice and switch to a non-standard one. Give me a plausible reason or reasons that Rasmussen would do this.

I have to disagree with you.

The fact is that the Rasmussen Poll simply provides slightly more accurate information by giving a broader range of choices. Have you ever answered a poll question and felt that the "multiple choice" answers provided simply didn't fit your position but were limited by the required answers? Adding "somewhat" in there gives me the option of giving the President a "B" instead of an "A" or a "D" instead of an "F".

Either way if I approve of the President's actions so far, I am going to "approve". If I disapprove, I will "disapprove"

Also, there is not a polling institute on the face of the planet that is not biased.

Immie

This is PRECISELY it....

how long before Sarah G makes your list? Just curious.

 

[DiamondDave]

I have to disagree with you.

The fact is that the Rasmussen Poll simply provides slightly more accurate information by giving a broader range of choices. Have you ever answered a poll question and felt that the "multiple choice" answers provided simply didn't fit your position but were limited by the required answers? Adding "somewhat" in there gives me the option of giving the President a "B" instead of an "A" or a "D" instead of an "F".

Either way if I approve of the President's actions so far, I am going to "approve". If I disapprove, I will "disapprove"

Also, there is not a polling institute on the face of the planet that is not biased.

Immie

This is PRECISELY it....

how long before Sarah G makes your list? Just curious.

The front runner for the next to join the list looks to be rdean

 

[elvis]

This is PRECISELY it....

how long before Sarah G makes your list? Just curious.

The front runner for the next to join the list looks to be rdean

Excellent choice.

 

[Polk]

Intentionally using an alternative method when you know what results the method will produce, and those results are anti-Obama is bias.

The link also points out that Rasmussen's use of likely voters skews the results to the right. Rasmussen knows this.

If bias is not the motive, tell us what the motive is. There has to be a reason that you abandon a standard practice and switch to a non-standard one. Give me a plausible reason or reasons that Rasmussen would do this.

Rasmussen has always used this method though. It's not new. They used the same survey method while Bush was President.

When did they start? Bush's Rasmussen numbers were always slightly higher than the averages for as long I followed them, which is only a few years ago. In fact on one of those other forums I remember arguing this and citing another Rasmussen admission that his methodology was raising Bush's approval number 3 or 4 points.

And using the likely voters sub group is a known bias to the right.

At the very least Rasmussen should not be in realclear's averages; and orange doesn't belong with the apples.

This is just an issue we're going to disagree one. I explained in another thread here why Rasmussen's method is going to result in higher lows and lower highs.

I also disagree with the idea that the likely voter screen is intended to bias the poll to the right. It creates more favorable results for the right, but that doesn't indicate bias. The only reason question is should a likely voter be used to analysis a case where the election it would be relevant for is three years out. This is where I think the strongest argument against Rasmussen's method exists.

 

[Polk]

That doesn't really show bias. It does show how question wording can effect results.

Intentionally using an alternative method when you know what results the method will produce, and those results are anti-Obama is bias.

The link also points out that Rasmussen's use of likely voters skews the results to the right. Rasmussen knows this.

If bias is not the motive, tell us what the motive is. There has to be a reason that you abandon a standard practice and switch to a non-standard one. Give me a plausible reason or reasons that Rasmussen would do this.

I have to disagree with you.

The fact is that the Rasmussen Poll simply provides slightly more accurate information by giving a broader range of choices. Have you ever answered a poll question and felt that the "multiple choice" answers provided simply didn't fit your position but were limited by the required answers? Adding "somewhat" in there gives me the option of giving the President a "B" instead of an "A" or a "D" instead of an "F".

Either way if I approve of the President's actions so far, I am going to "approve". If I disapprove, I will "disapprove"

Also, there is not a polling institute on the face of the planet that is not biased.

Immie

That's a really good way of describing it. When a president is popular, that's going to create a downward effect (as people tend to set a high standard for an A), but when a president is unpopular, that is also going to create an upward effect (as people also tend to set a "high" standard for failing grade).

 

[Immanuel]

Intentionally using an alternative method when you know what results the method will produce, and those results are anti-Obama is bias.

The link also points out that Rasmussen's use of likely voters skews the results to the right. Rasmussen knows this.

If bias is not the motive, tell us what the motive is. There has to be a reason that you abandon a standard practice and switch to a non-standard one. Give me a plausible reason or reasons that Rasmussen would do this.

I have to disagree with you.

The fact is that the Rasmussen Poll simply provides slightly more accurate information by giving a broader range of choices. Have you ever answered a poll question and felt that the "multiple choice" answers provided simply didn't fit your position but were limited by the required answers? Adding "somewhat" in there gives me the option of giving the President a "B" instead of an "A" or a "D" instead of an "F".

Either way if I approve of the President's actions so far, I am going to "approve". If I disapprove, I will "disapprove"

Also, there is not a polling institute on the face of the planet that is not biased.

Immie

That's a really good way of describing it. When a president is popular, that's going to create a downward effect (as people tend to set a high standard for an A), but when a president is unpopular, that is also going to create an upward effect (as people also tend to set a "high" standard for failing grade).

That is how I feel. I hate having to choose all or nothing. An "A" has to be exceptional for me and an "F" has to be downright unacceptable. I don't think President Obama deserves either an A or an F and President Bush didn't quite deserve an F. So, I like the moderate choice.

If you have ever been on a Carnival Cruise, they give you a card towards the end of the cruise. Basically it is a report card. You are supposed to rate the various departments of the ship. The choices are "Exceeded my expectations", "Met my expectations" and two or three others all below met my expectations and then they tell you that anything below "Exceeded my expectations" is a failing grade for them. I despise that. I've never been on a cruise that I did not have a wonderful time, but once you have been on a cruise or two, you know what to expect, so how can you say, "Exceeded my expectations"? My last cruise, I refused to fill out the form regardless of the fact that they promise someone will win a free cruise for doing so.

Immie

 

[NYcarbineer]

That doesn't really show bias. It does show how question wording can effect results.

Intentionally using an alternative method when you know what results the method will produce, and those results are anti-Obama is bias.

The link also points out that Rasmussen's use of likely voters skews the results to the right. Rasmussen knows this.

If bias is not the motive, tell us what the motive is. There has to be a reason that you abandon a standard practice and switch to a non-standard one. Give me a plausible reason or reasons that Rasmussen would do this.

I have to disagree with you.

The fact is that the Rasmussen Poll simply provides slightly more accurate information by giving a broader range of choices. Have you ever answered a poll question and felt that the "multiple choice" answers provided simply didn't fit your position but were limited by the required answers? Adding "somewhat" in there gives me the option of giving the President a "B" instead of an "A" or a "D" instead of an "F".

Either way if I approve of the President's actions so far, I am going to "approve". If I disapprove, I will "disapprove"

Also, there is not a polling institute on the face of the planet that is not biased.

Immie

There is absolutely nothing 'more accurate' about including 'somewhat approve' and 'somewhat disapprove' of the President's job performance.

For one thing, no one knows the 'right answer'. This is not like a final poll in an election where you have a real election result to compare to.