Rasmussen's Bias Proven...

More accurate probably isn't the right choice of words. More descriptive would be a better way of putting it..
 
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.

You are right, there is no 'right answer' or maybe there is depending on how you look at the question. The question is (paraphrased) "Do you think the President is doing a good job or not?". Since the question is about what you think, if you answer it truthfully, then the answer is right.

This is not a true or false question. It is a question dealing with how the general public views the job the President is doing. Giving a broader range of possible answers, that basically say the same thing, does not really change the results of the poll. The respondent either approves or disapproves of the job the President is doing. There is not going to be a lot of jumping across that middle line of the answers although, I would be more likely to say "somewhat approve" if I was on the fence than I would answer "somewhat disapprove" but that is just me.

My personal opinion (and that is all this is) is that if the question is not changed fundamentally from other polls then I simply don't see the bias of which you speak.

Now, if the question were worded in such a manner as this: "Seeing as President Obama is attempting to fundamentally change America into a socialist nation how would you rate the President's performance today? Do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove or strongly disapprove? Then I could see your point.

Immie
 
More accurate probably isn't the right choice of words. More descriptive would be a better way of putting it..

As I have mentioned a time or two here and there, Rasmussen actually has a history of 'alternate' methodology (not a big history but a history nonetheless). In 2000, Rasmussen, using an alternate methodology - interestingly a form of automated polling, which is what they use on their approval polls - called the 2000 presidential election for Bush,

by 9 points. :lol:

...and won the dubious distinction of being the worst of the major pollsters.

I have a link but it's on another forum and I don't know if linking to another forum is verboten here.
 
Anyone who put any trust in any poll are a fool. I never followed polls and never will.
 
...by Rasmussen himself.

It's in the wording of the questions:

From Pollster.com:

Different Question - Rasmussen also asks a different job approval question. Most pollsters offer just two answer categories: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?" Rasmussen's question prompts for four: "How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President... do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he's been doing?"

Scott Rasmussen has long asserted that the additional "somewhat" approve or disapprove options coax some respondents to provide an answer that might otherwise end up in the "don't know" category. In an experiment conducted last week and released yesterday, Rasmussen provides support for that argument. They administered three separate surveys of 800 "likely voters, each involving a different version of the Obama job approval rating: (1) the traditional two category, approve or disapprove choice, (2) the standard Rasmussen four-category version and (3) a variant used by Zogby and Harris, that asks if the president is doing an excellent, good, fair or poor job. The table below collapses the results into two categories; excellent and good combine to represent "approve," fair and poor combine to represent "disapprove."


2009-11-30_rasmussen-experiment.png


As you can see, when Rasmussen asks the questions in the manner almost everyone else does, he gets results in line with everyone else, but when he asks the questions in his own unique manner, he gets an anti-Obama shift.

See? I told you so (repeatedly).

Pollster.com: Why Is Rasmussen So Different?
Wow.

How many times do you have to be told that polls are used to shape public opinion?
 
...by Rasmussen himself.

It's in the wording of the questions:

From Pollster.com:

Different Question - Rasmussen also asks a different job approval question. Most pollsters offer just two answer categories: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?" Rasmussen's question prompts for four: "How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President... do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he's been doing?"

Scott Rasmussen has long asserted that the additional "somewhat" approve or disapprove options coax some respondents to provide an answer that might otherwise end up in the "don't know" category. In an experiment conducted last week and released yesterday, Rasmussen provides support for that argument. They administered three separate surveys of 800 "likely voters, each involving a different version of the Obama job approval rating: (1) the traditional two category, approve or disapprove choice, (2) the standard Rasmussen four-category version and (3) a variant used by Zogby and Harris, that asks if the president is doing an excellent, good, fair or poor job. The table below collapses the results into two categories; excellent and good combine to represent "approve," fair and poor combine to represent "disapprove."


2009-11-30_rasmussen-experiment.png


As you can see, when Rasmussen asks the questions in the manner almost everyone else does, he gets results in line with everyone else, but when he asks the questions in his own unique manner, he gets an anti-Obama shift.

See? I told you so (repeatedly).

Pollster.com: Why Is Rasmussen So Different?
Wow.

How many times do you have to be told that polls are used to shape public opinion?

So you believe that is Rasmussen's agenda?

Most polling firms are commercial interests. I believe that Rasmussen has decided to advance that interest by slanting its methodologies, in certain areas, towards producing results that are relatively favorable to the very lucrative conservative market. No one can dispute that appealing to the conservative market in this country is a moneymaker. Look at Limbaugh, look at Foxnews, look at Sarah Palin's book sales...

...it shouldn't even be surprising that someone in the polling business would want to take advantage of that market.
 
...by Rasmussen himself.

It's in the wording of the questions:

From Pollster.com:

Different Question - Rasmussen also asks a different job approval question. Most pollsters offer just two answer categories: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?" Rasmussen's question prompts for four: "How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President... do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he's been doing?"

Scott Rasmussen has long asserted that the additional "somewhat" approve or disapprove options coax some respondents to provide an answer that might otherwise end up in the "don't know" category. In an experiment conducted last week and released yesterday, Rasmussen provides support for that argument. They administered three separate surveys of 800 "likely voters, each involving a different version of the Obama job approval rating: (1) the traditional two category, approve or disapprove choice, (2) the standard Rasmussen four-category version and (3) a variant used by Zogby and Harris, that asks if the president is doing an excellent, good, fair or poor job. The table below collapses the results into two categories; excellent and good combine to represent "approve," fair and poor combine to represent "disapprove."


2009-11-30_rasmussen-experiment.png


As you can see, when Rasmussen asks the questions in the manner almost everyone else does, he gets results in line with everyone else, but when he asks the questions in his own unique manner, he gets an anti-Obama shift.

See? I told you so (repeatedly).

Pollster.com: Why Is Rasmussen So Different?
Wow.

How many times do you have to be told that polls are used to shape public opinion?

So you believe that is Rasmussen's agenda?

Most polling firms are commercial interests. I believe that Rasmussen has decided to advance that interest by slanting its methodologies, in certain areas, towards producing results that are relatively favorable to the very lucrative conservative market. No one can dispute that appealing to the conservative market in this country is a moneymaker. Look at Limbaugh, look at Foxnews, look at Sarah Palin's book sales...

...it shouldn't even be surprising that someone in the polling business would want to take advantage of that market.

I highlited the key words for your post, it's your opinion, and that's it.
 
Last edited:
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.
I suppose you took a nonpartisan poll to come to your conclusion? :cuckoo:

She doesn't say anything about the cnn portion of rcp which is more of an outlier than fox or rasmussen. but hey,
 
So, let's check the score here:

Using only likely voters, rather than just anyone who answers the phone, and finding a way to get respondents to give an answer other than "don't know" or "no opinion" is proof positive of bias.

Who knew? :lol:
 
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.
I suppose you took a nonpartisan poll to come to your conclusion? :cuckoo:

She doesn't say anything about the cnn portion of rcp which is more of an outlier than fox or rasmussen. but hey,

CNN is farther off the average (more of an outlier) than Fox but closer than Rassmussen - what poll are you reading?

RCP average is + 6
CNN is +13 (7 points off)
Fox: is tied (6 points off)
Rassmussen is -8 (14 points off)
 
Last edited:
I suppose you took a nonpartisan poll to come to your conclusion? :cuckoo:

She doesn't say anything about the cnn portion of rcp which is more of an outlier than fox or rasmussen. but hey,

CNN is father off the average than Fox but closer than Rassmussen - what poll are you reading?

RCP average is + 6
CNN is +13 (7 points off)
Fox: is tied (6 points off)
Rassmussen is -8 (14 points off)
Rasmussen is the only polling organization that surveys likely voters and supplies options other than yes or no.

The odds that their results will be different than others with less targeted screening criteria are rather high.
 
That raises two questions.
1. Does it really make sense to use a likely voter screen three years out from the election?
2. Is creating additional categories more valuable, noting that elections are a binary choice?
 
She doesn't say anything about the cnn portion of rcp which is more of an outlier than fox or rasmussen. but hey,

CNN is father off the average than Fox but closer than Rassmussen - what poll are you reading?

RCP average is + 6
CNN is +13 (7 points off)
Fox: is tied (6 points off)
Rassmussen is -8 (14 points off)
Rasmussen is the only polling organization that surveys likely voters and supplies options other than yes or no.

The odds that their results will be different than others with less targeted screening criteria are rather high.

Thanks.
But that really doesn't address or explain the statement:
"cnn portion of rcp which is more of an outlier than fox or rasmussen."

does it?
 
That raises two questions.
1. Does it really make sense to use a likely voter screen three years out from the election?
2. Is creating additional categories more valuable, noting that elections are a binary choice?

Add to that, why would you screen for likely voters doing Bush's approval, in his second term, when he couldn't run for re-election?

Knowing that a likely voter screen will slant your numbers to the right almost inevitably, the logical question is,

why do you want to slant your numbers to the right??

Let's come up with a list of motives to answer that question...
 
CNN is father off the average than Fox but closer than Rassmussen - what poll are you reading?

RCP average is + 6
CNN is +13 (7 points off)
Fox: is tied (6 points off)
Rassmussen is -8 (14 points off)
Rasmussen is the only polling organization that surveys likely voters and supplies options other than yes or no.

The odds that their results will be different than others with less targeted screening criteria are rather high.

Thanks.
But that really doesn't address or explain the statement:
"cnn portion of rcp which is more of an outlier than fox or rasmussen."

does it?

fine. it's more than fox but less than rasmussen. I read it wrong. I have H1N1. I guess i should have listened to Biden and not flown.
 
that raises two questions.
1. Does it really make sense to use a likely voter screen three years out from the election?
2. Is creating additional categories more valuable, noting that elections are a binary choice?

add to that, why would you screen for likely voters doing bush's approval, in his second term, when he couldn't run for re-election?

Knowing that a likely voter screen will slant your numbers to the right almost inevitably, the logical question is,

why do you want to slant your numbers to the right??

Let's come up with a list of motives to answer that question...

who gives a fuck about what non-voters think?
 
that raises two questions.
1. Does it really make sense to use a likely voter screen three years out from the election?
2. Is creating additional categories more valuable, noting that elections are a binary choice?

add to that, why would you screen for likely voters doing bush's approval, in his second term, when he couldn't run for re-election?

Knowing that a likely voter screen will slant your numbers to the right almost inevitably, the logical question is,

why do you want to slant your numbers to the right??

Let's come up with a list of motives to answer that question...

who gives a fuck about what non-voters think?

Yep, the non voters would only skew the actual outcome. But hey.....
 
add to that, why would you screen for likely voters doing bush's approval, in his second term, when he couldn't run for re-election?

Knowing that a likely voter screen will slant your numbers to the right almost inevitably, the logical question is,

why do you want to slant your numbers to the right??

Let's come up with a list of motives to answer that question...

who gives a fuck about what non-voters think?

Yep, the non voters would only skew the actual outcome. But hey.....

:cuckoo:
 

Forum List

Back
Top