Scott Rasmussen, the most accurate pollster in the business

[edthecynic]

Not.


RCP Average..................47/44.4..Obama +2.6

Gallup Tracking ..............48/44....Obama +4
Rasmussen Tracking.......44/47....Romney +3
CNN/Opinion Research....49/46....Obama +3
Newsweek/Daily Beast....47/44....Obama +3
Democracy Corps (D)......49/46....Obama +3
FOX News......................45/40....Obama +5
NBC News/WS Journal.....47/44....Obama +3


But I guess FoxNews and the Wall Street Journal are just liberal media propaganda outlets...

Rassmussen is the only pollster that screens for likely voters, over those only registered or just adults who may or may note even be registered.

But I think you already knew that.

Actually, Ratmuffin is the only pollster who adds in the Dibold Effect.

 

[Trajan]

Not.


RCP Average..................47/44.4..Obama +2.6

Gallup Tracking ..............48/44....Obama +4
Rasmussen Tracking.......44/47....Romney +3
CNN/Opinion Research....49/46....Obama +3
Newsweek/Daily Beast....47/44....Obama +3
Democracy Corps (D)......49/46....Obama +3
FOX News......................45/40....Obama +5
NBC News/WS Journal.....47/44....Obama +3


But I guess FoxNews and the Wall Street Journal are just liberal media propaganda outlets...

Rassmussen is the only pollster that screens for likely voters, over those only registered or just adults who may or may note even be registered.

But I think you already knew that.

Actually, Ratmuffin is the only pollster who adds in the Dibold Effect.

Ha ha, ha ha....ha....what a sublime wit...............well, not really

 

[Papageorgio]

Every major link I have seen show a 7.2 margin. But it really didn't change much but now I know. NBC was .8 over and Rasmussen was 1.2 under.

But all of them were within the margin of error.

 

[Oldstyle]

uh huh.."tad" selective aren't we?

were where you when gallup had obama down 5 and ras had him flat in popularity etc?

you do know there is a big difference between expectations results, ala RV and LV sampling this far out from the election....? right?

and please, media polls are not quotable imho, I have always had that stance and said so, here at this forum (too)

last but not least, please post the pollsters with better records say over the last 6 elections, thx in advance.


or how about this-

Rasmussen Reports 6/18 - 6/20 1500 LV 3.0 43 47 Romney +4
Gallup 6/14 - 6/20 3050 RV 2.0 45 47 Romney +2
Bloomberg 6/15 - 6/18 734 LV 3.6 53 40 Obama +13

any remarks?

Actually, I remember that poll specifically, and I stated at the time that Bloomberg's was a clear outlier.

There was a thread about that a few weeks ago.

Notice there is no Bloomberg poll included here.

As far as past polls go, Rasmussen was tied for sixth among the major pollsters in the 2008 presidential race, so I'm not really sure what you're driving at there...

Where did you get the notion that Rasmussen was tied for sixth among the major pollsters in the 2008 presidential race? If I remember correctly Rasmussen was the most accurate of the major pollsters by quite a large margin.

Most Accurate Pollsters in 2008 election | Political Vindication

And from Wikki...

"Evaluations of accuracy and performance

[edit]Favorable
FOX News contributors Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen (a coauthor of Rasmussen) wrote that Rasmussen has an “unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy.”[16]The Wall Street Journal stated that "Mr. Rasmussen is today's leading insurgent pollster" and "a key player in the contact sport of politics."[17] Slate Magazine and The Wall Street Journal reported that Rasmussen Reports was one of the most accurate polling firms for the 2004 United States presidential election and 2006 United States general elections.[18][19][not in citation given] In 2004 Slate magazine "publicly doubted and privately derided" Rasmussen's use of recorded voices in electoral polls. However, after the election, they concluded that Rasmussen’s polls were among the most accurate in the 2004 presidential election.[18] According to Politico, Rasmussen's 2008 presidential-election polls "closely mirrored the election's outcome".[20]
In the January 2010 special election for the Senate seat from Massachusetts, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show that Republican Scott Brown had a chance to defeat Martha Coakley. Just after Brown's upset win, Ben Smith at Politico reported, “The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both parties until a Rasmussen poll showed the race in single digits in early January was that Martha Coakley was a lock. (It's hard to recall a single poll changing the mood of a race quite that dramatically.)"[21] A few days later, Public Policy Polling released the first poll showing Brown in the lead, a result differing from Rasmussen's by 10 points.[22] Rasmussen's last poll on the race found Coakley with a 2-point lead, when she in fact lost by 5 points, a 7-point error.[23]
A quote from Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia posted on the Rasmussen homepage reads,"Rasmussen produces some of the most accurate and reliable polls in the country today."[24]
[edit]Criticism
[edit]Nate Silver
In 2010, Nate Silver of the New York Times blog FiveThirtyEight wrote the article “Is Rasmussen Reports biased?”, in which he mostly defended Rasmussen from allegations of bias.[25] However, by later in the year, Rasmussen's polling results diverged notably from other mainstream pollsters, which Silver labeled a "house effect".[26] He went on to explore other factors which may have explained the effect such as the use of a likely voter model,[27] and claimed that Rasmussen conducted its polls in a way that excluded the majority of the population from answering.[28] Silver also criticized Rasmussen for often only polling races months before the election, which prevented them from having polls just before the election that could be assessed for accuracy. He wrote that he was “looking at appropriate ways to punish pollsters” like Rasmussen in his pollster rating models who don’t poll in the final days before an election.[29]
After the 2010 midterm elections, Silver concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver's model.[30] He singled out as an example the Hawaii Senate race, in which Rasmussen, in a poll completed three weeks before the election, showed incumbent Daniel Inouye only 13 points ahead, whereas in actuality he won by a 53% margin[31] – a difference of 40 points from Rasmussen's poll, or "the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998".[30] Silver named Quinnipiac University Poll as the most accurate poll of the election cycle. However, according to RealClearPolitics, in toss-up races where both Rasmussen Reports and Quinnipiac polled, the Rasmussen Reports final poll was closer to the mark in every race.[32][33][34] The two firms projected the same candidate to win every race but the Florida gubernatorial race, where Rasmussen correctly projected Rick Scott's victory, while Quinnipiac showed Alex Sink with the lead.[35]"

You may not LIKE Rasmussen's poll results but they are widely seen as the most accurate major polls and have been for many years.

 

[tererun]

Not.


RCP Average..................47/44.4..Obama +2.6

Gallup Tracking ..............48/44....Obama +4
Rasmussen Tracking.......44/47....Romney +3
CNN/Opinion Research....49/46....Obama +3
Newsweek/Daily Beast....47/44....Obama +3
Democracy Corps (D)......49/46....Obama +3
FOX News......................45/40....Obama +5
NBC News/WS Journal.....47/44....Obama +3


But I guess FoxNews and the Wall Street Journal are just liberal media propaganda outlets...

Given it is fox news the numbers are probably distorted to cause anger and fear in their watchers. Obama being more in the lead gives them more reason to bitch, piss, and moan, and in november those numbers will be used to drive republimorons to the polls.

 

[Papageorgio]

Not.


RCP Average..................47/44.4..Obama +2.6

Gallup Tracking ..............48/44....Obama +4
Rasmussen Tracking.......44/47....Romney +3
CNN/Opinion Research....49/46....Obama +3
Newsweek/Daily Beast....47/44....Obama +3
Democracy Corps (D)......49/46....Obama +3
FOX News......................45/40....Obama +5
NBC News/WS Journal.....47/44....Obama +3


But I guess FoxNews and the Wall Street Journal are just liberal media propaganda outlets...

Given it is fox news the numbers are probably distorted to cause anger and fear in their watchers. Obama being more in the lead gives them more reason to bitch, piss, and moan, and in november those numbers will be used to drive republimorons to the polls.

I have heard some stupid conspiracy theories but this one...

 

[Papageorgio]

uh huh.."tad" selective aren't we?

were where you when gallup had obama down 5 and ras had him flat in popularity etc?

you do know there is a big difference between expectations results, ala RV and LV sampling this far out from the election....? right?

and please, media polls are not quotable imho, I have always had that stance and said so, here at this forum (too)

last but not least, please post the pollsters with better records say over the last 6 elections, thx in advance.


or how about this-

Rasmussen Reports 6/18 - 6/20 1500 LV 3.0 43 47 Romney +4
Gallup 6/14 - 6/20 3050 RV 2.0 45 47 Romney +2
Bloomberg 6/15 - 6/18 734 LV 3.6 53 40 Obama +13

any remarks?

Actually, I remember that poll specifically, and I stated at the time that Bloomberg's was a clear outlier.

There was a thread about that a few weeks ago.

Notice there is no Bloomberg poll included here.

As far as past polls go, Rasmussen was tied for sixth among the major pollsters in the 2008 presidential race, so I'm not really sure what you're driving at there...

Where did you get the notion that Rasmussen was tied for sixth among the major pollsters in the 2008 presidential race? If I remember correctly Rasmussen was the most accurate of the major pollsters by quite a large margin.

Most Accurate Pollsters in 2008 election | Political Vindication

And from Wikki...

"Evaluations of accuracy and performance

[edit]Favorable
FOX News contributors Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen (a coauthor of Rasmussen) wrote that Rasmussen has an “unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy.”[16]The Wall Street Journal stated that "Mr. Rasmussen is today's leading insurgent pollster" and "a key player in the contact sport of politics."[17] Slate Magazine and The Wall Street Journal reported that Rasmussen Reports was one of the most accurate polling firms for the 2004 United States presidential election and 2006 United States general elections.[18][19][not in citation given] In 2004 Slate magazine "publicly doubted and privately derided" Rasmussen's use of recorded voices in electoral polls. However, after the election, they concluded that Rasmussen’s polls were among the most accurate in the 2004 presidential election.[18] According to Politico, Rasmussen's 2008 presidential-election polls "closely mirrored the election's outcome".[20]
In the January 2010 special election for the Senate seat from Massachusetts, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show that Republican Scott Brown had a chance to defeat Martha Coakley. Just after Brown's upset win, Ben Smith at Politico reported, “The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both parties until a Rasmussen poll showed the race in single digits in early January was that Martha Coakley was a lock. (It's hard to recall a single poll changing the mood of a race quite that dramatically.)"[21] A few days later, Public Policy Polling released the first poll showing Brown in the lead, a result differing from Rasmussen's by 10 points.[22] Rasmussen's last poll on the race found Coakley with a 2-point lead, when she in fact lost by 5 points, a 7-point error.[23]
A quote from Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia posted on the Rasmussen homepage reads,"Rasmussen produces some of the most accurate and reliable polls in the country today."[24]
[edit]Criticism
[edit]Nate Silver
In 2010, Nate Silver of the New York Times blog FiveThirtyEight wrote the article “Is Rasmussen Reports biased?”, in which he mostly defended Rasmussen from allegations of bias.[25] However, by later in the year, Rasmussen's polling results diverged notably from other mainstream pollsters, which Silver labeled a "house effect".[26] He went on to explore other factors which may have explained the effect such as the use of a likely voter model,[27] and claimed that Rasmussen conducted its polls in a way that excluded the majority of the population from answering.[28] Silver also criticized Rasmussen for often only polling races months before the election, which prevented them from having polls just before the election that could be assessed for accuracy. He wrote that he was “looking at appropriate ways to punish pollsters” like Rasmussen in his pollster rating models who don’t poll in the final days before an election.[29]
After the 2010 midterm elections, Silver concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver's model.[30] He singled out as an example the Hawaii Senate race, in which Rasmussen, in a poll completed three weeks before the election, showed incumbent Daniel Inouye only 13 points ahead, whereas in actuality he won by a 53% margin[31] – a difference of 40 points from Rasmussen's poll, or "the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998".[30] Silver named Quinnipiac University Poll as the most accurate poll of the election cycle. However, according to RealClearPolitics, in toss-up races where both Rasmussen Reports and Quinnipiac polled, the Rasmussen Reports final poll was closer to the mark in every race.[32][33][34] The two firms projected the same candidate to win every race but the Florida gubernatorial race, where Rasmussen correctly projected Rick Scott's victory, while Quinnipiac showed Alex Sink with the lead.[35]"

You may not LIKE Rasmussen's poll results but they are widely seen as the most accurate major polls and have been for many years.

Hell, Vast can't even figure the margin of victory, do you really think a left wing hack is going to admit if Rasmussen is right or not?

 

[Oldstyle]

Actually, I remember that poll specifically, and I stated at the time that Bloomberg's was a clear outlier.

There was a thread about that a few weeks ago.

Notice there is no Bloomberg poll included here.

As far as past polls go, Rasmussen was tied for sixth among the major pollsters in the 2008 presidential race, so I'm not really sure what you're driving at there...

Where did you get the notion that Rasmussen was tied for sixth among the major pollsters in the 2008 presidential race? If I remember correctly Rasmussen was the most accurate of the major pollsters by quite a large margin.

Most Accurate Pollsters in 2008 election | Political Vindication

And from Wikki...

"Evaluations of accuracy and performance

[edit]Favorable
FOX News contributors Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen (a coauthor of Rasmussen) wrote that Rasmussen has an “unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy.”[16]The Wall Street Journal stated that "Mr. Rasmussen is today's leading insurgent pollster" and "a key player in the contact sport of politics."[17] Slate Magazine and The Wall Street Journal reported that Rasmussen Reports was one of the most accurate polling firms for the 2004 United States presidential election and 2006 United States general elections.[18][19][not in citation given] In 2004 Slate magazine "publicly doubted and privately derided" Rasmussen's use of recorded voices in electoral polls. However, after the election, they concluded that Rasmussen’s polls were among the most accurate in the 2004 presidential election.[18] According to Politico, Rasmussen's 2008 presidential-election polls "closely mirrored the election's outcome".[20]
In the January 2010 special election for the Senate seat from Massachusetts, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show that Republican Scott Brown had a chance to defeat Martha Coakley. Just after Brown's upset win, Ben Smith at Politico reported, “The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both parties until a Rasmussen poll showed the race in single digits in early January was that Martha Coakley was a lock. (It's hard to recall a single poll changing the mood of a race quite that dramatically.)"[21] A few days later, Public Policy Polling released the first poll showing Brown in the lead, a result differing from Rasmussen's by 10 points.[22] Rasmussen's last poll on the race found Coakley with a 2-point lead, when she in fact lost by 5 points, a 7-point error.[23]
A quote from Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia posted on the Rasmussen homepage reads,"Rasmussen produces some of the most accurate and reliable polls in the country today."[24]
[edit]Criticism
[edit]Nate Silver
In 2010, Nate Silver of the New York Times blog FiveThirtyEight wrote the article “Is Rasmussen Reports biased?”, in which he mostly defended Rasmussen from allegations of bias.[25] However, by later in the year, Rasmussen's polling results diverged notably from other mainstream pollsters, which Silver labeled a "house effect".[26] He went on to explore other factors which may have explained the effect such as the use of a likely voter model,[27] and claimed that Rasmussen conducted its polls in a way that excluded the majority of the population from answering.[28] Silver also criticized Rasmussen for often only polling races months before the election, which prevented them from having polls just before the election that could be assessed for accuracy. He wrote that he was “looking at appropriate ways to punish pollsters” like Rasmussen in his pollster rating models who don’t poll in the final days before an election.[29]
After the 2010 midterm elections, Silver concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver's model.[30] He singled out as an example the Hawaii Senate race, in which Rasmussen, in a poll completed three weeks before the election, showed incumbent Daniel Inouye only 13 points ahead, whereas in actuality he won by a 53% margin[31] – a difference of 40 points from Rasmussen's poll, or "the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998".[30] Silver named Quinnipiac University Poll as the most accurate poll of the election cycle. However, according to RealClearPolitics, in toss-up races where both Rasmussen Reports and Quinnipiac polled, the Rasmussen Reports final poll was closer to the mark in every race.[32][33][34] The two firms projected the same candidate to win every race but the Florida gubernatorial race, where Rasmussen correctly projected Rick Scott's victory, while Quinnipiac showed Alex Sink with the lead.[35]"

You may not LIKE Rasmussen's poll results but they are widely seen as the most accurate major polls and have been for many years.

Hell, Vast can't even figure the margin of victory, do you really think a left wing hack is going to admit if Rasmussen is right or not?

Progressives here simply "assume" Rasmussen is biased because they're so used to being spoon fed liberally biased polls that they go ballistic whenever Rasmussen comes out with one that doesn't agree with what they're seeing on HuffPo, Think Progress, and MSNBC.

For all the heat that Scott Rasmussen takes from the far left it's amazing how accurate he is.

 

[Claudette]

I agree. His polls in 2008 were the most accurate.

I don't really put much credence in polls. To many variables. However I do know there are those out there who live and breath the damned things.

Way to far out for such crap but hey. Whatever floats their boat.

 

[MarcATL]

Not.


RCP Average..................47/44.4..Obama +2.6

Gallup Tracking ..............48/44....Obama +4
Rasmussen Tracking.......44/47....Romney +3
CNN/Opinion Research....49/46....Obama +3
Newsweek/Daily Beast....47/44....Obama +3
Democracy Corps (D)......49/46....Obama +3
FOX News......................45/40....Obama +5
NBC News/WS Journal.....47/44....Obama +3


But I guess FoxNews and the Wall Street Journal are just liberal media propaganda outlets...

Given it is fox news the numbers are probably distorted to cause anger and fear in their watchers. Obama being more in the lead gives them more reason to bitch, piss, and moan, and in november those numbers will be used to drive republimorons to the polls.

I have heard some stupid conspiracy theories but this one...

Nothing is more stupid than the notion that Obama is planning to take your guns, by NOT taking your guns putz.

 

[Papageorgio]

Given it is fox news the numbers are probably distorted to cause anger and fear in their watchers. Obama being more in the lead gives them more reason to bitch, piss, and moan, and in november those numbers will be used to drive republimorons to the polls.

I have heard some stupid conspiracy theories but this one...

Nothing is more stupid than the notion that Obama is planning to take your guns, by NOT taking your guns putz.

He is? I did not know that, what does that have to do with anything?

Nothing, but at least you got some name calling in, must feel like a big man today!

Let us know when you get an original thought, that actually has to do with thread you are posting in, we won't hold our breath.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I agree. His polls in 2008 were the most accurate.

I don't really put much credence in polls. To many variables. However I do know there are those out there who live and breath the damned things.

Way to far out for such crap but hey. Whatever floats their boat.

No they weren't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your NBC and other one are on there, they are 15th and 16th.

The Pew Research Center and Rasmussen Reports were the most accurate in predicting the results of the 2008 election, according to a new analysis by Fordham University political scientist Costas Panagopoulos.

The Fordham analysis ranks 23 survey research organizations on their final, national pre-election polls, as reported on pollster.com.

On average, the polls slightly overestimated Obama’s strength. The final polls showed the Democratic ahead by an average of 7.52 percentage points — 1.37 percentage points above his current 6.15-point popular vote lead. Seventeen of the 23 surveys overstated Obama’s final victory level, while four underestimated it. Only two — Rasmussen and Pew — were spot on.




Here is the list –

1T. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**

1T. Pew (10/29-11/1)**

3. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)

4. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)

5. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*

6T. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*

6T. ARG (10/25-27)*

8T. CNN (10/30-11/1)

8T. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)

10. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)

11. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)

12. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)

13. FOX (11/1-2)

14. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)

15. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)

16. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)

17. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)

18. Marist College (11/3)

19. CBS (10/31-11/2)

20. Gallup (10/31-11/2)

21. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)

22. CBS/Times (10/25-29)

23. Newsweek (10/22-23)

Obama didn't win by 6.15 points. The Fordham study was wrong. Period.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Uhm no, they were tied for first with Pew...
( notice who's missing? )


1T. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**

1T. Pew (10/29-11/1)**

3. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)

4. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)

5. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*

6T. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*

6T. ARG (10/25-27)*

8T. CNN (10/30-11/1)

8T. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)

10. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)

The List: Which presidential polls were most accurate? | Texas on the Potomac | a Chron.com blog

and I asked for the last 6 elections, anyone can be right or place in the top 3 once or twice.




you don't know what I am driving at? here-





Do I need to explain this to you? LV vs. RV vs. A sampling etc...?

and? this needs explaining to?



seriously?


and media polls imho are not dependable, I don't care who they are fox, wall st/nbc, AP, UPS, whomever, they do not do this for a living, their bread and butter doesn't depend on it as this is not their lively hood.

Gallup Pew and Ras are the top 3 over the years. Gallup and Ras are the only 2 which carry the 3 day tracking....

there no bloomberg becasue their poll is to old.

Uh no.

Note this little gem in the first few paragraphs of your own link:

above his current 6.15-point popular vote lead.

The final tally was Obama by 7.6%.

You see, that's how Rasmussen has been claiming "victory" all this time.

They stopped counting the votes once the numbers aligned with their predictions.

It is a Fordham's study, not mine. So take it up with them but it isn't Rasmussens claiming anything.

You're the one who posted it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your NBC and other one are on there, they are 15th and 16th.

The Pew Research Center and Rasmussen Reports were the most accurate in predicting the results of the 2008 election, according to a new analysis by Fordham University political scientist Costas Panagopoulos.

The Fordham analysis ranks 23 survey research organizations on their final, national pre-election polls, as reported on pollster.com.

On average, the polls slightly overestimated Obama’s strength. The final polls showed the Democratic ahead by an average of 7.52 percentage points — 1.37 percentage points above his current 6.15-point popular vote lead. Seventeen of the 23 surveys overstated Obama’s final victory level, while four underestimated it. Only two — Rasmussen and Pew — were spot on.




Here is the list –

1T. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**

1T. Pew (10/29-11/1)**

3. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)

4. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)

5. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*

6T. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*

6T. ARG (10/25-27)*

8T. CNN (10/30-11/1)

8T. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)

10. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)

11. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)

12. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)

13. FOX (11/1-2)

14. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)

15. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)

16. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)

17. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)

18. Marist College (11/3)

19. CBS (10/31-11/2)

20. Gallup (10/31-11/2)

21. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)

22. CBS/Times (10/25-29)

23. Newsweek (10/22-23)

Which was accurate, if people stopped counting the votes at that point.

Since the final tally is what's important for a poll, not the election night results, the rankings here are completely premature.

No matter how many times we point this out, the Right will not accept it because they like the wrong results better than the truth.

You are dealing with irratiional people.

 

[Papageorgio]

Your NBC and other one are on there, they are 15th and 16th.

The Pew Research Center and Rasmussen Reports were the most accurate in predicting the results of the 2008 election, according to a new analysis by Fordham University political scientist Costas Panagopoulos.

The Fordham analysis ranks 23 survey research organizations on their final, national pre-election polls, as reported on pollster.com.

On average, the polls slightly overestimated Obama’s strength. The final polls showed the Democratic ahead by an average of 7.52 percentage points — 1.37 percentage points above his current 6.15-point popular vote lead. Seventeen of the 23 surveys overstated Obama’s final victory level, while four underestimated it. Only two — Rasmussen and Pew — were spot on.




Here is the list –

1T. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**

1T. Pew (10/29-11/1)**

3. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)

4. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)

5. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*

6T. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*

6T. ARG (10/25-27)*

8T. CNN (10/30-11/1)

8T. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)

10. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)

11. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)

12. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)

13. FOX (11/1-2)

14. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)

15. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)

16. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)

17. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)

18. Marist College (11/3)

19. CBS (10/31-11/2)

20. Gallup (10/31-11/2)

21. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)

22. CBS/Times (10/25-29)

23. Newsweek (10/22-23)

Which was accurate, if people stopped counting the votes at that point.

Since the final tally is what's important for a poll, not the election night results, the rankings here are completely premature.

No matter how many times we point this out, the Right will not accept it because they like the wrong results better than the truth.

You are dealing with irratiional people.

First you need to know how they arrived at there numbers and when voting you can't choose undecided, so this group, Martin, Traugott and Kennedy, figured a way to test real accuracy while working in the undecided factor, it is a scientific method that was used and it isn't the black and white a simpleton would see.

You do believe in science and research and progressing, correct?

 

[DiamondDave]

Not.


RCP Average..................47/44.4..Obama +2.6

Gallup Tracking ..............48/44....Obama +4
Rasmussen Tracking.......44/47....Romney +3
CNN/Opinion Research....49/46....Obama +3
Newsweek/Daily Beast....47/44....Obama +3
Democracy Corps (D)......49/46....Obama +3
FOX News......................45/40....Obama +5
NBC News/WS Journal.....47/44....Obama +3


But I guess FoxNews and the Wall Street Journal are just liberal media propaganda outlets...

Rassmussen is the only pollster that screens for likely voters, over those only registered or just adults who may or may note even be registered.

But I think you already knew that.

This has been told to them over and over and over again

Not that I put much weight in small sample polls anyway... but it comes down to a different approach to the poll based on who is getting polled...

And even though I don't put a lot of weight on these pollsters... but if I am not mistaken, Rass is usually pretty close to the actual election outcome, isn't he? (legit question, because I don't really follow or track the polling agencies)

 

[NYcarbineer]

Which was accurate, if people stopped counting the votes at that point.

Since the final tally is what's important for a poll, not the election night results, the rankings here are completely premature.

No matter how many times we point this out, the Right will not accept it because they like the wrong results better than the truth.

You are dealing with irratiional people.

First you need to know how they arrived at there numbers and when voting you can't choose undecided, so this group, Martin, Traugott and Kennedy, figured a way to test real accuracy while working in the undecided factor, it is a scientific method that was used and it isn't the black and white a simpleton would see.

You do believe in science and research and progressing, correct?

No they didn't. They used the wrong final results number. Period. It's right in your post. Trying reading your own posts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not.


RCP Average..................47/44.4..Obama +2.6

Gallup Tracking ..............48/44....Obama +4
Rasmussen Tracking.......44/47....Romney +3
CNN/Opinion Research....49/46....Obama +3
Newsweek/Daily Beast....47/44....Obama +3
Democracy Corps (D)......49/46....Obama +3
FOX News......................45/40....Obama +5
NBC News/WS Journal.....47/44....Obama +3


But I guess FoxNews and the Wall Street Journal are just liberal media propaganda outlets...

Rassmussen is the only pollster that screens for likely voters, over those only registered or just adults who may or may note even be registered.

But I think you already knew that.

This has been told to them over and over and over again

Not that I put much weight in small sample polls anyway... but it comes down to a different approach to the poll based on who is getting polled...

And even though I don't put a lot of weight on these pollsters... but if I am not mistaken, Rass is usually pretty close to the actual election outcome, isn't he? (legit question, because I don't really follow or track the polling agencies)

It's not true. In the current realclearpolitics poll average, there are 3 LV polls and 4 RV polls.

And nobody knows which ones are more accurate because an election poll in July for a November election can't be tested for accuracy.

 

[Papageorgio]

No matter how many times we point this out, the Right will not accept it because they like the wrong results better than the truth.

You are dealing with irratiional people.

First you need to know how they arrived at there numbers and when voting you can't choose undecided, so this group, Martin, Traugott and Kennedy, figured a way to test real accuracy while working in the undecided factor, it is a scientific method that was used and it isn't the black and white a simpleton would see.

You do believe in science and research and progressing, correct?

No they didn't. They used the wrong final results number. Period. It's right in your post. Trying reading your own posts.

Did you Google the group? Did you see there method and how they arrived at the numbers? Of course not, you just knee jerked!