Scott Rasmussen, the most accurate pollster in the business

[Vast LWC]

So, it was a pointless thread. Since they all tied anyway and that means Rasmussen is just as good as any other. So technically Rasmussen is the most accurate, as are the others.

Only in that one instance, which was pointed out as proof that he was "the most accurate".

That instance also proves him "the least accurate" out of all the agencies that were in the MoE, by the way.

My link to the 2010 elections a few post back shows data placing him well outside the margin of error, and skewing conservative, in the majority of elections from that year, hardly ever skewing left.

What are the statistical probabilities of that happening?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nobody knows how accurate a poll is unless you have the real life measure to compare it to.

For example, you can tell how accurate a poll is if it was taken a couple days before an election, because you can compare it to the actual election. You cannot, however, tell how accurate an election poll taken in July is, if the actual election is in November.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Note:

Saying that Rasmussen, or any pollster, has a history of accuracy because they got the 2008 election close is nonsensical.

That's like saying someone is an expert stock picker because they picked one good stock years ago.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Nobody knows how accurate a poll is unless you have the real life measure to compare it to.

For example, you can tell how accurate a poll is if it was taken a couple days before an election, because you can compare it to the actual election. You cannot, however, tell how accurate an election poll taken in July is, if the actual election is in November.

Damn Beaner, you finally posted something I can agree with.

Is Hell freezing yet?

 

[Vast LWC]

Nobody knows how accurate a poll is unless you have the real life measure to compare it to.

For example, you can tell how accurate a poll is if it was taken a couple days before an election, because you can compare it to the actual election. You cannot, however, tell how accurate an election poll taken in July is, if the actual election is in November.

Damn Beaner, you finally posted something I can agree with.

Is Hell freezing yet?

I think we can all agree on this.

Waaaay too many variable from now til then.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Realclear's final average of the polls for the 2008 election was off by only 3/10ths of a percent.

That is a number worth watching.

 

[Vast LWC]

Realclear's final average of the polls for the 2008 election was off by only 3/10ths of a percent.

That is a number worth watching.

Well, if there's a number that I'd come close to trusting, it would probably be them.

But again, not until the election was a lot closer.

 

[Moonglow]

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...

In actuality, if he was the most accurate he has to ask everyone.

 

[clevergirl]

Information from a blog is only in error if they are inaccurate- otherwise it is merely a place to find information.

You make absolutely no sense. The facts are that Rasmussen uses a sampling of likely voters that actually favors registered democrats.

They also, unlike Gallup, share that information with the public- In addition their polling of the 2008 presidential election shows them favoring Obama, except a brief period in September, for the win. That data is consistent with their margin of error.

Scott Rasmussen has nothing to gain by skewing his polls- everything to gain by attempting to have accurate numbers. You people need some serious chill time.

It obviously does not skew Democrat, as his numbers always swing right.

Even in 2008, his numbers did not skew left, though the closer he got to the election, the more accurate his numbers became. You can see this by going here and scrolling down:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - General Election: McCain vs. Obama

And yes, he has everything to gain by skewing his polls. Since he started doing it, he has been featured on FoxNews all the time, and is quoted by right wingers continuously.

Skewing his polls to the right has brought Scott Rasmussen fame and fortune, and he knows it quite well.

He does not "skew right"! His polls have been dead on accurate most every election, not just 2008! Which MUST MEAN that at times they skew left since democrats win elections too! MY GAWD <shaking head>

He is also featured on CNN. NPR CBS and other broadcasts and cable outlets.

His samples are normally 1 to 2% more democrat then republican.

 

[Trajan]

So, it was a pointless thread. Since they all tied anyway and that means Rasmussen is just as good as any other. So technically Rasmussen is the most accurate, as are the others.

Only in that one instance, which was pointed out as proof that he was "the most accurate".

That instance also proves him "the least accurate" out of all the agencies that were in the MoE, by the way.

My link to the 2010 elections a few post back shows data placing him well outside the margin of error, and skewing conservative, in the majority of elections from that year, hardly ever skewing left.

What are the statistical probabilities of that happening?

My link to the 2010 elections a few post back shows data placing him well outside the margin of error, and skewing conservative, in the majority of elections from that year, hardly ever skewing left.

Uh, I made that point myself...


so, the thread was pointless becasue rasmussen is much more accurate than any media polling grp. or entity and , had to head in their existence are right at the top with gallup and pew....so, what now?

 

[Trajan]

No matter the spin any liberal poster attempts to put on these numbers- The facts are that even if we give Obama the positive 2.5 RCP lead over Romney it is within the margin of error. For an incumbent president that's not a very good place to be, especially in light of all the negatives in the following areas.
Obama Job Approval
Congressional Job Approval
Direction of Country
Latest State of Union Polls

The point of this thread was not to put "spin" on anything, and I have stated several times that the results putting Obama ahead are probably of no consequence at this point in the race.

The point of the thread was that Rasmussen, specifically, slants its numbers Conservative, and, as a result, it is the only polling agency that any of the right-wingers on this board post about.

false..but hey you're on a roll....for a guy that cannot produce a link from an authoritative source, or any source it appears, that says Ras was not top 2 in 08, this is to be expected.

 

[Trajan]

Realclear's final average of the polls for the 2008 election was off by only 3/10ths of a percent.

That is a number worth watching.

and can we see that final poll please? I'd like to see the participants...thx in advance...

 

[Trajan]

they stopped what? I have no idea what you are trying to say here... the 'paragraph' you alluded too;

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

nate silver-

In summation, none of these tracking polls are perfect, although Rasmussen -- with its large sample size and high pollster rating -- would probably be the one I'd want with me on a desert island. Conversely, the only one of the trackers that I consider obviously dubious is Zogby.

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Tracking Poll Primer

Poll Obama McCain Spread (actual=6.5) Off by
Rasmussen Reports 52 46 6 0.5
Pew 52 46 6 0.5
GWU/Battleground 50 44 6 0.5
Ipsos/McClatchy 53 46 7 0.5
CNN/Opinion Research 53 46 7 0.5
Fox News 50 43 7 0.5
Diageo/Hotline 50 45 5 1.5
NBC News / Wall St. Journal 51 43 8 1.5
Gallup Traditional 51 43 8 1.5
IBD/TIPP 52 44 8 1.5
Marist 52 43 9 2.5
ABC News / Wash Post 53 44 9 2.5
Gallup Expanded 52 43 9 2.5
CBS News / NYT 51 42 9 2.5
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby 54 43 11 4.5

The table below is an assessment of pollster performance in the 2008 Presidential election. The pollsters were graded on both the accuracy of their final poll (popular vote) and the consistency of their polling during the month of October.

The overall score is a weighted average of their Accuracy and Consistency numbers. The weighting is 75% accuracy and 25% consistency. Formula details are at the bottom of this page.

Overall
Poll Score Grade Accuracy Consistency
Rasmussen Reports 91% A- 92% 86%
Ipsos/McClatchy 89% B+ 92% 79%
CNN/Opinion Research 88% B+ 92% 77%
Fox News 84% B 92% 61%
Pew 83% B- 92% 56%
GWU/Battleground 79% C+ 92% 41%
Diageo/Hotline 77% C+ 77% 79%
NBC News / Wall St. Journal 76% C 77% 75%
Gallup Traditional 73% C- 77% 63%
Marist 67% D+ 62% 82%
ABC News / Wash Post 67% D+ 62% 82%
IBD/TIPP 66% D 77% 34%
Gallup Expanded 66% D 62% 78%
CBS News / NYT 60% D- 62% 56%
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby 35% F 31% 48%

2008 Intrade Vs. Actual Election Results



and-

As for polling firms, the respected Pew firm was right there with Silver, showing a 52-46 national vote breakdown in its final survey. (Though it's important to note that pollsters, unlike analysts, see their principal role as trying to reflect the electorate ahead of election day, as opposed to making predictions.) Rasmussen can also take a bow for getting the national numbers right.


BEST AND WORST LAST-MINUTE POLLS:

National:

Best: PEW and Rasmussen, noted above

Worst: Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby, 11/3: Obama 54/McCain 43

Florida:

Best: Public Policy Polling, 11/2: Obama 50/McCain 48

Worst: Fox-Rassumussen, 11/2: McCain 50/Obama 49

Ohio:

Best: CNN/TIME, 10/28: Obama 51/McCain 47

Worst: Strategic Vision, 11/2: McCain 48/Obama 46

Virginia:

Best: Fox-Rasmussen, 11/2: Obama 51/McCain 47

Worst: CNN/TIME, 10/28: Obama 53/McCain 44

Missouri:

Best: Zogby, Rasmussen and others had this race accurately tied at 49/49.

Worst: Politico/InsiderAdvantage, 10/29: McCain 50/Obama 47

Colorado:

Best: American Research Group, 10/30: Obama 52/McCain 45

Worst: YouGov/Polimetrix, 11/1: Obama 55/McCain 40

Election Poll Review: Who Got It Right?



I don't know what else to tell you.....but iti sounds to me like you have a bias. it is what it is dude.

OK, let me break this down, very simply, though I'm pretty sure you understand what I'm saying, but are intentionally pretending not to.

On election night, when the election was called, Obama was ahead by 6%.

However, all the votes had not been tallied by that point.

The polls are supposed to be a reflection of the total vote tally, not the vote tally from the point where McCain realized he had no chance.

The FINAL TALLY put Obama ahead of McCain by 7.6 %

That's 7.6, not 6.15.

Get it?

Therefore, since Rasmussen had a 6% margin, they were not even close to the polling agencies that had 8% or even 7%.

In fact, when all the votes were counted, Rasmussen was tied for 6th among the major pollsters.

Which again, places them nowhere near the "most accurate".

Now, you can keep on throwing statistics from election night, or from October 2008 all you want. But in the end, the numbers don't lie.

then all of these agencies, nate silver et al are nuts and......you're not.they all went along to make Scott happy....I see now!!!!!!


they counted it the way they did for a reason, BUT no, you have called them all out......okey doke

The polls are supposed to be a reflection of the total vote tally, not the vote tally from the point where McCain realized he had no chance.

then why have they not changed?

 

[Trajan]

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?

But you see, as Trajan was kind enough to point out in one of his linked articles from October of 2008, it turns out that Rasmussen uses "Party ID" to filter their data, and are the ONLY polling agency that does so.

So, their data becomes skewed.

And there you go. Thanks Trajan.

news flash, they ALL do, hello. BUT then again they don't, like ap and whats their face last month, they used the turn out models from 08 instead of the turn out from 2010...and whammo, they were an "outlier"....

 

[blackhawk]

Lets just cut through all the bullshit shall we the mindset of the far left anyway is any poll that does not favor Obama is biased. So when the left gets on this typical Rasmussen rant well much like my dog when she starts howling at the moon you just have to let them go till they get out of their system.

 

[Dr.House]

Fact: If Rasmussen weren't accurate he'd be out of business...

True Story, Bro...

 

[Papageorgio]

So, it was a pointless thread. Since they all tied anyway and that means Rasmussen is just as good as any other. So technically Rasmussen is the most accurate, as are the others.

Only in that one instance, which was pointed out as proof that he was "the most accurate".

That instance also proves him "the least accurate" out of all the agencies that were in the MoE, by the way.

My link to the 2010 elections a few post back shows data placing him well outside the margin of error, and skewing conservative, in the majority of elections from that year, hardly ever skewing left.

What are the statistical probabilities of that happening?

He was off by 1.2% by margin of victory, and as with all polls claimed a 3%-4% error. I don't believe you are objective about any of it anyway. I also never claimed Rasmussen to be the most accurate, i went of scientific calculations that people with a lot more knowledge on the subject claimed.

Not sure why you make claims and play games from there.

 

[paulitician]

Not important. The Fix is already in. Been in for awhile. Barack Obama was selected, not elected. He was selected for two terms. And that's just the way it is. Our Electoral Process is a very sad scam.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Realclear's final average of the polls for the 2008 election was off by only 3/10ths of a percent.

That is a number worth watching.

and can we see that final poll please? I'd like to see the participants...thx in advance...

Why are you even in this thread if you don't know that? Or can't find that?

 

[Vast LWC]

false..but hey you're on a roll....for a guy that cannot produce a link from an authoritative source, or any source it appears, that says Ras was not top 2 in 08, this is to be expected.

Why would I need to produce a "source" when the actual numbers are publicly available for everyone to see.

Are you claiming that the margin of win for Obama was not in fact 7.3%?

Or that Rasmussen's prediction was not in fact 6%?

Which is it?

As I said, you can keep on posting articles from before the final tally was in all you want, it doesn't change the numbers.

Of course, if you're going to argue the Margin of Error argument, but that would make them both tied for first and tied for 12th simultaneously, in which case there's no point trying to claim they're "most accurate" to begin with.