Even Conservatives know Rasmussen is biased against Democrats ...

[jackalope]

McArdle's line on Rasmussen being biased against Democrats jumped out at me in this article:

Healthcare: Parsing the Polls and Focus Groups

11 Sep 2009 01:03 pm
Well, we've got the first of the very preliminary poll ratings on the healthcare speech. Rasmussen, predictibly, says that the bounce wasn't that big, and consisted almost entirely of rising support in the president's own party; Rasmussen's results are almost always considerably more negative for Democrats than other polls. Meanwhile, my esteemed colleague has obtained an internal Democratic memo on their focus grouping:

Research conducted with 49 voters in Tempe, Arizona by David Binder, who was Obama's campaign focus group guru, suggests to Democrats that the speech was "effective at alleviating concerns of voters and impressing upon them that the President has a strong plan to reform health care," the memo says. "Even among those voters who held neutral or negative opinions of the President, substantial positive movement was shown as the proportion of these participants supporting the President's plan increased by nearly 40% after the speech.​

Let's break that apart. In the latest independent poll I'm aware of, the pre-speech support for the health care plan was at 29% among independents, 10% among Republicans, and 37% overall. A "nearly 40% increase in those numbers" means something under 40% support among independents, 14% among Republicans, and still solidly less-than-50% overall. Getting more support among Democrats doesn't help him--they'll mostly vote for Democrats anyway.

Some other thoughts:

• Focus groups are problematic; it's very hard for those who run them to keep their biases from subtly affecting the results, and the sample is necessarily very small.
• Democrats may not need majority support to strengthen their legislators' spines; they may just need to tip the balance from 37% in favor and 39% against to 39% in favor and 37% against, figuring the undecideds won't vote on it. On the other hand, my sense is that independents tend to break against both incumbents and policies, rather than for. Witness the storied history of Social Security Reform polling. People actually got more anxious about the state of Social Security as things went on--but also became less willing to change it.
• Bounces have half-lives. The real action comes as Republicans and Democrats start their final push. The fact that Max Baucus is scrambling on the illegal immigration issue suggests that Joe Wilson didn't hurt Republicans as much as I initially thought--or at least, he simultaneously dealt a blow to Democrats.

So split the difference between the Democrats and Rasmussen: support probably rose modestly among independents, strongly among Democrats, and fell or stayed pat among Republicans. The Republican support was so low that it really isn't a factor. It will all hinge on what the independents do. And indeed, though this CBS poll shows that more people support the plan than before, and Obama's approval rating has flipped on the issue, more people still think that the reforms will hurt them than help them, and more think that Obama has not clearly explained his plans, than that he has. Which is about what we'd expect from a moderate speech bump. But hell, in the history of political speeches, moving the dial a little bit is a rousing success.

Still, what will really matter is whether Obama manages to seize this bump and move it forward. If he doesn't, the modest improvement will dissipate into fall busyness.

Developing . . .

Update: Nate Silver points out that more Democrats probably watched the speech than independents or Republicans . . . but says that their votes matter too.

Healthcare: Parsing the Polls and Focus Groups - Megan McArdle

 

[Grim17]

Rasmussen is one of the most accurate pollsters in the business.

In the 2004 presidential election, Bush won with 51% of the vote, and Kerry got 48%. Rasmussen's poll had it 50.2% to 48.5%.

Then there was the 2008 presidential election:

Poll Accuracy in the 2008 Presidential Election
—Initial Report, November 5, 2008—
Costas Panagopoulos, Ph.D.
Department of Political Science Fordham University
For inquiries: cpanagopoulo@fordham.edu or (917) 405-9069


For all the derision directed toward pre-election polling, the final poll estimates were not far off from the actual nationwide voteshares for the two candidates. On average, preelection polls from 23 public polling organizations projected a Democratic advantage of 7.52 percentage points on Election Day, which is only about 1.37 percentage points away from the current estimate of a 6.15-point Obama margin in the national popular vote.

Following the procedures proposed by Martin, Traugott and Kennedy (see Public Opinion Quarterly, Fall 2006, pp. 342-369) to assess poll accuracy, I analyze poll estimates from these 23 polling organizations. Four of these polls appear to have overestimated McCain support (indicated with a * below), while most polls (17) overestimated Obama strength. Pre-election projections for two organizations’ final polls—Rasmussen and Pew—were perfectly in agreement with the actual election result (**).

The following list ranks the 23 organizations by the accuracy of their final, national preelection polls (as reported on pollster.com).

1. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
1. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
2. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
3. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
4. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*
5. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
5. ARG (10/25-27)*
6. CNN (10/30-11/1)
6. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
7. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
8. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
9. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
10. FOX (11/1-2)
11. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
12. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
13. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
14. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
15. Marist College (11/3)
16. CBS (10/31-11/2)
17. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
18. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
19. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
20. Newsweek (10/22-23)

Link

But hey, who cares about accuracy when you have a blockbuster op-ed like the one you posted?

.

 

[jackalope]

Rasmussen is one of the most accurate pollsters in the business.

In the 2004 presidential election, Bush won with 51% of the vote, and Kerry got 48%. Rasmussen's poll had it 50.2% to 48.5%.

Then there was the 2008 presidential election:



But hey, who cares about accuracy when you have a blockbuster op-ed like the one you posted?

.

Actually, his election polling has absolutely nothing to do with his issue polling, and his record in election polling has absolutely nothing to do with his record in issue polling, and those who follow polling - even conservatives - know it.

It's apparently just the rank and file rightie, and Faux Nation, that thinks they're getting good info with Rasmussen issue polling, and mmmmm mmmmmm good they love themselves those empty calories :2wave:

 

[political_debater]

Rasmussen did a better job than alot of "JACKASS DONKEY SYMBOL" polling.

Look at this Ann Coulter Article from her site right before Obama got elected.
AnnCoulter.com - Archived Article: EIGHTY-FOUR PERCENT SAY THEY'D NEVER LIE TO A POLLSTER




In 1976, Jimmy Carter narrowly beat Gerald Ford 50.1 percent to 48 percent. And yet, on Sept. 1, Carter led Ford by 15 points. Just weeks before the election, on Oct. 16, 1976, Carter led Ford in the Gallup Poll by 6 percentage points -- down from his 33-point Gallup Poll lead in August.




In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Carter by nearly 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent. In a Gallup Poll released days before the election on Oct. 27, it was Carter who led Reagan 45 percent to 42 percent.




In 1984, Reagan walloped Walter Mondale 58.8 percent to 40 percent, -- the largest electoral landslide in U.S. history. But on Oct. 15, The New York Daily News published a poll showing Mondale with only a 4-point deficit to Reagan, 45 percent to 41 percent. A Harris Poll about the same time showed Reagan with only a 9-point lead. The Oct. 19 New York Times/CBS News Poll had Mr. Reagan ahead of Mondale by 13 points. All these polls underestimated Reagan's actual margin of victory by 6 to 15 points




In 1988, George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis by a whopping 53.4 percent to 45.6 percent. A New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 5 had Bush leading the Greek homunculus by a statistically insignificant 2 points -- 45 percent to 43 percent. (For the kids out there: Before it became a clearinghouse for anti-Bush conspiracy theories, CBS News was considered a credible journalistic entity.)

A week later -- or one tank ride later, depending on who's telling the story -- on Oct. 13, Bush was leading Dukakis in The New York Times Poll by a mere 5 points.

Admittedly, a 3- to 6-point error is not as crazily wrong as the 6- to 15-point error in 1984. But it's striking that even small "margin of error" mistakes never seem to benefit Republicans.




In 1992, Bill Clinton beat the first President Bush 43 percent to 37.7 percent. (Ross Perot got 18.9 percent of Bush's voters that year.) On Oct. 18, a Newsweek Poll had Clinton winning 46 percent to 31 percent, and a CBS News Poll showed Clinton winning 47 percent to 35 percent.

So in 1992, the polls had Clinton 12 to 15 points ahead, but he won by only 5.3 points.

In 1996, Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole 49 percent to 40 percent. And yet on Oct. 22, 1996, The New York Times/CBS News Poll showed Clinton leading by a massive 22 points, 55 percent to 33 percent.




In 2000, which I seem to recall as being fairly close, the October polls accurately described the election as a virtual tie, with either Bush or Al Gore 1 or 2 points ahead in various polls. But in one of the latest polls to give either candidate a clear advantage, The New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 3, 2000, showed Gore winning by 45 percent to 39 percent.

In the last presidential election the polls were surprisingly accurate -- not including the massively inaccurate Election Day exit poll. In the end, Bush beat John Kerry 50.7 percent to 48.3 percent in 2004. Most of the October polls showed the candidates in a dead-heat, with Bush 1 to 3 points ahead. So either pollsters got a whole lot better starting in 2004, or Democrats stole more votes in that election than we even realized.




HAH... Talk about bias!

 

[jackalope]

So, you don't understand the diff b/w Election polling and Issue polling either.


Go get some empty calories, I'm sure Rasmussen's got some new winger food posted ...

 

[Kernel Sanders]

Actually, his election polling has absolutely nothing to do with his issue polling, and his record in election polling has absolutely nothing to do with his record in issue polling, and those who follow polling - even conservatives - know it.

It's apparently just the rank and file rightie, and Faux Nation, that thinks they're getting good info with Rasmussen issue polling, and mmmmm mmmmmm good they love themselves those empty calories :2wave:

Can you cite some of the blemishes on Rasmussen's issue polling record?

Also, it is hardly surprising that the president's own focus group, which consisted of a whopping 49 people, yielded more extreme and more favorable results than rasmussen's 1000 person sample group.

 

[Agent_Grey]

To Rasumussen's defense or detraction depending on how you look at it:

The issue is their continued use of a method in which their polls are almost always surveyed amongst "likely voters".

There's nothing wrong with that, but "likely Voters" are typically older, and there is a dispreportionate number of more conservative people amongst older individuals, thus there is a conservative drag on all their polling data.

It's not mystery, just an issue of data set.

 

[jackalope]

Can you cite some of the blemishes on Rasmussen's issue polling record?

Also, it is hardly surprising that the president's own focus group, which consisted of a whopping 49 people, yielded more extreme and more favorable results than rasmussen's 1000 person sample group.

The article equally discounts the Republican poll (Rasmussen) and the Democratic one (focus group).


Empirical evidence of Rasmussen outlier results on non-election polling (see poll aggregators), articles about Rasmussen's issue polling I've read in the past, and lack of any evidence that their issue polling is as reliable as their election polling. See the comment of the conservative author in the OP casually acknowledging what most who follow polling knows - Rasmussen issue polling is skewed against Democrats.


I've posted articles in the past.
I'd like to see a Rasmussen-defender show some evidence that their issue polling is NOT skewed.

 

[jackalope]

To Rasumussen's defense or detraction depending on how you look at it:

The issue is their continued use of a method in which their polls are almost always surveyed amongst "likely voters".

There's nothing wrong with that, but "likely Voters" are typically older, and there is a dispreportionate number of more conservative people amongst older individuals, thus there is a conservative drag on all their polling data.

It's not mystery, just an issue of data set.

Their issue with 'issue' polling is generally the question wording. He makes his money off selling weekly issue polls to conservative outlets, and he delivers what they want to buy.

 

[Kernel Sanders]

The article equally discounts the Republican poll (Rasmussen) and the Democratic one (focus group).


Empirical evidence of Rasmussen outlier results on non-election polling (see poll aggregators), articles about Rasmussen's issue polling I've read in the past, and lack of any evidence that their issue polling is as reliable as their election polling. See the comment of the conservative author in the OP casually acknowledging what most who follow polling knows - Rasmussen issue polling is skewed against Democrats.


I've posted articles in the past.
I'd like to see a Rasmussen-defender show some evidence that their issue polling is NOT skewed.

Can you dig up any of the links you've already posted? I can only recall posters with a serious agenda on this board claim that Rasmussen is biased (NP and the like).

 

[jackalope]

I can look.

I confess to getting bored with hunting up links and reposting, but I'll look

After dinner.

 

[political_debater]

Go get fixed. And go back to your fixed polling on the internet.

You don't make any sense. Then again, neither do jackasslopes.

Why does anybody have any polling if it's useless.

Rasmussen was more accurate than those retarded liberal polls.

 

[RightinNYC]

Until you figure out the difference between being "biased against" something and coming up with different results for something, I'm not going to bother rehashing this same stupid debate.

 

[RightinNYC]

Can you dig up any of the links you've already posted? I can only recall posters with a serious agenda on this board claim that Rasmussen is biased (NP and the like).

Here's a good sample:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/55499-obamas-approval-rating-45-a-4.html

Until the difference between "all adults" and "likely voters" is cleared up, I don't think there's much point in arguing about it with him.

 

[jackalope]

Here's a good sample:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/55499-obamas-approval-rating-45-a-4.html

Until the difference between "all adults" and "likely voters" is cleared up, I don't think there's much point in arguing about it with him.

I don't have a problem with all adults or likely voters, I have a problem with his question wording.

 

[jackalope]

Until you figure out the difference between being "biased against" something and coming up with different results for something, I'm not going to bother rehashing this same stupid debate.

As the conservative author of the OP article noted:

"Rasmussen's results are almost always considerably more negative for Democrats than other polls."


That is not different results, that is a bias.

 

[RightinNYC]

I don't have a problem with all adults or likely voters, I have a problem with his question wording.

You never explained what part of his approval question wording you didn't like, you just cited an article that complained about one or two particular questions. I don't know why you think that applies to everything else.

As the conservative author of the OP article noted:

"Rasmussen's results are almost always considerably more negative for Democrats than other polls."


That is not different results, that is a bias.

1) I'm not sure why you think Megan McArdle speaks for everyone or anyone other than herself.
2) If you read that sentence and come away with an understanding that she's saying they're "biased against" Democrats in the way you're using the term, then it's pointless for me to bother arguing with you about this anymore.

 

[jackalope]

Can you dig up any of the links you've already posted? I can only recall posters with a serious agenda on this board claim that Rasmussen is biased (NP and the like).

Here's a blurb by Nate Silver about Rasmussen's health care polling results:

You can see Rasmussen's results are outlier results. Here is Nate's discussion about Rasmussen's poll construction. It gets low marks for non-partisanship, informativeness, and question wording:

4. Rasmussen Reports

Who They Are / What's Their Angle: Regular readers of this website will be very familiar with Rasmussen Reports, a standalone polling firm that releases a prolific amount of polling data on elections and public policy issues. Past FiveThirtyEight.com analyses have generally found Rasmussen's electoral polling to be quite reliable. However, some observers have questioned its issue-based polling, which frequently tends to elicit responses that are more conservative than those found on other national surveys. Rasmussen Reports' founder, Scott Rasmussen, is a Republican, although neither he nor Rasmussen Reports have appear to have contributed to political candidates in recent years. Nor to my awareness does Rasmussen Reports conduct a significant amount of polling directly on behalf of political candidates.

Specifications: 1,000 American adults on June 12th and 13th. Assuming that procedures here were the same as for other Rasmussen polling, surveys were conducted via the IVR ("robocall") method and were weighted for partisan identification and other factors.

Question Wording and Results:

"Would it be a good idea to set up a government health insurance company to compete with private health insurance companies?"

Yes: 41%
No: 41%

Discussion: I am not particularly fond of this question wording. For one thing, unlike the other polls, it focuses on the action of setting up the "government health insurance company" rather than the choice of insurance plans this ultimately presents to the consumer. For another, it is not clear that a new program would have to be "set up" in order to provide for a public option (i.e. an existing program like Medicare could be expanded), nor that any such entity would properly be described as a "company". The poll seems designed to juxtapose the terms "government" and "company" in a way that might elicit a negative response. (Note that I actually like the inclusion of the term "government" in conjunction with, or perhaps instead of, the term "public". The problem is not with the term "government" itself but instead with the overall way that the question is phrased.)

Non-partisanship rating:

Question wording:

Sample size, sample selection and disclosure:

Overall informativeness:

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Public Support for the Public Option

Here's a link to an Yglesias article discussing Scott Rasmussen’s Conservative-Friendly Question-Wording

 

[jackalope]

You never explained what part of his approval question wording you didn't like, you just cited an article that complained about one or two particular questions. I don't know why you think that applies to everything else.



1) I'm not sure why you think Megan McArdle speaks for everyone or anyone other than herself.
2) If you read that sentence and come away with an understanding that she's saying they're "biased against" Democrats in the way you're using the term, then it's pointless for me to bother arguing with you about this anymore.

1) I never said she did. I said a conservative casually acknowledged what I've read about Rasmussen's issue polling time and time again - their issue polling is biased w/ a conservative slant. This is not a big secret.

2) 'Considerably more negative for' and biased against are reasonable swaps - they mean the same thing.




bi⋅as
  /ˈbaɪəs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [bahy-uhs] Show IPA noun, adjective, adverb, verb, bi⋅ased, bi⋅as⋅ing or (especially British) bi⋅assed, bi⋅as⋅sing.
–noun
1. an oblique or diagonal line of direction, esp. across a woven fabric.
2. a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.
3. Statistics. a systematic as opposed to a random distortion of a statistic as a result of sampling procedure.
4. Lawn Bowling.
a. a slight bulge or greater weight on one side of the ball or bowl.
b. the curved course made by such a ball when rolled.
5. Electronics. the application of a steady voltage or current to an active device, as a diode or transistor, to produce a desired mode of operation.
6. a high-frequency alternating current applied to the recording head of a tape recorder during recording in order to reduce distortion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/biased

 

[RightinNYC]

Here's a blurb by Nate Silver about Rasmussen's health care polling results:

You can see Rasmussen's results are outlier results. Here is Nate's discussion about Rasmussen's poll construction. It gets low marks for non-partisanship, informativeness, and question wording:

In order to argue that Rasmussen's wording is somehow skewed against Democrats, you're citing the entirely subjective analysis of an avowed Democratic blogger and see absolutely no problem with that.

Do you see why this type of thing makes it hard for me to dredge up the willpower to respond?

Here's a link to an Yglesias article discussing Scott Rasmussen’s Conservative-Friendly Question-Wording

And for the third time, you've cited an article that doesn't even pretend to be conducting some sort of analysis beyond "oh I don't think this is fair because it doesn't come out the way I like." If you're going to make the sweeping and unsupported argument that Rasmussen's wording is biased across the platform, you need a lot more than one ****ty thinkprogress article.

And why is it that you still keep ignoring my question about what in particular is wrong with his approval question wording?

1) I never said she did. I said a conservative casually acknowledged what I've read about Rasmussen's issue polling time and time again - their issue polling is biased w/ a conservative slant. This is not a big secret.

2) 'Considerably more negative for' and biased against are reasonable swaps - they mean the same thing.




bi⋅as
  /ˈbaɪəs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [bahy-uhs] Show IPA noun, adjective, adverb, verb, bi⋅ased, bi⋅as⋅ing or (especially British) bi⋅assed, bi⋅as⋅sing.
–noun
1. an oblique or diagonal line of direction, esp. across a woven fabric.
2. a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.
3. Statistics. a systematic as opposed to a random distortion of a statistic as a result of sampling procedure.
4. Lawn Bowling.
a. a slight bulge or greater weight on one side of the ball or bowl.
b. the curved course made by such a ball when rolled.
5. Electronics. the application of a steady voltage or current to an active device, as a diode or transistor, to produce a desired mode of operation.
6. a high-frequency alternating current applied to the recording head of a tape recorder during recording in order to reduce distortion.

Biased Definition | Definition of Biased at Dictionary.com

You have been arguing that Rasmussen is deliberately skewing its polls and is thus "biased against Democrats." Now, you're claiming that McArdle's quote noting that "Rasmussen's results are almost always considerably more negative" is some secret admission that does suffer from that bias.

Saying that something is more negative than something else is not the same as saying that it's "biased against X" in the way you're using it. Dancing around the defintion of "bias" doesn't change that.

If I conducted a public approval poll of Bin Laden here in NY, I'm willing to bet that it would show that he's not very popular. That poll would indeed demonstrate a "bias against" Bin Laden, but it would not necessarily be "biased against" Bin Laden.

McArdle's statement acknowledges that Rasmussen's polls generally tend to show lower results for Obama/liberal policies than other polls. We know. Nobody is denying this. What I've pointed out to you ad nauseum is that there is a completely reasonable explanation for this: Likely voters v. All adults.

Accordingly, I would have no problem saying that "Rasmussen's results are almost always considerably more negative," but I would not be admitting that Rasmussen is "biased against Democrats" in the way that you're claiming they are.

 

[jackalope]

In order to argue that Rasmussen's wording is somehow skewed against Democrats, you're citing the entirely subjective analysis of an avowed Democratic blogger and see absolutely no problem with that.

Do you see why this type of thing makes it hard for me to dredge up the willpower to respond?

No, I don't. Being a member of a party, doesn't make you partisan and non-biased. Which is why I didn't say Rasmussen can't be trusted b/c he's a Republican. I posted articles, which is what I was asked to do.

You have not once - ever - posted any proof that Rasmussen's issue polling is unbiased. Let's see your evidence.

And for the third time, you've cited an article that doesn't even pretend to be conducting some sort of analysis beyond "oh I don't think this is fair because it doesn't come out the way I like." If you're going to make the sweeping and unsupported argument that Rasmussen's wording is biased across the platform, you need a lot more than one ****ty thinkprogress article.

You keep attacking my sources, and not my content. Quit the ad hominems, they are not compelling.

And why is it that you still keep ignoring my question about what in particular is wrong with his approval question wording?

To the contrary, the article by Nate discusses the wording, as does the one by Yglesias.

You have been arguing that Rasmussen is deliberately skewing its polls and is thus "biased against Democrats." Now, you're claiming that McArdle's quote noting that "Rasmussen's results are almost always considerably more negative" is some secret admission that does suffer from that bias.

Rasmussen IS deliberately skewing its polls, and it is biased against Democrats. Or more specifically FOR Republicans.

Question wording is one of the most significant aspects of a poll, keeping wording, and even order of questions, neutral is of utmost importance. It is a subject of much complexity, and the topic of courses and textbooks. Your dismissals just demonstrate your lack of knowledge of statistical modelling and methodology.

Saying that something is more negative than something else is not the same as saying that it's "biased against X" in the way you're using it. Dancing around the defintion of "bias" doesn't change that.

Sorry, you're just wrong. Any poll that is with regularity more favorable for one group or another is biased.

If I conducted a public approval poll of Bin Laden here in NY, I'm willing to bet that it would show that he's not very popular. That poll would indeed demonstrate a "bias against" Bin Laden, but it would not necessarily be "biased against" Bin Laden.

No it wouldn't and no one has made the claim that a single Rasmussen result means his polls are biased. It is consistently biased against Democrats - in his issue polling - track record is what matters. Your single poll example is over-simplifying to the point of being irrelevant. There is no equivalency at all.

McArdle's statement acknowledges that Rasmussen's polls generally tend to show lower results for Obama/liberal policies than other polls. We know. Nobody is denying this. What I've pointed out to you ad nauseum is that there is a completely reasonable explanation for this: Likely voters v. All adults.

Sorry - YOU are denying that Rasmussen's polls generally tend to show lower results for Obama/liberal policies. So have multiple other people.

As to likely voter vs all adults - I quite understand the difference in models, and factor it into my own interpretation of a poll, but do not dismiss a poll as biased because of that modelling. And, I don't need you to point out the difference once, or ad nauseum. I've never raised the question.

And, btw, Quinnipiac tends to use likely voters. And their results do not tend to consistently be conservative-friendly. The sampling isn't the cause of Rasmussen's problem with issue polling. Their question wording is.

Accordingly, I would have no problem saying that "Rasmussen's results are almost always considerably more negative," but I would not be admitting that Rasmussen is "biased against Democrats" in the way that you're claiming they are.

Then you don't understand the importance of statistical modeling neutrality.

 

[political_debater]

Even Conservatives know Rasmussen is biased against Democrats ...

How do you know that? Did you look at a poll?

 

[jackalope]

How do you know that? Did you look at a poll?

From reading articles about polling by conservative authors. Such as the one in the OP.

 

[StandUpChuck]

From reading articles about polling by conservative authors. Such as the one in the OP.

Links to other articles?

 

[jackalope]

Links to other articles?

I don't have any right now, but I'll keep it in mind, and when I come across one, I'll post it. Same as I did with this one.


BTW, I've *yet* to see one person actually give articles or ratings demonstrating Rasmussen's issue polling accuracy and neutrality.

Only election polling. Which is then conflated with issue polling.