Even Conservatives know Rasmussen is biased against Democrats ...

[DarkWizard12]

Rasmussen is not biased in their numbers. To prove it, just go back to 2006 on this very forum and look at the dems that cited Rasmussen to show how "bad" bush was.

you dems, you make me "lawl" :lol:

 

[DarkWizard12]

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

Because he doesn't have too. Innocent untill proven guilty, isn't it? So where is your proof that Rasmussen is "biased"?

 

[jackalope]

Rasmussen is not biased in their numbers. To prove it, just go back to 2006 on this very forum and look at the dems that cited Rasmussen to show how "bad" bush was.

you dems, you make me "lawl" :lol:

Rasmussen is not biased in their election polling.
Rasmussen is biased in their issue and soft polling.


There has never been a shred of evidence provided that Rasmussen's issue polling is as reliable / neutral as Rasmussen's election polling.


BTW, I used Rasmussen's election polling in '04, '06, AND '08. I read grumblings about their models and automated polling, but their numbers seemed reliable to me, and they turned out to be.

 

[jackalope]

Because he doesn't have too. Innocent untill proven guilty, isn't it? So where is your proof that Rasmussen is "biased"?

No, actually, pollster reputation is not innocent until proven guilty, it's track record. Pollster reliability must be demonstrated, and Rasmussen's reliability / neutrality in issue polling has not been demonstrated.

 

[RightinNYC]

I can't believe I'm getting sucked into this again, but this is seriously the last time.

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.

He's not a Republican. Nice try.

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.

You don't seem to get it - it's not my job to prove that his issue polling is unbiased. I'm pointing out that he's an incredibly experienced and professional poster. You've provided 2 articles written by democratic partisans complaining about his wording without any substantive evidence other than their subjective opinions. That's a load of worthless ****.

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

Then stop pretending that your ****ty sources mean anything.

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

Yea, they both say "we don't think this is fair." How the **** is that any sort of reliable evidence? Who the **** cares what these two democratic partisans think?

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

Bull****. The fact that you still don't understand the difference between being "biased against" and "reading different results" is embarrassing.

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.

:rofl

I know enough about polling methodology to know that you have no clue what the **** you're talking about.

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

lol, no. That's not how it works.

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

Holy. ****. No. I. Am. Not.

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.

Their numbers are generally slightly lower than other polls - that's not because of some secret plot to screw Obama, it's because they use likely voters, instead of all adults.

Read the words on your computer screen.

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.

I keep bringing it up because it doesn't appear that you understand it. The claim that "if their results are always lower that means they're biased!" doesn't make sense unless you don't understand it.

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.

Oh, well so long as you've concluded that, it must be the case.

 

[jackalope]

Yes you have, more than once, attempted to use Rasmussen's election polling results as proof that his issue polling is reliable.

You have further never demonstrated that Rasmussen's issue polling IS reliable.

Pollster reputations are earned/proved. They don't start out with the assumption they are accurate, and the negative must be proved. The fact that they ARE unbiased and reliable is what must be proven. Which you, nor any righty who continues to post them, has ever done.

 

[DarkWizard12]

No, actually, pollster reputation is not innocent until proven guilty, it's track record. Pollster reliability must be demonstrated, and Rasmussen's reliability / neutrality in issue polling has not been demonstrated.

Well, how do you go and prove a track record of this new label of "issue polling"?

 

[DarkWizard12]

Pollster reputations are earned/proved. They don't start out with the assumption they are accurate, and the negative must be proved. The fact that they ARE unbiased and reliable is what must be proven. Which you, nor any righty who continues to post them, has ever done.

Because it's impossible. What you have never done is prove that they are wrong, which is actually possible. It's like proving God exists, except replace "god" with "bias".

 

[jackalope]

Well, how do you go and prove a track record of this new label of "issue polling"?

It's not a new label, issue polling and soft polling has been around as long as polling.


And, pollsters earn their record in every category. In election polling, for example, some pollsters have an excellent record in primaries, but not in national polls. Some can be trusted on caucuses, but not primaries. Every type of polling is different, and it is no secret that Rasmussen's issue polling is not the same as Rasmussen's election polling.

There are lots and lots of kudos around for Ras election polls.
And lots and lots of dings and questions about Ras issue polling.

This conversation has come up before, and no rightie on this board who touts Ras' soft polls has ever been able to demonstrate a good record for Ras polling. Those conversations came to mind when I was reading the article posted in the OP.

Which is why I posted it. Even the conservative author quoted here very casually acknowledges what I've read time and time again in years of reading polling articles.

 

[jackalope]

Because it's impossible. What you have never done is prove that they are wrong, which is actually possible. It's like proving God exists, except replace "god" with "bias".

No, with polling, you can note lack of corraboration in other pollsters, and continued outlier status. That hurts a pollster's reputation. You can examine question wording, question order, sample population modelling, and every aspect of statistical analysis. Each element of polling affects how much reliance the consumer of the poll will put on it.

And the people who actually do this for a living do not believe Rasmussen's soft polling is neutral.

 

[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.

Came across another posting re: Rasmussen and outlier results:

What's Up With Rasmussen?

At least this year, it's increasingly clear Rasmussen Reports polls are outliers when compared to their peers.

For instance, while other polls show the spread between President Obama's approval/disapproval rating ranging from +4 to +17 points, Rasmussen has it at -5.

On the 2010 generic ballot, other polls show Democrats leading from +2 to +12 points, while Rasmussen has Republicans +5.

Andrew Sullivan notices the same trend and concludes "it's perfectly clear that Rasmussen is polling a different country than other polling outfits."

What's Up With Rasmussen? -- Political Wire

 

[DarkWizard12]

Came across another posting re: Rasmussen and outlier results:

What the hell did that prove? all they said was "this trend is different from all the others so, it must be wrong", no criticism of their ideology or ****. 2010 hasn't even happened yet and we don't even know if their wrong or not. Why do you do something you are scared to do and compare the accuracy of Rasm. polling to say, the 2004 and 2000 elections?

 

[Sir Loin]

You have further never demonstrated that Rasmussen's issue polling IS reliable.

Laughable as you have never demonstrated that Rasmussen's polling IS NOT reliable. As this is your claim, it is down to you to prove and support it. How silly that you think it is down to RYNC to prove a negative.

 

[jackalope]

What the hell did that prove? all they said was "this trend is different from all the others so, it must be wrong", no criticism of their ideology or ****. 2010 hasn't even happened yet and we don't even know if their wrong or not. Why do you do something you are scared to do and compare the accuracy of Rasm. polling to say, the 2004 and 2000 elections?

It wasn't meant to prove anything, just another posting re: Rasmussen I came across, and I said I'd post one if I did. Scott Rasmussen cared about the posting, politicalwire is an influential site. He sent a reply to Taegan. You can read it at the link, if you're interested.

Laughable as you have never demonstrated that Rasmussen's polling IS NOT reliable. As this is your claim, it is down to you to prove and support it. How silly that you think it is down to RYNC to prove a negative.

Republicans and conservatives who like to eat Rasmussen issue polls have never proven they ARE reliable. Issue/soft polling does not equal election polling. Reps/cons keep on loving them some Rasmussen, meanwhile other peeps only use them for election polls, and noting trendlines. Actual positions in soft polling .... outlier upon outlier.

 

[Sir Loin]

Republicans and conservatives who like to eat Rasmussen issue polls have never proven the ARE reliable.

A source aside from your Id please?

Issue/soft polling does not equal election polling.

Nice jingle, worth nothing in any intellectual sense, but nice jingle.

Reps/cons keep on loving them some Rasmussen, meanwhile other peeps only use them for election polls, and noting trendlines. Actual positions in soft polling .... outlier upon outlier.

And internet posters who bray about issues they can't actually address or even elaborate upon with any efficacy are a dime a dozen.

Again, should you actually locate some kind of scientific data to support your claims, you should post THAT, it will go a long way to helping you make your case. Or are you of the impression you have persuaded someone to your view with these puerile goads and feints? Do tell.

 

[jackalope]

A source aside from your Id please?


Nice jingle, worth nothing in any intellectual sense, but nice jingle.


And internet posters who bray about issues they can't actually address or even elaborate upon with any efficacy are a dime a dozen.

Again, should you actually locate some kind of scientific data to support your claims, you should post THAT, it will go a long way to helping you make your case. Or are you of the impression you have persuaded someone to your view with these puerile goads and feints? Do tell.

Sorry, polls are as good as their track record. If you, or any con/rep believe Rasmussen is reliable with regard to issue polling - prove it.

 

[Sir Loin]

Sorry, polls are as good as their track record. If you, or any con/rep believe Rasmussen is reliable with regard to issue polling - prove it.

Sorry, polls are as good as their track record and you have inadvertently proven via your own links and statements that Rasmussen's are pretty solid. Now if you can supply some kind of scientific data that argues otherwise, it might at long last be time for you to do so. Or do you need another dozen or so post filled with repeated circular reasoning couched amidst none too artful dodges and feints to do so?

See this should be very easy for you. You supply the track record where Rasmussen has been as you say "wrong" or "unreliable" and then you will have made your case. How naive or willfully ignorant of you to pretend otherwise.

 

[jackalope]

Sorry, polls are as good as their track record and you have inadvertently proven via your own links and statements that Rasmussen's are pretty solid. Now if you can supply some kind of scientific data that argues otherwise, it might at long last be time for you to do so. Or do you need another dozen or so post filled with repeated circular reasoning couched amidst none too artful dodges and feints to do so?

See this should be very easy for you. You supply the track record where Rasmussen has been as you say "wrong" or "unreliable" and then you will have made your case. How naive or willfully ignorant of you to pretend otherwise.

No, the only track record that Rasmussen is pretty good on, is election polling. That's it. No issue polling, no approval polling, no congressional ballot polling, nada.

Whenever questioned about it, cons refer the questioner to track record on election contests. They can never demonstrate good track record in non-election polling.


But, its fun to watch them eat as many Ras polls as they can find!!! Who cares if the results are outliers? :lol:

 

[Sir Loin]

No, the only track record that Rasmussen is pretty good on, is election polling. That's it. No issue polling, no approval polling, no congressional ballot polling, nada.

Prove it. Catching on yet? Your "internet cred" is properly insufficient to take your "word" for it. If such is the case, then some "lib/dem" website should have it all neatly categorized for copying and pasting for you.

Tell ya what, as I know you can't, I won't hold my breath waiting for you to play catch on an issue you hand picked to converse on. I mean sure, one would think you would have all of that ready set GO. But not so much eh?

Whenever questioned about it, cons refer the questioner to track record on election contests. They can never demonstrate good track record in non-election polling.

Whenever questioned about YOUR topic, you keep failing in the delivery department. You have inadvertently proven Rasmussen's solid track record, so simply up and supply the negative "track record" you keep pretending exist, and we shall look at you as if you were not indulging in.....make believe.

But, its fun to watch them eat as many Ras polls as they can find!!! Who cares if the results are outliers? :lol:

So far nobody has put enough stock in your claims to even look up one of these polls. Ever wonder why? I suspect mostly becuase as you just admitted, it is really more about what is fun for you. Yeah that was pretty obvious from the get go; your idea of fun seems about as far from mine as your idea of a "unreliable track record" which you can't actually even bring yourself to address much less support. Fun you say eh?

So did someone somewhere down the line tell you that if you sprinkled the word "outliers" about liberally, it would befuddle and confuse those you argue with into not expecting you to support your own argument? Because you got played, to the level you are trying to foist on us, if so.

 

[Mason66]

It seems to me that the only way to prove that Rasmussen is skewing thier polls to the right is to go back and ask the exact same people the same question only worded differently, to see if you get the same results.

Comparing one group to another assumes all voters are the same down the line.

I think it is important to differentiate between adults and likely voters.

Adults can be anybody, legal or not. It would seem to me that if you want to know how the public would vote on a particular issue, you need to ask likely voters.

In the graphic posted earlier, it showed the Rasmussen poll with lower results than all the others. Where is the list of questions they all asked, and the wording of such questions for all the polls.

You can't assume the poll is wrong unless you analyze all the polls and the way they asked the questions.