- Joined
- Feb 3, 2010
- Messages
- 16,560
- Reaction score
- 10,794
- Location
- Louisiana
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Indeed, Rasmussen polls quite consistently turned out to overstate the standing of Republicans tonight. Of the roughly 100 polls released by Rasmussen or its subsidiary Pulse Opinion Research in the final 21 days of the campaign, roughly 70 to 75 percent overestimated the performance of Republican candidates, and on average they were biased against Democrats by 3 to 4 points.
I haven’t checked this in detail yet, but it appears as though the worst poll of the political cycle will be the Rasmussen Reports survey of Hawaii, which had the incumbent Daniel Inoyue defeating Cam Cavasso by just 13 points. Mr. Inouye is ahead by 55 points right now. If Mr. Inouye’s margin holds, the 42-point error would be by far the worst general election poll in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls since 1998; the previous record was 29 points.
I'm not going to even try to mess with this one in full because RightinNYC does a better job than anyone, over and over and over again, of showing why this notion is bunk.
Rasmussen has no inherent intentional bias. Their polling method, which focuses on LIKELY voteres rather than registered voters, tends to cause polls to be skewed more in favor of republicans as traditionally republicans are more likely to both self identify AND claim to be likely voters. Typically in polls involving REGSITERED voters you see the slant slightly going the other direction.
Do you major in statistics and/or political science?That's right, but most polls switch to liely voters when you are two weeks from an election, rasmussen does it all the time. Really no big deal to me. However, that doesn't explain that much of a bias in favor of Republicans.
I'm not just arguing that they are favored to republicans vs. other polls, the argument is that they are skewed right vs. the actual results. When it comes down to the actual results excuses shouldn't matter. The pollster should try to be as accurate as possible, period.
Do you major in statistics and/or political science?
Then, you must learn that this: "The pollster should try to be as accurate as possible" is virtually impossible, due to the type of polliing. It's not accurate measurements pollsters aim for, it's precise measurements.No
3456789
Then, you must learn that this: "The pollster should try to be as accurate as possible" is virtually impossible, due to the type of polliing. It's not accurate measurements pollsters aim for, it's precise measurements.
Then, you must learn that this: "The pollster should try to be as accurate as possible" is virtually impossible, due to the type of polliing. It's not accurate measurements pollsters aim for, it's precise measurements.
there are many methods to conduct a poll, and just about each will yeild different results. Now, was rasmussen's polling off? Yes, there is no doubt about it, was it because of the method, or was it just an anomaly that happens with every poll, and more common this year due to the fact pollsters like to...you know...poll as many races as possible, as many times as possible?Well, in the example of Rasmussen, if having actual screener do your telephone surveys and actually including cell phones into your list and many other things that Nate has talked about in detail in the past makes your polls more accurate then Rasmussen should consider including some new methods. I'd personally love to see how they arrive at their enthusiasm gap that they weave into their polls.
Rasmussen has no inherent intentional bias.
that's why he specified "intentional" bias. Rasmussen is bound to have bias, either way, because of it's polling method, which always is skewed toward republicans by the simple fact that republicans vote in higher numbers. This, however, is a completely legitmate and unambiguous method, and for most years, will have the most accurate results (AKA: 2004), AS OPPOSED to other pollsters we know....Dailykos...And you know this because.....? A three to four point consistent bias in a majority of cases is still bias. the word INTENTIONAL that you deem important is impossible to prove either way.
funny how the only time I ever see anyone whine about how unfair and biased polls are, is when it appears to favor the GOP, and the whining comes from the Democrats. Can't recall the last time I saw ANY poll which 'favored' or was 'biased' in favor of Democrats where the GOPers whined.
RightinNYC
your comment seems to ignore the history of the last six months regarding Rasmussen. It was alleged in many quarters - mainly progressive or Democratic ones to be sure - that Rasmussens numbers were outliers. It was suspected by some that this was done to produce a narrative which would be picked up by other persons in the media and help create the basic theme that the GOP candidates were doing better than they actually were. And it was also suspected that there was political motivation behind it. Many of those same people also said repeatedly that the numbers for Rasmussen would begin to fall in line with other pollsters as the election day drew near and he could then fall back on the claim that his polls were accurate.
But Rasmussen provided the evidence all along.
Prove that person x murdered person yBut Rasmussen provided the evidence all along.
I've never really understood the argument that you can measure a pollster's accuracy by comparing the results on election day to a poll that was taken 2 or 3 weeks prior to the election.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?