- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,462
- Reaction score
- 33,784
- Location
- Western Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Yup, all we have to do is look good in six months, we don't actually have to have helped anyone or done anything substantial. Symbolism over substance is their motto.In another indication of the difficulty President Obama's reelection campaign faces, only 36 percent of likely voters grade the administration's handling of the economy at good or excellent, according to a new Rasmussen poll.
In a national survey of 1,000 likely voters January 31-February 1, a whopping 62 percent grade the president at fair to poor, with poor collecting the largest number: 45 percent.
Still, Democratic officials say that they see a positive trend built on slightly better unemployment and housing numbers that could end up helping Obama in his reelection.
"We just need six more months," said a top Democratic official.
and still, he is a lock for re-electionLink
Yup, all we have to do is look good in six months, we don't actually have to have helped anyone or done anything substantial. Symbolism over substance is their motto.
Link
Yup, all we have to do is look good in six months, we don't actually have to have helped anyone or done anything substantial. Symbolism over substance is their motto.
and still, he is a lock for re-election
don't think that even a video of him engaged in a crack smoking homosexual threesome would alter that reality
Those bastards, hoping for improving unemployment and housing numbers...
You called this an "economic approval rating" but in reality it's only people that think he is doing "good" or above. You are automatically assuming that those that rated him as doing "fair" are on the negative side. I'd say that you have to either leave them as a neutral or put them on the positive side. If I'm disgruntled about something I would never rate it as "fair". Fair to me means "could have done better but not bad".
Plus this is Rasmussen. They've been known recently for incredibly inaccurate polls.
Plus this is Rasmussen. They've been known recently for incredibly inaccurate polls.
No, he has not, lol. He has had a few cycles where he did good. In the last cycle they were the worst polling firm out there. This is well explained by Nate Silver, one of the best in the biz as far as reading polls and crunching numbers goes...What? Rasmussen has had the most accurate polling for the last decade. Is he spot on everytime, no but hes been the closest.
The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.
Rasmussen’s polls have come under heavy criticism throughout this election cycle, including from FiveThirtyEight. We have critiqued the firm for its cavalier attitude toward polling convention. Rasmussen, for instance, generally conducts all of its interviews during a single, 4-hour window; speaks with the first person it reaches on the phone rather than using a random selection process; does not call cellphones; does not call back respondents whom it misses initially; and uses a computer script rather than live interviewers to conduct its surveys. These are cost-saving measures which contribute to very low response rates and may lead to biased samples.
Rasmussen has also been known recently for incredibly ACCURATE polls.
Florida Primary:
Rasmussen: Romney 44% / Gingrich 28%
Actual: Romney 46% / Gingrich 32%
The discrepancies between Rasmussen Reports polls and those issued by other companies were apparent from virtually the first day that Barack Obama took office. Rasmussen showed Barack Obama’s disapproval rating at 36 percent, for instance, just a week after his inauguration, at a point when no other pollster had that figure higher than 20 percent.
RD274 said:You called this an "economic approval rating" but in reality it's only people that think he is doing "good" or above. You are automatically assuming that those that rated him as doing "fair" are on the negative side. I'd say that you have to either leave them as a neutral or put them on the positive side. If I'm disgruntled about something I would never rate it as "fair". Fair to me means "could have done better but not bad".
No, he has not, lol. He has had a few cycles where he did good. In the last cycle they were the worst polling firm out there. This is well explained by Nate Silver, one of the best in the biz as far as reading polls and crunching numbers goes...
Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com
I ain't saying this means that all of their polls are BS, but it does lead me to take their polls with a large grain of salt.
Rasmussen is well known for it's republican bias, they might be able to be more accurate on polls concerning only Republicans, but on polls including Democrats, especially Obama, they have been far off.
Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com
Also, most of my post was regarding the following:
I'd love to hear someone respond to that criticism of taking these numbers out of context.
Link
Yup, all we have to do is look good in six months, we don't actually have to have helped anyone or done anything substantial. Symbolism over substance is their motto.
Total horse manure..... Rasmussen is only called biased by liberal hacks. They have no ties to the Republican party and don't provide polling for any party. They are totally independent.
But I did get a giggle that the NY Times would actually dare to call someone else biased.
Nate Silver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe accuracy of his November 2008 presidential election predictions—he correctly predicted the winner of 49 of the 50 states—won Silver further attention and commendation. The only state he missed was Indiana, which went for Barack Obama by 0.9%. He also correctly predicted the winner of all 35 Senate races that year.
I have given multiple instances as to why I distrust Rasmussen and multiple reasons as to why their polling averages have become unreliable.
I'll take the real numbers to determine who is reliable and who is not...........
Speaking of the 2008 Presidential race.........
Final Rasmussen 2008 Presidential Poll results:
Rasmussen: Obama 52% / McCain 46%
Actual Results: Obama 53% / McCain 46%
Nuff said.........
no doubtYeah there sure are a lot of stupid democrat voters.
no thanks. my statement is quite real:Want a sarcasm tag?
if you doubt what i say, tell me what you would wager - what you would be willing to lose when Obama is re-electedand still, he [Obama] is a lock for re-election
don't think that even a video of him engaged in a crack smoking homosexual threesome would alter that reality
You dont hope for them and you damn sure dont fudge economic indicators to make the economy look better for someone's re-election. This is firmly under the part of the problem category.
Yeah, everyone is pretty accurate in the FINAL poll when all the data is in. But Rasmussen was way off for most of the election cycle, consistently erring in favor of Republicans.
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)
I'll take the real numbers to determine who is reliable and who is not...........
Speaking of the 2008 Presidential race.........
Final Rasmussen 2008 Presidential Poll results:
Rasmussen: Obama 52% / McCain 46%
Actual Results: Obama 53% / McCain 46%
Nuff said.........
The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.
"Who do you trust more to make the right decisions about the nation's economy: the Republicans in Congress or Barack Obama?"
Republicans
in Congress Obama Both (vol.) Neither Unsure
% % % % %
1/12-17/12 40 44 1 9 6
"Who do you trust more to make the right decisions about the federal budget deficit: the Republicans in Congress or Barack Obama?"
Republicans
in Congress Obama Both (vol.) Neither Unsure
% % % % %
1/12-17/12 42 43 1 9 5
"Who do you trust to do a better job [see below]: Obama or the Republicans in Congress?" Options rotated
Obama Republicans Both (vol.) Neither (vol.) Unsure
% % % % %
"Handling the economy"
1/12-15/12 43 41 1 12 3
12/15-18/11 44 40 1 13 2and still, he is a lock for re-election
don't think that even a video of him engaged in a crack smoking homosexual threesome would alter that reality
Pure genius, lol.
Of course, if a company conducts 110 polls in the final week of an election and gets one pretty much dead on, that means they are always incredibly accurate, lol.
Well how about we reverse this, if I can find one that they got wrong then we can assume they are always wrong, right?
Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly - NYTimes.com
Of course we could go by averages, like everyone else in the entire civilized world does, but that would prove you wrong, so I'm gonna be nice here and let you keep on believing that they are incredibly accurate even though, on average, they were way off base, displayed a statistically significant Republican bias in their polls and use shortcuts when conducting polls that decrease their accuracy.
Posting the same link over and over does not make it more believable. Especially from a dinosaur media source like the NY Times that is not only going broke, but has publicly admitted that they have a liberal bias.
If you have a problem with any of the data then let me know but you look childish just sitting there and whining that it can't be accurate because it's published by the new york times. They did miss a poll by 40 points. Their bias was greater, in terms of averages and statistics, than anyone else, and their numbers were further off, on average. These are facts. Listen to them if you want to learn, ignore them if you like your head in the sand. It's really that simple.
Rasmussen Reports - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaFOX News contributors Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen (a coauthor of Rasmussen) wrote that Rasmussen has an “unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy.”[9] The Wall Street Journal stated that "Mr. Rasmussen is today's leading insurgent pollster" and "a key player in the contact sport of politics."[10] 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.[11][12][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.[13] According to Politico, Rasmussen's 2008 presidential-election polls "closely mirrored the election's outcome".[14]
In the January 2010 special election for the Senate seat from Massachusetts, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show 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.)".[15] A few days later, Public Policy Polling released the first poll showing Brown in the lead, a result differing Rasmussen's by 10 points.[16] Rasmussen's second poll on the race found Coakley with a 2-point lead, when she in fact lost by 5 points, a 7-point error.
You are the one ignoring factual evidence I've presented, while at the same time posting editorials from the NY Times as some sort of proof.
Here's some facts for you:
Rasmussen Reports - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's not worth my time anymore, lol. You wouldn't understand it anyways, lol.
That's ok. All you had to say was "I give" and no one would think less of you.
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?