• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rasmussen: Rick Perry now up 11 points on GOP field

Status
Not open for further replies.
:lol: really? you're going to quote their competition?


In other news, McDonalds' has discovered that Burger King's whopper is not as delicious as a Big Mac. :mrgreen:


Rasmussen screens for likely voters. likely voters are more likely to be Republican... but they are also more likely to, well, vote.

http://www.fordham.edu/images/acade...ccuracy in the 2008 presidential election.pdf

Looks to me like liberals got their poll rankings reversed, Rasmussen was the best in the last election cycle.
 
(school districts throughout Texas got some surprising news Monday: $831 million of federal aid tied up for months in a high-profile battle between Gov. Rick Perry and Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Austin is now available to retain and hire teachers. )

Maybe with all that fed dough they will make it up to 49,th in high school diplomas.Lets hope so.:thumbs:




Federal education aid finally starts flowing in Texas - San Antonio Express-News

Let's hope so? Why do you care? Texans have no problem having jokes made about it and people like you staying out. The bad news that comes from the massive population growth in TX is that more liberals are infiltrating the state and begin trying to convert the state into the failed state they moved from. Wonder what it is that makes liberals so loyal to their failed ideology?
 
That is great for people that live in Highland Park where it is not unheard of for houses to sell for millions of dollars.

Or for people that live in any school district in the state. Where do you think property taxes from those districts go? Do you really think pouring more money into the education system in this country is the answer? You spend way too much time buying the rhetoric from the left and never doing any research. Didn't TX just balance a two year budget without raising taxes? Didn't TX just create almost 30% of the private sector jobs created in July?

I know it really is hard for you to admit it, but TX is in very good shape vs. the rest of the country. You should get out more.
 
Do you know the difference between an idea and a bill? Romney got it right, this is a state program, not a Federal program. If your state wants to implement it, so be it. That is your problem but don't force a one size fits all program on the nation especially when it comes to personal responsibility issues.

What is your point? I stated that the FEDERAL mandate was a republican IDEA advocated by groups including the Heritage Foundation. (did you read the article?) I wasn't talking about bills, I was talking about how readily Regressives run away from their own ideas (the few they actually have).
 
What is your point? I stated that the FEDERAL mandate was a republican IDEA advocated by groups including the Heritage Foundation. (did you read the article?) I wasn't talking about bills, I was talking about how readily Regressives run away from their own ideas (the few they actually have).

Republicans always have believed that healthcare is a personal responsibility and Romney made it a state issue. No Republican has ever proposed national healthcare. You seem to believe that an idea to have national healthcare is the same as proposing one. There are a lot of different ideologies in the Republican Party these days, very few in the Democrat Party. Opinions are welcome, national healthcare isn't
 
Your link is from 2008 -- NOT the last election cycle. Don't you ever get tired of being dishonest?

Rasmussen's rightward lurch is a fairly recent phenomenon.

When was the last election cycle, Adam? Do you ever really think before you post? Rasmussen was the NUMBER ONE polling agency in the last Presidential election that was Nov. 2008 or did you forget that the last election cycle was 2008? Rasmussen nailed the results thus your statement about Rasmussen's credibility was a lie or to be nice just a mistatement on your part
 
Aw, all those liberals negative on TX, eat your heart out liberals, Employment numbers by month for TX. How is your state doing?

2009 10524.2 10462.4 10403.5 10343.4 10318.8 10291.8 10255.9
2010 10234.9 10239.5 10275.0 10302.7 10357.9 10368.6 10350.3
2011 10471.0 10488.9 10524.2 10554.5 10556.6 10590.5 10619.8
 
http://www.fordham.edu/images/acade...ccuracy in the 2008 presidential election.pdf

Looks to me like liberals got their poll rankings reversed, Rasmussen was the best in the last election cycle.
Believe it or not, I think when it comes down to near the wire of the election Rasmussen is very accurate. Polling outfits stake their future business by being as accurate as they can be, it doesn't make sense for the to skew their poll results one way or the other. You can prove their accuracy by comparing actual election results with their polls and all the other ones. That being said, I don't know how you could verify the accuracy this far from the election, I think its pretty much a crap shoot.
 
Republicans always have believed that healthcare is a personal responsibility and Romney made it a state issue. No Republican has ever proposed national healthcare.

Again, you are either severely ignorant or severely dishonest. Richard Nixon proposed national health care:

"COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN (CHIP)

Early last year, I directed the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to prepare a new and improved plan for comprehensive health insurance. That plan, as I indicated in my State of the Union message, has been developed and I am presenting it to the Congress today. I urge its enactment as soon as possible.

The plan is organized around seven principles:

First, it offers every American an opportunity to obtain a balanced, comprehensive range of health insurance benefits;

Second, it will cost no American more than he can afford to pay;

Third, it builds on the strength and diversity of our existing public and private systems of health financing and harmonizes them into an overall system;

Fourth, it uses public funds only where needed and requires no new Federal taxes;

Fifth, it would maintain freedom of choice by patients and ensure that doctors work for their patient, not for the Federal Government.

Sixth, it encourages more effective use of our health care resources;

And finally, it is organized so that all parties would have a direct stake in making the system work--consumer, provider, insurer, State governments and the Federal Government."

Full letter to Congress here: Nixon's Plan For Health Reform, In His Own Words - Kaiser Health News

And second, Obamacare itself is strikingly similar to a health care reform plan proposed by Republicans and written by the conservative Heritage Foundation in the early 90s. That plan included the individual mandate that you maintain is anathema to conservative ideals:

"The second central element-in the Heritage proposal is a two-way commit ment between government and citizen. Under this social contract, the federal government would agree to make it financially possible, through refund able tax benefits or in some cases by providing access to public-sector health programs, for every American family to purchase at least a basic package of medical care, including catastrophic insurance. In return, government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family.Thus there would be mandated coverage under the Heritage proposal, but the mandate would apply to the family head, who is the appropriate person to shoulder the primary responsibility for the familys health needs, rather than employers, who are not EFFECTS OF THE HERlTAGE.PROPOSAL By no longer restricting tax relief for medical care to employer-provided plans, and by restructuring tax assistance to help those Americans most in need, the Heritage proposal significantly would improve the American health system. Among the most important effects 1)Good health care not dependent on employers. E mployees would be able to acquire health coverage for their families, and obtain government tax help to pay for it, wherever they happen to work. Casual or part-time workers, em ployees of small firms, or dependents of workers those who comprise a major s h are of the uninsured -would receive a refundable tax credit based on health costs compared with income exactly the same form of govern ment assistance to buy health services as Americans working in large firms Thus the Heritage proposal would solve much o f the current uninsurance problem."

Using Tax Credits to Create an Affordable Health System
 
When was the last election cycle, Adam? Do you ever really think before you post? Rasmussen was the NUMBER ONE polling agency in the last Presidential election that was Nov. 2008 or did you forget that the last election cycle was 2008? Rasmussen nailed the results thus your statement about Rasmussen's credibility was a lie or to be nice just a mistatement on your part

Seriously? The last election cycle was the 2010 mid-term elections. :roll:
 
Believe it or not, I think when it comes down to near the wire of the election Rasmussen is very accurate. Polling outfits stake their future business by being as accurate as they can be, it doesn't make sense for the to skew their poll results one way or the other. You can prove their accuracy by comparing actual election results with their polls and all the other ones. That being said, I don't know how you could verify the accuracy this far from the election, I think its pretty much a crap shoot.

It's not hard to check their accuracy. You look at who they called and then look at the results from the last elections. In the last elections -- in 2010, not 2008 -- Rasmussen was among the least accurate, and they consistently erred on the side of Republican candidates.
 
Believe it or not, I think when it comes down to near the wire of the election Rasmussen is very accurate. Polling outfits stake their future business by being as accurate as they can be, it doesn't make sense for the to skew their poll results one way or the other. You can prove their accuracy by comparing actual election results with their polls and all the other ones. That being said, I don't know how you could verify the accuracy this far from the election, I think its pretty much a crap shoot.

/eviltwinconspiracyme

Early on poll results are skewed to affect the popularity factor. Popularity is a bandwagon everybody jumps on.

/eviltwinconspiracyme
 
Seriously? The last election cycle was the 2010 mid-term elections. :roll:

Oh, really? The Presidential election is normally considered an election cycle but if you want to go by the 2010, how accurate was Rasmussen in predicting the GOP Landslide? Again, you are wrong but just cannot admit it. What is it about liberalism that creates such loyalty?
 
/eviltwinconspiracyme

Early on poll results are skewed to affect the popularity factor. Popularity is a bandwagon everybody jumps on.

/eviltwinconspiracyme

Gallup registers popularity, Rasmussen surveys likely voter thus is always near or at the top of polling accuracy when it comes to election results.
 
Oh, really? The Presidential election is normally considered an election cycle but if you want to go by the 2010, how accurate was Rasmussen in predicting the GOP Landslide? Again, you are wrong but just cannot admit it. What is it about liberalism that creates such loyalty?

If it makes you feel better, Rasmussen was accurate in '08 and very inaccurate in the last national election. Everyone predicted a Republican landslide but Rasmussen predicted a much larger landslide than we actually saw.
 
Gallup registers popularity, Rasmussen surveys likely voter thus is always near or at the top of polling accuracy when it comes to election results.

Dude get a clue:lamo
 
Gallup registers popularity, Rasmussen surveys likely voter thus is always near or at the top of polling accuracy when it comes to election results.

Rasmussen was one of the LEAST accurate polling firms in the country in 2010. That is a fact.

"Criticism

[edit] Nate Silver

Rasmussen Reports - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 2010, Nate Silver of the New York Times blog FiveThirtyEight wrote the article “Is Rasmussen Reports biased?”, in which he mostly defended Rasmussen from allegations of bias. [22]. However, by later in the year, Rasmussen's polling results diverged notably from other mainstream pollsters, which Silver labeled a 'house effect.'[23] He went on to explore other factors which may have explained the effect such as the use of a likely voter model,[24] and claimed that Rasmussen conducted its polls in a way that excluded the majority of the population from answering. [25] Silver also criticized Rasmussen for often only polling races months before the election, which prevented them from having polls just before the election which could be assessed for accuracy.[clarification needed] In response, he wrote that he was “looking appropriate ways to punish pollsters” like Rasmussen in his pollster rating models who don’t poll in the final days before an election. [26]

After Election night that year, Silver concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver's model. [27] He singled out as an example the Hawaii Senate Race, which Rasmussen showed the incumbent 13 points ahead, where he in actuality won by 53[28] - a difference of 40 points, or "the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.[clarification needed]"[27]

[edit] Other

TIME has described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group".[29] According to Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political scientist who co-developed Pollster.com,[30] “He [Rasmussen] polls less favorably for Democrats, and that’s why he’s become a lightning rod." Franklin also said: "It’s clear that his results are typically more Republican than the other person’s results.”[31]

The Center For Public Integrity has claimed that Scott Rasmussen was a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign.[32] The Washington Post reported "... the Bush reelection campaign used a feature on his site that allowed customers to program their own polls. Rasmussen asserted that he never wrote any of the questions or assisted Republicans in any way..." The do-it-yourself polling service is used by Democrats as well as Republicans today through a company that licenses Rasmussen’s methodology.

Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls.[33][34] Asking a polling question with different wording can affect the results of the poll;[35] the commentators in question allege that the questions Rasmussen ask in polls are skewed in order to favor a specific response. For instance, when Rasmussen polled whether Republican voters thought Rush Limbaugh was the leader of their party, the specific question they asked was: "Agree or Disagree: 'Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party -- he says jump and they say how high.'"[34]"
 
Gallup registers popularity, Rasmussen surveys likely voter thus is always near or at the top of polling accuracy when it comes to election results.

Hey look here is a clue

/eviltwinconspiracyme
 
If it makes you feel better, Rasmussen was accurate in '08 and very inaccurate in the last national election. Everyone predicted a Republican landslide but Rasmussen predicted a much larger landslide than we actually saw.

Non Presidential elections are very hard to predict because it is much harder to determine the voter turnout and since Rasmussen relies on likely voters the poll results are going to be less accurate for any pollster that uses likely voters, but to say that Rasmussen is near or at the bottom is totally inaccurate and just shows your biases and where you get your information. No one could project the labor turnout at the last moment in Nevada or the turnout in California. Those were two of his biggest national election impact mistakes. To call him a Republican leaning pollster comes from DNC talking points where the DNC again wants to destroy anyone that dares posting information negative to a Democrat
 
The bad news that comes from the massive population growth in TX is that more liberals are infiltrating the state and begin trying to convert the state into the failed state they moved from. Wonder what it is that makes liberals so loyal to their failed ideology?


With any luck at all conservative, the influx of liberals into Texas will raise the standards of the Texas school system.

Who knows, with enough libs moving into the lone star they might even raise the standard up to Massachusetts levels…with enough taxes. :2wave:
 
Non Presidential elections are very hard to predict because it is much harder to determine the voter turnout and since Rasmussen relies on likely voters the poll results are going to be less accurate for any pollster that uses likely voters, but to say that Rasmussen is near or at the bottom is totally inaccurate and just shows your biases and where you get your information. No one could project the labor turnout at the last moment in Nevada or the turnout in California. Those were two of his biggest national election impact mistakes. To call him a Republican leaning pollster comes from DNC talking points where the DNC again wants to destroy anyone that dares posting information negative to a Democrat

Isn't all that spinning making you dizzy? It is simply a dead-nuts fact that Rasmussen was among the least accurate polling firms in the last national election.
 
Rasmussen was one of the LEAST accurate polling firms in the country in 2010. That is a fact.

"Criticism

[edit] Nate Silver

Rasmussen Reports - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 2010, Nate Silver of the New York Times blog FiveThirtyEight wrote the article “Is Rasmussen Reports biased?”, in which he mostly defended Rasmussen from allegations of bias. [22]. However, by later in the year, Rasmussen's polling results diverged notably from other mainstream pollsters, which Silver labeled a 'house effect.'[23] He went on to explore other factors which may have explained the effect such as the use of a likely voter model,[24] and claimed that Rasmussen conducted its polls in a way that excluded the majority of the population from answering. [25] Silver also criticized Rasmussen for often only polling races months before the election, which prevented them from having polls just before the election which could be assessed for accuracy.[clarification needed] In response, he wrote that he was “looking appropriate ways to punish pollsters” like Rasmussen in his pollster rating models who don’t poll in the final days before an election. [26]

After Election night that year, Silver concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver's model. [27] He singled out as an example the Hawaii Senate Race, which Rasmussen showed the incumbent 13 points ahead, where he in actuality won by 53[28] - a difference of 40 points, or "the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.[clarification needed]"[27]

[edit] Other

TIME has described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group".[29] According to Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political scientist who co-developed Pollster.com,[30] “He [Rasmussen] polls less favorably for Democrats, and that’s why he’s become a lightning rod." Franklin also said: "It’s clear that his results are typically more Republican than the other person’s results.”[31]

The Center For Public Integrity has claimed that Scott Rasmussen was a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign.[32] The Washington Post reported "... the Bush reelection campaign used a feature on his site that allowed customers to program their own polls. Rasmussen asserted that he never wrote any of the questions or assisted Republicans in any way..." The do-it-yourself polling service is used by Democrats as well as Republicans today through a company that licenses Rasmussen’s methodology.

Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls.[33][34] Asking a polling question with different wording can affect the results of the poll;[35] the commentators in question allege that the questions Rasmussen ask in polls are skewed in order to favor a specific response. For instance, when Rasmussen polled whether Republican voters thought Rush Limbaugh was the leader of their party, the specific question they asked was: "Agree or Disagree: 'Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party -- he says jump and they say how high.'"[34]"

Oh, I see, the opinion pieces that demonize anyone that posts data contrary to the DNC talking points is accurate in your world. Non Presidential elections again are difficult to measure because of their local nature. How about comparing other polls to Rasmussen and check their accuracy on non Presidential election results. No, that wouldn't suit your agenda but to make a statement that Rasmussen is at or near the bottom in accuracy is a distortion if not a down right lie as Presidential results vs. their polls show. Basing your statement on 2010 is typical of a liberal
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom