• 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!

Obama's approval rating at 45%

It's not a chant, and it's not a mantra, and you should pay closer attention before disparage. Rasmussen polling - OTHER THAN ELECTION POLLING - is consistently biased to the right, and has outlier results.

Do you realize that these are two different claims? Even if you could prove the latter (which isn't really very important, for the reason I very patiently explained again), I don't even know what you would base such a ridiculous claim as the former on.

That he has such accurate ELECTION polling demonstrates that he does know how to construct a reliable poll, and chooses not to on issue and soft polling.

:rofl

Link?

So, get used to hearing it. Rasmussent polling - OUTSIDE OF ELECTION POLLING - sucks the big one and makes the right look foolish for quoting them so often.

So you're going to keep on chanting your mantra despite a total lack of evidence. Good to know.



formerroadie said:
Rasmussen is historically wrong. Just look at the election.

I'm sorry, but what on earth are you talking about?

The final Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Election 2008 showed Barack Obama leading John McCain 52% to 46%. We are pleased to report that those figures precisely matched the actual election returns.

A Fordham University analysis put Rasmussen Reports on top of the list for accuracy among 23 national pollsters.

...

While we were pleased with the final result, Rasmussen Reports was especially pleased that our data was the least volatile of all the tracking polls. Our daily tracking showed Obama with a stable and solid lead with more than 50% of the vote every single day for the last six weeks of the campaign.

In 2004 George W. Bush received 50.7% of the vote while John Kerry earned 48.3%. Rasmussen Reports was the only firm to project both candidates’ totals within half a percentage point by projecting that Bush would win 50.2% to 48.5%. (see our 2004 results).

I just don't know where you're coming up with such demonstrable falsehoods.
 
Do you realize that these are two different claims? Even if you could prove the latter (which isn't really very important, for the reason I very patiently explained again), I don't even know what you would base such a ridiculous claim as the former on.



:rofl

Link?



So you're going to keep on chanting your mantra despite a total lack of evidence. Good to know.





I'm sorry, but what on earth are you talking about?



I just don't know where you're coming up with such demonstrable falsehoods.


Already answered your questions in the post before yours. There is ample evidence to go on, and you actually didn't even need me to post add'l links. You only needed to see the massive outlierness of the approval ratings of Rasmussen compared to 4 or 5 other polling firms posted earlier in the thread. Outlier results are not reliable.


Keep quoting them if you want, but realize it's only righties that do so. And, you will continue to be laughed at. It's funny as hell to see Fauxbots quoting Rasmussen - AGAIN. :lol:


ps - edit to add note as to your Fordham U quote. It has NOTHING to do with issue polling. It is already acknowledged that Rasmussen's election polling is not in the same class as his other polling. Election polling you can rely on, anything else - NOPE.
 
Last edited:
For the person who mentioned Zogby (was it adst?), here is Nate Silver discussing how Zogby is the worst pollster in the world.

So let me get this straight:

When Nate Silver says that Zogby is the worst pollster in the world, you think it's the gospel truth and proves your point.

When Nate Silver says that Rasmussen is the best pollster out there, you think he's a filthy liar.

Do you read the things you write?

And here is Matthew Yglesias discussing why issue polling at Rasmussen is different than election polling (hint: Scott Rasmussen SELLS weekly issue polls, and his politics lean right, he was a paid consultant for GWB re-election).

Oh snap!

However, his firm was paid by the Republican National Committee and the George W. Bush presidential campaign in 2003-4. The firm was also paid by people seeking to impeach Bush. There are no records of Rasmussen making contributions to political candidates He has had at least one article published by the Democratic Leadership Council, a group of centrist Democrats.

Wow, it's almost like he commissions special polls for those who pay him money in addition to his normal polls. That's totally different from every single other pollster on earth.

Damn bro, you've really cracked the case on this one.
 
Already answered your questions in the post before yours. There is ample evidence to go on, and you actually didn't even need me to post add'l links. You only needed to see the massive outlierness of the approval ratings of Rasmussen compared to 4 or 5 other polling firms posted earlier in the thread. Outlier results are not reliable.

Have you ever taken a statistics class in your life? Do you understand the difference between "all adults" and "likely voters"?

If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then there's no excuse for this post.
 
So let me get this straight:

When Nate Silver says that Zogby is the worst pollster in the world, you think it's the gospel truth and proves your point.

When Nate Silver says that Rasmussen is the best pollster out there, you think he's a filthy liar.

Do you read the things you write?



Oh snap!



Wow, it's almost like he commissions special polls for those who pay him money in addition to his normal polls. That's totally different from every single other pollster on earth.

Damn bro, you've really cracked the case on this one.


No, you really should pay attention. If you do not like Nate Silver, go google on your own. There are AMPLE sources out there showing Zogby sucks. Or, you could just do your own research, and compare Zogby polls to others.

If you're going to tout poll numbers, you should understand them.



edit to specifically AGAIN address this:

"When Nate Silver says that Rasmussen is the best pollster out there, you think he's a filthy liar."


Nate Silver says Rasmussen's ELECTION polling is the best out there. He said NO such thing about his issue polling. Search his site and learn. Try looking for his articles about Rasmussen's health insurance and public option polling. Hint: they suck.
 
Last edited:
Have you ever taken a statistics class in your life? Do you understand the difference between "all adults" and "likely voters"?

If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then there's no excuse for this post.



Have you? You have not demonstrated that you understand how to evaluate the reliability of ANY poll.
 
No, you really should pay attention. If you do not like Nate Silver, go google on your own

edit to specifically AGAIN address this:

"When Nate Silver says that Rasmussen is the best pollster out there, you think he's a filthy liar."


Nate Silver says Rasmussen's ELECTION polling is the best out there. He said NO such thing about his issue polling. Search his site and learn. Try looking for his articles about Rasmussen's health insurance and public option polling. Hint: they suck.

And I'm asking you for any evidence to support this ridiculous claim.

If you'd bothered to read your yglesias article beyond the headline, you'd see that his sole criticism of Rasmussen's non-election polling is that he claims (without any evidence) that the wording of the questions is skewed. Setting aside the fact that the degree of skew is dependent on the baseline (which he neglets to discuss), how the **** is "Strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove" a "biased" question?

Have you? You have not demonstrated that you understand how to evaluate the reliability of ANY poll.

Yes, I have.

I'll ask again: Do you understand the difference between all adults and likely voters? If you did, you would understand why Rasmussen tends to be a few points lower than polls that use all adults. Do you understand why several polls using one methodology are no more authoritative than one poll using a different methodology if you're trying to reach an overall accurate result? If you had taken statistics, you would understand this.

Comparing Approval Ratings From Different Polling Firms - Rasmussen Reports

A number of polling firms routinely measure the president’s job approval ratings. Generally, they all show a similar trend even when the specific numbers are different.

There are a number of reasons for this, including:

Likely Voters or Adults? - Some firms poll all adults while others, including Rasmussen Reports, base their results on likely voters. Generally speaking, polls of all adults will show a somewhat higher rating for President Obama than polls of likely voters.

Why is this? Primarily because some demographic groups such as young adults are less likely to vote than others. These same groups also happen to be segments of the population where the current president gets rave reviews. So if a poll of all adults shows the president’s approval rating at 60%, you’d expect a comparable poll of likely voters to show a rating of roughly 57%.

Question Wording - Rasmussen Reports offers survey participants a choice between Strongly Approve, Somewhat Approve, Somewhat Disapprove and Strongly Disapprove. Some firms offer simply Approve or Disapprove while others offer a scale that includes Excellent, Good, Fair or Poor. It is impossible to determine exactly what impact the different wording has on survey results.

However, it appears that the Somewhat Approve and Somewhat Disapprove categories may encourage some people to voice a minority opinion rather than saying they are not sure. In other words, when a president is popular, a segment of the population might say they Somewhat Disapprove. When a president is unpopular, some might say they Somewhat Approve.

Methodology - Rasmussen Reports uses an automated polling methodology while some firms use operator-assisted techniques. Generally, these different methodologies generate about the same level of approval for different political figures, but the automated technology generally registers a higher level of disapproval. There’s no way to be sure why this happens, but it may simply be that some people are reluctant to offer a negative opinion about another human being to a live operator.

Regardless of the reason, Rasmussen Reports surveys tend to have lower levels of no opinions and higher levels of unfavorable opinions for political figures. But, as with the topline numbers, the trends all move in the same direction.

It is interesting to note that the number who Strongly Disapprove in a Rasmussen Reports survey is similar to the number who say they Disapprove in most operator-assisted surveys.
 
And I'm asking you for any evidence to support this ridiculous claim.

If you'd bothered to read your yglesias article beyond the headline, you'd see that his sole criticism of Rasmussen's non-election polling is that he claims (without any evidence) that the wording of the questions is skewed. Setting aside the fact that the degree of skew is dependent on the baseline (which he neglets to discuss), how the **** is "Strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove" a "biased" question?



Yes, I have.

I'll ask again: Do you understand the difference between all adults and likely voters? If you did, you would understand why Rasmussen tends to be a few points lower than polls that use all adults. Do you understand why several polls using one methodology are no more authoritative than one poll using a different methodology if you're trying to reach an overall accurate result? If you had taken statistics, you would understand this.

Comparing Approval Ratings From Different Polling Firms - Rasmussen Reports


I gave evidence in this thread - showing other approval rating polls compared to Rasmussen's approval rating polls, Rasmussen was the outlier by 7 pts, not even in the ballpark.

I gave links to read on both Zogby (they suck) and Rasmussen (their issue polling is biased). You simply choose to ignore it.

Your continued questions about likely voters and adults are completely irrelevant, they have nothing to do with the problems cited with either Pollster. At least not by me.

As I said, continue to cite them. You will continue to be mocked for doing so. Righties lovvvvveeeesss them some Rasmussen. For a reason. They apparently like their news spun. :spin:


And, if you don't like Yglesias' article, do some research on your own. Search Nate Silver's site, as I suggested. Try a google. The info is there for you to find.

Or, simply, note the differences in results b/w Rasmussen issue polling and other pollster polling on the same topic. You will very often find outlier results (quite unlike his election polling).

And that new number Rasmussen started marketing at the end of 2008, the 'net approval number'? Yea, even he says he has no idea if it means anything, he just needs to have a way to market his product. He's selling, and the wingers are buying.
 
I gave evidence in this thread - showing other approval rating polls compared to Rasmussen's approval rating polls, Rasmussen was the outlier by 7 pts, not even in the ballpark.

And you still don't understand why this doesn't mean what you think it does.

I gave links to read on both Zogby (they suck) and Rasmussen (their issue polling is biased). You simply choose to ignore it.

No, I explained why your article re: rasmussen also didn't support your claim.

Your continued questions about likely voters and adults are completely irrelevant, they have nothing to do with the problems cited with either Pollster. At least not by me.

Because those cited problems are a load of ****.

As I said, continue to cite them. You will continue to be mocked for doing so. Righties lovvvvveeeesss them some Rasmussen. For a reason. They apparently like their news spun. :spin:

And I will continue to shake my head in embarrassment for your sake.

And, if you don't like Yglesias' article, do some research on your own. Search Nate Silver's site, as I suggested. Try a google. The info is there for you to find.

Sure, let me get on that and do your research for you.

Or, simply, note the differences in results b/w Rasmussen issue polling and other pollster polling on the same topic. You will very often find outlier results (quite unlike his election polling).

Again, you very clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

And that new number Rasmussen started marketing at the end of 2008, the 'net approval number'? Yea, even he says he has no idea if it means anything, he just needs to have a way to market his product. He's selling, and the wingers are buying.

So pretend that doesn't exist and look at the approve v. disapprove.

I'm not going to waste any more time arguing about this with you.
 
And you still don't understand why this doesn't mean what you think it does.

No, I explained why your article re: rasmussen also didn't support your claim.

Because those cited problems are a load of ****.

And I will continue to shake my head in embarrassment for your sake.

Sure, let me get on that and do your research for you.

Again, you very clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

So pretend that doesn't exist and look at the approve v. disapprove.

I'm not going to waste any more time arguing about this with you.



There is nothing to argue about. There is biased polling .... and justifications why it's the best thing since sliced bread. It's funny.

Like I said waaaayyyy earlier .... Righties LOVE them some Rasmussen.
 
Back
Top Bottom