• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Rasmussen Gamble

I have seen a lot of comments accusing Rasmussen of being biased towards Republicans instead of using a different methodology. If that were true, then how do you explain this?

VA-SEN (Quinnipiac): George Allen (R) 46, Tim Kaine (D) 44 (Mainstream)

VA-SEN (Rasmussen): Tim Kaine (D) 46, George Allen (R) 45

Again, I submit that it is methodology, not bias, that separates Rasmussen from other polls. Whether or not Rasmussen is correct in using likely voters at this stage of the game will be made clearer as the election draws closer.

Just because you don't like the results of a poll doesn't mean the poll is biased. That is also true of PPP. Here's the deal. Polling companies are businesses, and this is a cutthroat world. Those polling companies that come closest to actual results are going to be getting the most subscribers, and thus making the most money. Do you really believe that a business would throw away money to make a political statement? If so, then give me a toke of whatever you are smoking. LOL.
 
danarhea said:
I have seen a lot of comments accusing Rasmussen of being biased towards Republicans instead of using a different methodology. If that were true, then how do you explain this?

VA-SEN (Quinnipiac): George Allen (R) 46, Tim Kaine (D) 44 (Mainstream)

VA-SEN (Rasmussen): Tim Kaine (D) 46, George Allen (R) 45

Again, I submit that it is methodology, not bias, that separates Rasmussen from other polls. Whether or not Rasmussen is correct in using likely voters at this stage of the game will be made clearer as the election draws closer.

Just because you don't like the results of a poll doesn't mean the poll is biased. That is also true of PPP. Here's the deal. Polling companies are businesses, and this is a cutthroat world. Those polling companies that come closest to actual results are going to be getting the most subscribers, and thus making the most money. Do you really believe that a business would throw away money to make a political statement? If so, then give me a toke of whatever you are smoking. LOL.
Click to expand...

I am not claiming bias, I am claiming that methodology(not LV vs RV) leads them to overestimate republicans in most cases. Rasmussen is also below average in terms of predicting results of elections. These things have been documented in this thread. Might want to read it.
 
Commission me to do a poll and I will get you whatever answer you want. Its a scam.
 
Fishstyx said:
Ummm...thats why he was dubbed the most accurate polls for both the 2004 and 2008 Presidential election cycles?
Click to expand...
Right, because he uses a different methodology and comes up with more accurate results, which the dems just do not like. Slim leads for republicans become blowouts, toss ups become solid victories for most pollsters... Rasmussen uses the likely voter method and thereby gets more accuracy.
 
Travis007 said:
sorry I was just using simple historical facts, your bias is so blatent, you just blew by the erroneous post that I responded to., we all know Rasmussen is the most accurate for the reason I stated..they use "likely voters.....LOL...no you go reread and tell me "WTF" are you talking about as far as my succinct and accurate post..the post I was responding to said "Rasmussen is RIGHT WING" when it is NOT.. so again.. you show me here what you are talking about??????? now I will go slow.. this was the post I was responding to
Originally Posted by Captain America
Rassmussen has long been known for it's right wing bias and has the lowest of credibility.

now I cant wait.. you show me what my post said that is even debatable..


my post is spot on.. whats to debate?..LOL..

face it.. you like me.. you like me a lot...LOL...
Click to expand...


bump... noticed an epic dodge here..
 
Captain America said:
I, too, have noticed a marked decrease in reading comprehension as of late. I'm thinking it's the heat. That, or everyone is just in too big of a hurry to think about what they say. Or, maybe it's just me starting to take notice. I'm not really sure.

Sometimes, I feel the time spent on research, and sharing said research, is like pissing up a rope. Is this what is often referred to as "casting pearls amongst swine?"

I think I am going to make a list of who I shall dialog with from now on as time is valuable. So many posters, so little time.
Click to expand...

what are you talking about? you just go blown away on your original post...

(Your post #13... what are you complaining about?
Captains America said post #13,: Rassmussen has long been known for it's right wing bias and has the lowest of credibility.)

now you come and complain that others "dont get it"??? man thats some priceless stuff..
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
The Black Knight rides again. :lamo

Click to expand...


if you dont get it and put on your Obama blinders is sooooo moot.. again Captain America got blown away and that other Libs come on to say he didnt is really moot... now lets stay on subject..
 
Travis007 said:
bump... noticed an epic dodge here..
Click to expand...

Some things are just to stupid to comment on, like saying one thing, then claiming you said something else.
 
Redress said:
Some things are just to stupid to comment on, like saying one thing, then claiming you said something else.
Click to expand...

LOL.. because thats not what is written and you cant.. my post was 100% accurate, your bias was on display..losing crediblity is tough.....
 
Travis007 said:
if you dont get it and put on your Obama blinders is sooooo moot.. again Captain America got blown away and that other Libs come on to say he didnt is really moot... now lets stay on subject..
Click to expand...

"Come back, I'll bite your legs off!" :lamo
 
Last edited:
Captain America said:
I, too, have noticed a marked decrease in reading comprehension as of late. I'm thinking it's the heat. That, or everyone is just in too big of a hurry to think about what they say. Or, maybe it's just me starting to take notice. I'm not really sure.

Sometimes, I feel the time spent on research, and sharing said research, is like pissing up a rope. Is this what is often referred to as "casting pearls amongst swine?"


I think I am going to make a list of who I shall dialog with from now on as time is valuable. So many posters, so little time.
Click to expand...


casting pearls amongst "swine".... thats nice..
 
AdamT said:
"Come back, I'll bite your legs off!" :lamo
Click to expand...

was a good movie..I will give you that.. I thought you were awesome as the Black Knight.. that rabbitt is a dynamo..lol
 
The likely voter model will favor conservatives in most elections and will be closer if there is a low turnout. The turnout was high in 2008 so Rasmussen was further off than most polls that used registered voters. In off year elections Rasmussen tends to be closer because the turnout is low, but in 2010 the turnout was high again.

Rasmussen is a tracking poll that polls the same people again and again by robot phone calls. It is best at spotting trends.

I don't know why people get the vapors about Rasmussen. There are tons of other polls out there. Look at realclearpolitics.com, for example. If you don't like one then cite another, or look at the average of polls.

Right now Rasumussen has Obama ahead by 1 and CBS/New York Times has Romney ahead by one. Like Rasmussen better today?
 
Travis007 said:
what are you talking about? you just go blown away on your original post...

(Your post #13... what are you complaining about?
Captains America said post #13,: Rassmussen has long been known for it's right wing bias and has the lowest of credibility.)

now you come and complain that others "dont get it"??? man thats some priceless stuff..
Click to expand...

Due to personal time constraints, I have had to select posters worthy of dialog and, well, let's just say, "So many posters, so little time."

Sorry dude. You didn't make the list.

captainstable.png
 
Last edited:
Captain America said:
Due to personal time constraints, I have had to select posters worthy of dialog and, well, let's just say, "So many posters, so little time."

Sorry dude. You didn't make the list.

captainstable.png
Click to expand...

make sure you wear a helmet and keep the chin strap buckled..

not being on your list is the objective..
 
Travis007 said:
make sure you wear a helmet and keep the chin strap buckled..

not being on your list is the objective..
Click to expand...

This is an automated response. There is no need to reply.

captainstable.png
 
LowDown said:
The likely voter model will favor conservatives in most elections and will be closer if there is a low turnout. The turnout was high in 2008 so Rasmussen was further off than most polls that used registered voters. In off year elections Rasmussen tends to be closer because the turnout is low, but in 2010 the turnout was high again.

Rasmussen is a tracking poll that polls the same people again and again by robot phone calls. It is best at spotting trends.

I don't know why people get the vapors about Rasmussen. There are tons of other polls out there. Look at realclearpolitics.com, for example. If you don't like one then cite another, or look at the average of polls.

Right now Rasumussen has Obama ahead by 1 and CBS/New York Times has Romney ahead by one. Like Rasmussen better today?
Click to expand...

I wonder just what sort of turnout we will have this time around?
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are totally thrilled with their quarterback, are they? On the one side, we have a less than stellar performance in the stimulating the economy play, and on the other we have a not so conservative guy that turned out to actually be at least sane.

On the other hand, no one is happy with the current state of the union, and for good reason. When the voters are unhappy, they tend to come out to vote against the person who makes them most unhappy.

The outcome of the election at this point is a crapshoot.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I wonder just what sort of turnout we will have this time around?
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are totally thrilled with their quarterback, are they? On the one side, we have a less than stellar performance in the stimulating the economy play, and on the other we have a not so conservative guy that turned out to actually be at least sane.

On the other hand, no one is happy with the current state of the union, and for good reason. When the voters are unhappy, they tend to come out to vote against the person who makes them most unhappy.

The outcome of the election at this point is a crapshoot.
Click to expand...

Whereas, InTrade has Obama ahead by a long shot, it's still way to early to predict. All it takes is one good "October Surprise," a wide stance or a stain on a blue dress to turn the tables.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Uh....that is what I said ICMA, a comparison between Gallup/Rass and the rest. But have any basis for bias, one has to have a baseline to measure bias....which would be the results. That is the whole point, how accurate they are not, which then exhibits a bias. It is a comparison of apples to oranges to mangoes....there is no baseline.....unless the baseline is Gallup/Rass....which is NOT a baseline at all.
Click to expand...

Your reading comprehension skills have been shown as suspect again... For the very section of the paper that discussed this point... it was an average of where in relation to Gallup and Rassmussen that the media polls were (TV, Newspaper, etc.) using Gallup as one baseline and Rassmussen as another...

It was not the greatest paper in the world, and was not posted for that... it was posted to show that in doing a study, in chosing a baseline, they used Gallup and Rassmussen, since they historically had been the most accurate... and the other polls were all to the left of that... Which is where most people would place the liberal media... Clearly they showed the CBS/NY Times poll as left biased...


Gimmesometruth said:
No, the topic is the bias of rass, and you can't determine that until you know a result. That is why you look at the 2010 results and compare them to rass...then you DO have evidence of bias

The article noted the ACCURACY of Rass in 2000, 2004, 2006 2008 2010....you did not read well.

No, they have not been accurate, as pointed out in the article.

You did not read my quote accurately, I specifically highlighted your accusation that NYT polls are inaccurate. You produced ONE data point.

Wrong, the NYT article used 105 data points, and the article does not support your view...at all.
Click to expand...


The 1 NYT article you posted contradicts several prior articles by the NY Times, including their rankings of the most accurate polling agencies, which had called Rasmussen most accurate in 2000 & 2004, and 3rd most accurate in 2008... That helps prove my point about their bias...

How can they call the same agency the most accurate time and time again, then when the result of their research goes against their candidates do they then suddenly beseach them... and label them as biased?

To me that shows the NY Times bias as much as anything...



Gimmesometruth said:
That is not the topic of this thread, though you want to change it into that. The topic is the accuracy of Rass's methodology.....which the article I posted addresses DIRECTLY.

You are extremely inaccurate in the reading of the first post, my post and my responses.
Click to expand...

Actually, once again your reading comprehension let you down...

The topic of the thread is if Rasmussen taking a gamble with the methodology of chosing likely voters, which elimates the number of undecideds, is going to be more accurate at predicting the outcome of this very race... Since in the other polls there are enough undecides to swing the election in Romney's favor...

I proposed that it seems like if the undecideds, who have gone traditionally 80% to 20% in favor of the challenger against an incumbent president, vote along the lines they traditionally do, it would swing the result of most of the polls in Romneys favor...

I know you struggle to admit when your wrong, and persistently like to get into side distracting issues... but the thing you can not answer is just that...

If the undecideds vote the way they traditionally have, not only would the Rasmussen gamble prediction be right, but it would result in a Romney victory...
 
IndepCentristMA said:
Your reading comprehension skills have been shown as suspect again... For the very section of the paper that discussed this point... it was an average of where in relation to Gallup and Rassmussen that the media polls were (TV, Newspaper, etc.) using Gallup as one baseline and Rassmussen as another...

It was not the greatest paper in the world, and was not posted for that... it was posted to show that in doing a study, in chosing a baseline, they used Gallup and Rassmussen, since they historically had been the most accurate... and the other polls were all to the left of that... Which is where most people would place the liberal media... Clearly they showed the CBS/NY Times poll as left biased...





The 1 NYT article you posted contradicts several prior articles by the NY Times, including their rankings of the most accurate polling agencies, which had called Rasmussen most accurate in 2000 & 2004, and 3rd most accurate in 2008... That helps prove my point about their bias...

How can they call the same agency the most accurate time and time again, then when the result of their research goes against their candidates do they then suddenly beseach them... and label them as biased?

To me that shows the NY Times bias as much as anything...





Actually, once again your reading comprehension let you down...

The topic of the thread is if Rasmussen taking a gamble with the methodology of chosing likely voters, which elimates the number of undecideds, is going to be more accurate at predicting the outcome of this very race... Since in the other polls there are enough undecides to swing the election in Romney's favor...

I proposed that it seems like if the undecideds, who have gone traditionally 80% to 20% in favor of the challenger against an incumbent president, vote along the lines they traditionally do, it would swing the result of most of the polls in Romneys favor...

I know you struggle to admit when your wrong, and persistently like to get into side distracting issues... but the thing you can not answer is just that...

If the undecideds vote the way they traditionally have, not only would the Rasmussen gamble prediction be right, but it would result in a Romney victory...
Click to expand...

You are wrong, O sample of likely voter breath. :mrgreen:

Rasmussen was not 3rd in 2008. They were number 1, according to a study by Fordham University.
 
Last edited:
Captain America said:
Whereas, InTrade has Obama ahead by a long shot, it's still way to early to predict. All it takes is one good "October Surprise," a wide stance or a stain on a blue dress to turn the tables.
Click to expand...

That stain on a blue dress is way ahead of schedule, the economic numbers continue to worsen. Between now and election day that is not going to change.
 
danarhea said:
You are wrong, O sample of likely voter breath. :mrgreen:

Rasmussen was not 3rd in 2008. They were number 1, according to a study by Fordham University.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't make too much of getting the margin right on one national pre-election poll.

If you go by state polls in 2008, which are the ones that really matter, Rasmussen leaned about 2% toward McCain and missed the final margins by an average of 4.26% overall. They mostly underestimated Obama in the Mountain West and the Northeast while mostly overestimating Obama in the South. They got the West, Mid-Atlantic, and the Great Plains almost exactly right. All in all very good numbers for Rasmussen compared to other pollsters in that election.

Still though, their horrible inaccuracy in the 2010 elections compared to their relative accuracy in the 2006 elections worries me about their accuracy this time around. In a time of hyper-partisanship like what we have now they significantly overestimated Republican performance in most areas. I expect their methodology works much better for them when the candidates running enjoy higher name recognition such as in Presidential elections and when the Senate candidates are both well known such as in Virginia this year. In Senate and Gubernatorial elections where the candidates are not as well known yet, I wouldn't put as much stock into Rasmussen as polls that use registered voter samples.
 
danarhea said:
One thing that people have noticed is how many polls differ from Rasmussen. While most polls show modest leads for Obama, and many Democratic Senators, Rassmussen has been polling just the opposite. This has led people to accuse Rasmussen of being a GOP operative. However, the truth lies, not in party affiliation, but methodology. Unlike most pollsters, which use a "registered voter" model, Rasmussen uses a "likely voter" model. Most pollsters say using likely voters this far out from an election will skew the results, as undecideds have not yet decided. But, this year is not like every other year. There are few undecideds left, which makes the methodology from Rasmussen more credible. And, if Rasmussen's gamble in using the likely voter model this early in the year turns out to be correct, this portends trouble for the Democrats. Worst case scenario for them, if this methodology turns out to be accurate, is the defeat of Obama and a Republican Senate takeover. This would be more of a shock wave to the Dems than 2010 was, as the GOP will then control the Presidency, the House, and the Senate.

Discussion?
Click to expand...


I more often than not agree with you...not this time. Rasmussen is a fairly frequent guest on foxnews, I personally seen him there several times...Ive never seen him on any other cablenews network. I get 5 polls sent daily to my email...Rasmussen not only sends polls but he sends opinion pieces and editorial...all and yes i said all are conservative cheerleading...there is no doubt Scott Rassmussen is a friend of the right.
If his methodology differs, its with the intent to skewer to the right. He constantly has opinion pieces by Barone who is a right winger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom