• 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.

Rasmussen: First National Poll After Debate

Muddy Creek said:
Dude, look. The source used to claim the accuracy of Rasmussen is Rasmussen. They lost credibility with McCain and Palin and had little credibility before that. It's all in the sources, dude. And you failed to notice even that.
Click to expand...
How did they lose credibility in 2008 when they were the most accurate?
 
waas said:
Can't say I agree with you.

And trust me, your "Marxist" inclement'll be sure to change tactics in the next debate. :lol: If he begins to attack, there's a good change that Romney's bump won't be sustained.
Click to expand...

Obama just needs to adjust to defeat the tactic Romney used called "The Gish Gallop".

The Gish Gallop

Named for the debate tactic created by creationist shill Duane Gish, a Gish Gallop involves spewing so much bull**** in such a short span on that your opponent can’t address let alone counter all of it. To make matters worse a Gish Gallop will often have one or more 'talking points' that has a tiny core of truth to it, making the person rebutting it spend even more time debunking it in order to explain that, yes, it's not totally false but the Galloper is distorting/misusing/misstating the actual situation. A true Gish Gallop generally has two traits.

1) The factual and logical content of the Gish Gallop is pure bull**** and anybody knowledgeable and informed on the subject would recognize it as such almost instantly. That is, the Gish Gallop is designed to appeal to and deceive precisely those sorts of people who are most in need of honest factual education.

2) The points are all ones that the Galloper either knows, or damn well should know, are totally bull****. With the slimier users of the Gish Gallop, like Gish himself, its a near certainty that the points are chosen not just because the Galloper knows that they're bull****, but because the Galloper is deliberately trying to shovel as much bull**** into as small a space as possible in order to overwhelm his opponent with sheer volume and bamboozle any audience members with a facade of scholarly acumen and factual knowledge.
In a debate on the morality of America's Founding Fathers, a Gish Gallop might look like this:

"Sure we think that they were good folks, but did you know that Washington not only had more than 100,000 slaves, but he also staged gladiatorial games and made them fight to the death? He also ran a network of opium dens and used his gladiators as couriers to deliver opium all over the 52 states. In fact Washington's opium smuggling got so bad that the British had to step in which caused the Opium War that led to the Revolutionary War and John Locke's famous statement that he had to be given the liberty to smoke opium, or he'd prefer death. That also points out another problem, in that most of the Founding Fathers were part of Washington's opium cult and Ben Franklin's most harmful invention was actually a process to purify the active ingredient in opium and inject it. That's right, Ben Franklin invented heroin! What's more, by the time Andrew Jackson was president the US government was so full of drug addicts that they created a soft drink that was just a way to get cocaine into their systems. Don't believe me? It was called Coca Cola because it was a cola with cocaine in it. Go look it up and you'll find I'm right, coca cola really did contain cocaine!"​
 
Muddy Creek said:
Dude, look. The source used to claim the accuracy of Rasmussen is Rasmussen. They lost credibility with McCain and Palin and had little credibility before that. It's all in the sources, dude. And you failed to notice even that.
Click to expand...

No, the source was Fordham University. And one more time, Fordham said they were the most accurate in 2008. How did they lose credibility with McCain and Palin when they were the most accurate? Repeating the same thing over and over isn't going to make it true.
 
duhu said:
How did they lose credibility in 2008 when they were the most accurate?
Click to expand...

They were only the most accurate according to THEM....no other source gave them that rating.
 
Also, they've been VERY reliable traditionally in the past:

-In 2004, they predicted Bush would win with 50.7 to Kerry's 48.3, it ended with a Bush victory of 50.2 to 48.5. They were the ONLY firm to predict the margin within .5%
-2006, one of the first to predict Dems could control the Senate
- As already mentioned, in 2008, they predicted Obama 52 to McCain's 47, within 1 point of the actual result. They were the most accurate poll along with Pew in 2008, and 17/23 of the major polls overrated Obama's support. Additionally, Rasmussen was pretty stable in it's prediction, with the last 6 weeks of polls having Obama at 50 or better.
- In December 2009, a full 11 months before Election Day, a Democratic strategist concluded that if the Rasmussen Reports Generic Congressional Ballot data was accurate, Republicans would gain 62 seats in the House during the 2010 elections. Other polls at the time suggested the Democrats would retain a comfortable majority. The Republicans gained 63 seats in the 2010 elections.

Rasmussen’s final 2010 projections were published in the Wall Street Journal projecting that the Republicans would gain 55 or more seats in the House and end up with 48 or 49 Senate seats. The Republicans ended up with a gain of more than 60 House seats and 47 Senate seats. Scott Rasmussen noted that “it would be wise for all Republicans to remember that their team didn't win, the other team lost. Heading into 2012, voters will remain ready to vote against the party in power unless they are given a reason not to do so.”
 
Muddy Creek said:
They were only the most accurate according to THEM....no other source gave them that rating.
Click to expand...
lol what do you mean "according to them?" All they do is look at the last prediction made by every major polling firm prior to the election and compare them. Rasmussen and Pew were #1. There's nothing subjective about it. You just have to look at their last prediction.
 
Harshaw said:
No, the source was Fordham University, in a study done THIS year, not 2010, the year of your NYT article. And one more time, Fordham said they were the most accurate in 2008. How did they lose credibility with McCain and Palin when they were the most accurate? Repeating the same thing over and over isn't going to make it true.
Click to expand...

No, the source for the topic was Rasmussen

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™

Fordham University is a born again evangelical catholic university. A supporter of the bias from Rasmussen.

Fordham University profile - SAT Scores and Admissions Data for Fordham University
 
poweRob said:
Obama just needs to adjust to defeat the tactic Romney used called "The Gish Gallop".

The Gish Gallop

Named for the debate tactic created by creationist shill Duane Gish, a Gish Gallop involves spewing so much bull**** in such a short span on that your opponent can’t address let alone counter all of it. To make matters worse a Gish Gallop will often have one or more 'talking points' that has a tiny core of truth to it, making the person rebutting it spend even more time debunking it in order to explain that, yes, it's not totally false but the Galloper is distorting/misusing/misstating the actual situation. A true Gish Gallop generally has two traits.

1) The factual and logical content of the Gish Gallop is pure bull**** and anybody knowledgeable and informed on the subject would recognize it as such almost instantly. That is, the Gish Gallop is designed to appeal to and deceive precisely those sorts of people who are most in need of honest factual education.

2) The points are all ones that the Galloper either knows, or damn well should know, are totally bull****. With the slimier users of the Gish Gallop, like Gish himself, its a near certainty that the points are chosen not just because the Galloper knows that they're bull****, but because the Galloper is deliberately trying to shovel as much bull**** into as small a space as possible in order to overwhelm his opponent with sheer volume and bamboozle any audience members with a facade of scholarly acumen and factual knowledge.
In a debate on the morality of America's Founding Fathers, a Gish Gallop might look like this:

"Sure we think that they were good folks, but did you know that Washington not only had more than 100,000 slaves, but he also staged gladiatorial games and made them fight to the death? He also ran a network of opium dens and used his gladiators as couriers to deliver opium all over the 52 states. In fact Washington's opium smuggling got so bad that the British had to step in which caused the Opium War that led to the Revolutionary War and John Locke's famous statement that he had to be given the liberty to smoke opium, or he'd prefer death. That also points out another problem, in that most of the Founding Fathers were part of Washington's opium cult and Ben Franklin's most harmful invention was actually a process to purify the active ingredient in opium and inject it. That's right, Ben Franklin invented heroin! What's more, by the time Andrew Jackson was president the US government was so full of drug addicts that they created a soft drink that was just a way to get cocaine into their systems. Don't believe me? It was called Coca Cola because it was a cola with cocaine in it. Go look it up and you'll find I'm right, coca cola really did contain cocaine!"​
Click to expand...
Said the Daily Kos. Why not be honest and link to your source?

Daily Kos :: Romney Won Using a Debate Technique Called the Gish Gallop
 
duhu said:
lol what do you mean "according to them?" All they do is look at the last prediction made by every major polling firm prior to the election. Rasmussen and Pew were #1. There's nothing subjective about it. You just have to look at their last prediction.
Click to expand...


lol

No, you just have to look at the right wing sources. newsmax, Rasmussen report, Fordham University, and see that it probably is nothing more than propaganda getting ready to expose "Romney's lead".

Pew: Obama 51, Romney 43 - POLITICO.com

So, in the last 24 hours we've seen a 5-point Obama lead from NBC/WSJ, a 1-point Obama lead from AP-GfK and this 8-point lead from Pew. While the top lines numbers vary from poll to poll, the consistent pattern is some edge for Obama on the overall ballot, plus a lead on most individual issues and a dead heat (or something like it) on the economy. If you consider the fundamental conditions of the 2012 cycle, the fact that Romney hasn't been able to establish a lead over Obama on economic issues is probably the most surprising stat of them all.
Click to expand...

Course, they'll predict wrong, but Rasmussen generally does.
 
Muddy Creek said:
lol

No, you just have to look at the right wing sources. newsmax, Rasmussen report, Fordham University, and see that it probably is nothing more than propaganda getting ready to expose "Romney's lead".

Pew: Obama 51, Romney 43 - POLITICO.com



Course, they'll predict wrong, but Rasmussen generally does.
Click to expand...
:lol: That poll is from September.
 
Harshaw said:
Actually, Rasmussen and Pew tied for most accurate in 2008, according to a study done by Fordham University.
Click to expand...
An initial Nov.5, 2008 Fordham University analysis ranked 23 survey research organizations on the accuracy of their final, national pre-election polls, assuming a 6.15% margin of victory by Obama. Rasmussen Reports and Pew Research Center tied as the most accurate.[42] Obama's actual margin was 7.2%, and a complete analysis published in 2009 by the same author, Costas Panagopoulos, revealed Rasmussen to be tied for 9th most accurate. Democracy Corps, Foxnews/Opinion Dynamic, CNN/Opinion Research, and Ipsos/McClatchy all predicted an accurate seven point spread.

Rasmussen Reports - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
duhu said:
:lol: That poll is from September.
Click to expand...


Very good. Now can you find the study which shows the Rasmussen report and how they are biased from 2000 with the noted blatant misinformation from 2008? I don't think you'll do that. You seem hellbent on disruptions and not discussions.
 
I have no clue the accuracy of various polls.

I had noticed that Rasmussen has had Romney ahead several times. I wish all pollsters would post the numbers and demographics and polling methods. I do not have a landline and are they still using land lines only for polling?

Another question ...all along it has seemed to close to call imo ....regardless of who is ahead.

Did polls accurately predict the winner in other elections?
 
Dion said:
I have no clue the accuracy of various polls.

I had noticed that Rasmussen has had Romney ahead several times. I wish all pollsters would post the numbers and demographics and polling methods. I do not have a landline and are they still using land lines only for polling?

Another question ...all along it has seemed to close to call imo ....regardless of who is ahead.

Did polls accurately predict the winner in other elections?
Click to expand...

Great question and insight. We need to know the questions asked and who was polled to find out.

Some hit and miss.
 
poweRob said:
Obama just needs to adjust to defeat the tactic Romney used called "The Gish Gallop".

The Gish Gallop

Named for the debate tactic created by creationist shill Duane Gish, a Gish Gallop involves spewing so much bull**** in such a short span on that your opponent can’t address let alone counter all of it. To make matters worse a Gish Gallop will often have one or more 'talking points' that has a tiny core of truth to it, making the person rebutting it spend even more time debunking it in order to explain that, yes, it's not totally false but the Galloper is distorting/misusing/misstating the actual situation. A true Gish Gallop generally has two traits.

1) The factual and logical content of the Gish Gallop is pure bull**** and anybody knowledgeable and informed on the subject would recognize it as such almost instantly. That is, the Gish Gallop is designed to appeal to and deceive precisely those sorts of people who are most in need of honest factual education.

2) The points are all ones that the Galloper either knows, or damn well should know, are totally bull****. With the slimier users of the Gish Gallop, like Gish himself, its a near certainty that the points are chosen not just because the Galloper knows that they're bull****, but because the Galloper is deliberately trying to shovel as much bull**** into as small a space as possible in order to overwhelm his opponent with sheer volume and bamboozle any audience members with a facade of scholarly acumen and factual knowledge.
In a debate on the morality of America's Founding Fathers, a Gish Gallop might look like this:

"Sure we think that they were good folks, but did you know that Washington not only had more than 100,000 slaves, but he also staged gladiatorial games and made them fight to the death? He also ran a network of opium dens and used his gladiators as couriers to deliver opium all over the 52 states. In fact Washington's opium smuggling got so bad that the British had to step in which caused the Opium War that led to the Revolutionary War and John Locke's famous statement that he had to be given the liberty to smoke opium, or he'd prefer death. That also points out another problem, in that most of the Founding Fathers were part of Washington's opium cult and Ben Franklin's most harmful invention was actually a process to purify the active ingredient in opium and inject it. That's right, Ben Franklin invented heroin! What's more, by the time Andrew Jackson was president the US government was so full of drug addicts that they created a soft drink that was just a way to get cocaine into their systems. Don't believe me? It was called Coca Cola because it was a cola with cocaine in it. Go look it up and you'll find I'm right, coca cola really did contain cocaine!"​
Click to expand...

Spot on. :applaud
 
Muddy Creek said:
Great question and insight. We need to know the questions asked and who was polled to find out.

Some hit and miss.
Click to expand...

Exactly ... who the heck could determine if a poll was ever statistically significant or relevant whoever is pulling ahead. Demographics, numbers polled, land line v. cell phone are my questions ...?
 
Dion said:
Exactly ... who the heck could determine if a poll was ever statistically significant or relevant whoever is pulling ahead. Demographics, numbers polled, land line v. cell phone are my questions ...?
Click to expand...


However, proving a bias in a pollster is not so hard, as you pointed out with Rasmussen always indicating Romney was in the lead.

And i do believe shortly after palin went rogue, the polls, valid ones, predicted an Obama victory.
 
Muddy Creek said:
However, proving a bias in a pollster is not so hard, as you pointed out with Rasmussen always indicating Romney was in the lead.

And i do believe shortly after palin went rogue, the polls, valid ones, predicted an Obama victory.
Click to expand...

As close as all the polls have been in the past months anything could happen.
 
Muddy Creek said:
However, proving a bias in a pollster is not so hard, as you pointed out with Rasmussen always indicating Romney was in the lead.

And i do believe shortly after palin went rogue, the polls, valid ones, predicted an Obama victory.
Click to expand...

You haven't been paying attention to Rasmussen. They had Obama out in front for 8 consecutive days before today. Yesterday's news:
****************************************************************************************
Rasmussen’s Reports Daily Presidential tracking poll based on a 3-day rolling average, has Obama leading Romney 49% to 47% in the daily nationals. The Gallup 7-day tracking poll has the Obama lead ticking up 1 point over Romney. Obama is now leading Romney 50% to 45%.

Obama received more good news from Rasmussen. In the latest Daily Swing State Tracking poll, Obama is leading Romney 51% to 45% collectively across 11 battleground states. The states included in the collective survey are Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Rasmussen said that Obama has exceeded 50% in its battleground state poll for five consecutive days, the best it has recorded for either candidate. Obama has led Romney in the Rasmussen poll for 7 consecutive surveys and 14 of the last 16 surveys.
Latest Presidential Polls: Even Rasmussen Says Obama Retains National Lead Despite Debate
 
Dion said:
As close as all the polls have been in the past months anything could happen.
Click to expand...


I see the steady lead from Obama as not making it that close. now voter registration fraud by republicans could prove interesting.
 
jerry7 said:
You haven't been paying attention to Rasmussen. They had Obama out in front for 8 consecutive days before today. Yesterday's news:
****************************************************************************************
Rasmussen’s Reports Daily Presidential tracking poll based on a 3-day rolling average, has Obama leading Romney 49% to 47% in the daily nationals. The Gallup 7-day tracking poll has the Obama lead ticking up 1 point over Romney. Obama is now leading Romney 50% to 45%.

Obama received more good news from Rasmussen. In the latest Daily Swing State Tracking poll, Obama is leading Romney 51% to 45% collectively across 11 battleground states. The states included in the collective survey are Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Rasmussen said that Obama has exceeded 50% in its battleground state poll for five consecutive days, the best it has recorded for either candidate. Obama has led Romney in the Rasmussen poll for 7 consecutive surveys and 14 of the last 16 surveys.
Latest Presidential Polls: Even Rasmussen Says Obama Retains National Lead Despite Debate
Click to expand...


And? How does think make them credible? Because they agree with the other pollsters now? Hardly.
 
waas said:
Can't say I agree with you.

And trust me, your "Marxist" inclement'll be sure to change tactics in the next debate. :lol: If he begins to attack, there's a good change that Romney's bump won't be sustained.
Click to expand...

What is Obama going to "attack" with? His record?
 
Muddy Creek said:
And? How does think make them credible? Because they agree with the other pollsters now? Hardly.
Click to expand...

You stated previously that they always had Romney in the lead. That's not true. You've been attacking them and you aren't even aware of their recent results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom