• 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.

Latest Rasmussen State Polls

Tonawanda

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2012
Messages
782
Reaction score
225
Location
Buffalo NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Latest Rasmussen State Polls 11/5


Ohio 49 - 49
Nevada 49 - 49
Wisconsin 49 – 49
Pennsylvania 47 – 47 (Susquehanna Polling & Research Poll 11/4)


Florida Romney 50 - 48
Virginia Romney 50 – 48
Iowa Romney 49 – 48
Colorado Romney 50 – 47
Michigan Romney 52 – 47
New Hampshire Obama 50 – 48
North Carolina Romney 52 – 46



Capture2.jpg



Election 2012 - Rasmussen Reports™

Pennsylvania Tied, 47-47, On Eve Of Romney's Arrival - Pennsylvania Polls - Fox Nation

Election 2012: North Carolina President - Rasmussen Reports™

Rasmussen poll, Obama vs Romney race at 49- 48 percent - New York economy and politics | Examiner.com
 
Michigan 52-47 Romney? :shock: We'll see.
 
That is a typo, I checked and they say it's Obama 52-47. ;)
 
Once you subtract the extra three points that Ras automatically gives the GOP to set the pro right wing narrative, it pretty much falls in line now doesn't it?
 
Once you subtract the extra three points that Ras automatically gives the GOP to set the pro right wing narrative, it pretty much falls in line now doesn't it?

Rasmussen called it for Obama in 2008. Did they change their mind?
 
Rasmussen called it for Obama in 2008. Did they change their mind?

Sure they called it for Obama. After month after month after month of being the outlier and trying to set the mood for a GOP win. In the ned, Ras always comes around because they know damn well it is only the final polls that matter as a measurement of accuracy since nobody really can prove who was ahead on four or six or eight weeks out. Even these polls conveniently fall within the margin of error that is acceptable.

And there is no doubt the GOP/Ras apologists will remind us of this when he is wrong.
 
Sure they called it for Obama. After month after month after month of being the outlier and trying to set the mood for a GOP win. In the ned, Ras always comes around because they know damn well it is only the final polls that matter as a measurement of accuracy since nobody really can prove who was ahead on four or six or eight weeks out. Even these polls conveniently fall within the margin of error that is acceptable.

And there is no doubt the GOP/Ras apologists will remind us of this when he is wrong.

Oh, so Rasmussen was trying to rig the election? :rofl
 
Oh, so Rasmussen was trying to rig the election? :rofl

Could you please quote from the post where I said that?

Or do you now understand the basic difference between the extreme act of RIGGING an election and simply trying to use what ability you to have to IMPACT an election?
 
Could you please quote from the post where I said that?

Or do you now understand the basic difference between the extreme act of RIGGING an election and simply trying to use what ability you to have to IMPACT an election?

I didn't say you said that. Did you notice the "?" at the end? It was a question, not a statement.
 
I didn't say you said that. Did you notice the "?" at the end? It was a question, not a statement.

Yeah --- we all know how those things work on the far right ..... "I did not say you were a child molesting Communist who has sex with farm animals and pays to do it I was only asking the question if you were".

Got it. :roll:;)

The GlenBeck tactic in action.
 
If that Pennsylvania number is right, then the impossible will happen and it will go red.

No way 6 percent is voting Green Party. Independents will tip to Romney.
 
Once you subtract the extra three points that Ras automatically gives the GOP to set the pro right wing narrative, it pretty much falls in line now doesn't it?

Looks like a lot of critism about their polls, but it would appear they did ok in the last 2 presidential elections.

In 2008, Obama won 53%-46% and our final poll showed Obama winning 52% to 46%. While we were pleased with the final result, Rasmussen Reports was especially pleased with the stability of our results. On every single day for the last six weeks of the campaign, our daily tracking showed Obama with a stable and solid lead attracting more than 50% of the vote.
In 2004 George W. Bush received 50.7% of the vote while John Kerry earned 48.3%. Rasmussen Reports polling projected that Bush would win 50.2% to 48.5%. We were the only firm to project both candidates' totals within half a percentage point by (see our 2004 results).
Election 2010: How Did We Do? - Rasmussen Reports™


Poll Accuracy in the 2008 Presidential Election
—Initial Report, November 5, 2008—
Costas Panagopoulos, Ph.D.
Department of Political Science
Fordham University
For inquiries: cpanagopoulo@fordham.edu or (917) 405-9069
For all the derision directed toward pre-election polling, the final poll estimates were not
far off from the actual nationwide voteshares for the two candidates. On average, preelection
polls from 23 public polling organizations projected a Democratic advantage of
7.52 percentage points on Election Day, which is only about 1.37 percentage points away
from the current estimate of a 6.15-point Obama margin in the national popular vote.
Following the procedures proposed by Martin, Traugott and Kennedy (see Public Opinion
Quarterly, Fall 2006, pp. 342-369) to assess poll accuracy, I analyze poll estimates from
these 23 polling organizations. Four of these polls appear to have overestimated McCain
support (indicated with a * below), while most polls (17) overestimated Obama strength.
Pre-election projections for two organizations’ final polls—Rasmussen and Pew—were
perfectly in agreement with the actual election result (**).
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)

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


2004
In the 2004 presidential election, "Rasmussen...beat most of their human competitors in the battleground states, often by large margins," according to Slate magazine.[38] Rasmussen projected the 2004 presidential results within one percentage point of the actual vote totals earned by both George W. Bush and John Kerry.[39]
In 2004, Slate said they “publicly doubted and privately derided Rasmussen” polls because of the methodology. However, after the election, they concluded that Rasmussen’s polls were the most accurate.[38]
Rasmussen Reports - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Scott Rasmussen of Rasmussen Reports also had a solid final result with their Bush 50.2, Kerry 48.5 final projection.

Poll Bush Kerry Nader Error
Final Results 51.0% 48.0% 0.4% -
Battleground/Tarrance 51.2 47.8 0.5 Dead On
Pew Research 51 48 1 Dead On
CBS/NY Times 49 46 1 0%
TIPP 50.1 48.0 1.1 1%
CBS News 49 47 1 1%
Rasmussen 50.2 48.5 - 1%ABC/Wash Post 49 48 0 2%
Harris 49 48 1 2%
NBC/WSJ 48 47 1 2%
Reuters/Zogby 48 47 1 2%
Newsweek 50 44 1 3%
CNN/USAT/Gallup 49 49 1 3%
ARG 48 48 1 3%
Marist College 49 50 0 4%
Battleground/Lake 49 51 0 5%
FOX/Opn Dyn 46 48 1 5%


WHICH POLLSTER WAS THE MOST ACCURATE? (ranks both national and state pollsters)


Now to the battleground state polls. Let's stipulate up front that both the national poll and the battleground state analyses are not meant to be comprehensive or quantitative, but rather quick snapshots using a simple, commonsense grading system. We looked at two basic factors to determine accuracy rankings: the percentage of states where the pollster correctly picked the winner and how much the pollster's projections varied from the final result in each state.
One last thing. In addition to calculating the difference between the projections from each polling firm and the final vote totals, we also tried to determine whether we could detect any trends that might show favorability toward one party or another by consistently underestimating or overestimating support for one candidate or another.
Here is what we found from all of the final polling conducted in the 2004 battleground states at the Presidential level (Click Here to View the Full Tabulated Results):
1) Mason-Dixon
Failed to Project Winner: 6.2% | Average Error = 1.8
A final Minnesota poll showing a one-point Bush win is the only blemish on Mason-Dixon's otherwise perfect scorecard this year. Not only did Brad Coker project the correct winner in 15 out of the 16 battleground states we looked at, he did so with amazing accuracy. Four states were dead on the final number and the overall difference between Mason-Dixon's final polls and the actual election results was a minuscule 1.8 points. Furthermore, if you look down through the list of Mason-Dixon's projections it's impossible to detect any consistent leanings toward one candidate or another.
2) Rasmussen
Failed to Project Winner: 6.2% | Average Error = 2.3
Rasmussen's battleground state polling this year was extremely solid and a close second to Mason-Dixon. He was dead on in PA and just missed in IA. Average error was a very good 2.3 points, with NJ and AZ the only states where he wasn't within three points of the final spread. No partisan trends either way.
3) SurveyUSA
Failed to Project Winner: 7.1% | Average Error = 2.8
Some people have questioned methodology and reliability of SurveyUSA's polls. Their performance in the battleground states this year should answer a good number of those questions: 13 out of 14 states called correctly, including dead-on numbers in Maine, Michigan, and Ohio. The difference between projections and actuals in a few of the states (CO, FL, NV & NJ) was on the high side, even if it was within the margin of error. No identifiable leanings toward either candidate.
4) Research 2000
Failed to Project Winner: 14.3% | Average Error = 3.1
Del Ali's firm only conducted polling in seven battleground states this year. They got six of those states right, including nailing a Bush one-point victory in Iowa. The big miss came in Florida, where Research 2000's final poll called for a one-point Kerry win. Average error from the final results was 3.1 percent - which is respectable - though in every instance except one (Iowa) they overestimated support for Kerry and underestimated support for Bush.
5) Quinnipiac
Failed to Project Winner: 33.3% | Average Error = 2.3
Many people dismissed Quinnipiac's final poll in Florida (Bush +8) as an outlier. Wrong. Quinnipiac was closer than most in FL, and they also did a nice job in the only two other states where they polled, NJ and PA. In fact, Quinnipiac would have finished pretty high in our rankings except they called for a tie in Pennsylvania. All three of their projections overestimated the spread for President Bush.
6) Zogby
Failed to Project Winner: 27.3% | Average Error = 3.8
As we all know, Zogby had been on record for months saying that Kerry was going to win this race. Despite his final tracking poll that put Bush ahead by one point nationally, Zogby's polling at the state level reflected his belief that Kerry was going to be the beneficiary of huge turnout - especially among the youth vote. The result is that Zogby missed three of the eleven states he polled in (FL, IA, and NM), had a relatively high error rate across the board (3.8%), and his numbers generally skewed in favor of John Kerry.
Adding insult to injury, Zogby's bizarre election day antics calling for "surprises" in Colorado and Virginia and a decisive 311 electoral vote victory for Kerry suggest he was relying on (not to mention taken in by) the badly skewed early exit poll data.
Let's be honest: Zogby's conduct this year bordered on outrageous. No other independent pollster was out making public predictions of a John Kerry or George W. Bush victory months before hand. And no other pollster decided to wait until 5:30pm Eastern time on election day to post their final numbers.
7) American Research Group
Failed to Project Winner: 50% | Average Error = 2.0
ARG got a bit unlucky this year. They called for a 1-point Bush win in NH and the result was Kerry +1. They also projected a 1-point Kerry win in New Mexico and the result was Bush +1. The big miss, however, came in Florida where ARG's last poll had Kerry up two. ARG did offset these misses by nailing tight outcomes in IA and WI giving them an excellent score in overall average error.
8) FOX News/Opinion Dynamics
Failed to Project Winner: 50% | Average Error = 4.5
It stands to reason that if your national numbers are way off then at least some of your state numbers are going to be bad as well. This is certainly true of FOX's final poll in FL where they showed Kerry ahead by five points. In fact, that 10-point miss stands out as the worst among the final battleground polls we looked at. Another miss in Wisconsin put FOX News/Opinion Dynamics at 50/50 in battlegrounds, with an average error rate of 4.5%
9) Strategic Vision
Failed to Project Winner: 44% | Average Error = 2.4
We were assaulted by some people for labeling Strategic Vision a Republican polling firm. For the record, the reason we did this was twofold: 1) they had a history of polling for Republican clients and 2) their polls were not sponsored by any independent media outlets like newspapers and television stations.
Strategic Vision's projections for a Bush win in MI and a tie in NJ, seems to provide evidence that, at least in these two states, they were skewing toward President Bush. Their polling in the other seven battleground states was reasonable, though except for Florida and Ohio, they consistently underestimated support for Senator Kerry.
10) CNN/USA Today/Gallup
Failed to Project Winner: 67% | Average Error = 5.8
To find Gallup's name at the bottom of the list is nothing short of shocking. In four of the biggest, most important states in the election this year (FL, OH, PA, and WI) CNN/USA Today/Gallup wasn't even close. In fact, they got it exactly backwards calling for Kerry wins in Florida and Ohio by 3 and 4 points, and Bush wins in PA and WI by 4 and 8.

WHICH POLLSTER WAS THE MOST ACCURATE? (ranks both national and state pollsters)
 
Mason-Dixon usually oversamples rural voters and they usually take their polls over a week or more which may not reflect most current trends.
 
Looks like a lot of critism about their polls, but it would appear they did ok in the last 2 presidential elections.

Nobody is denying that their final surveys just at election time are usually fairly decent. I have said that all along. What Ras does is consistently be the outlier for month after month after month leading up to the election in favor of the GOP candidate. Only at the end do they begin to be consistent with the other polling firms.

But in those months they attempt to provide friendly news stories for the media showing that GOP candidates are doing much better than otherwise believed to be doing.
 
Back
Top Bottom