Conservatives continue to worship pollster who predicted Romney would beat Obama

[TheOldSchool]

As you can see in this thread Trump vs Hillary : A dead heat | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Conservatives lack the part of the brain in charge of processing information on how much Scott Rasmussen sucks as a pollster.
Rasmussen had Romney beating Obama in his last pre-election poll in 2012.
His Senate forecasts were similarly atrocious, and had a pro-Republican bias.

Political analyst and statistician Nate Silver analyzed pollsters and ranked Rasmussen among the bottom worst.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/

Conservatives have been told this, but they have not heard it. Because of the absence of the aforementioned brain region.
And since Rasmussen is a self-confessed conservative who called for the privatization of Social Security, they trust his biased polls, as he is always ready to pretend that Republicans are faring better than they really are.
Truth about Social Security reform
An alternative possibility is that conservatives know how much Rasmussen sucks but are just playing dumb.

Let them continue thinking Trump can win. This is a good thing.

 

[HappyJoy]

Here is Rasmussen speaking authoritatively right before he completely blew the 2012 election.

 

[gipper]

As you can see in this thread Trump vs Hillary : A dead heat | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Conservatives lack the part of the brain in charge of processing information on how much Scott Rasmussen sucks as a pollster.
Rasmussen had Romney beating Obama in his last pre-election poll in 2012.
His Senate forecasts were similarly atrocious, and had a pro-Republican bias.

Political analyst and statistician Nate Silver analyzed pollsters and ranked Rasmussen among the bottom worst.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/

Conservatives have been told this, but they have not heard it. Because of the absence of the aforementioned brain region.
And since Rasmussen is a self-confessed conservative who called for the privatization of Social Security, they trust his biased polls, as he is always ready to pretend that Republicans are faring better than they really are.
Truth about Social Security reform
An alternative possibility is that conservatives know how much Rasmussen sucks but are just playing dumb.

Okay.

Then what do you conclude about liberals, who worship the lying thieves Obama and Mrs. BJ? Anything?

I dunno......THIS:

is shit worthy of some propers right there...........

So, it is all about wealth going to the top 10%. Yeah...Obama does deserve credit for that, along with the Fed.

Since when do libs commend income inequality? Oh yeah almost forgot, since a D is in the WH all this peaches and creme. That will change if an R gets in.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Sheesh, polls are wrong and they change ... this is a revelation?

 

[HappyJoy]

Sheesh, polls are wrong and they change ... this is a revelation?

Most of the pollsters got it right.

Remember that website unskewedpolls? Fun times.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Sheesh, polls are wrong and they change ... this is a revelation?

Most of the pollsters got it right.

Remember that website unskewedpolls? Fun times.

Nope, trends I'll follow but one pinch it time, too easily manipulated.

 

[HappyJoy]

Sheesh, polls are wrong and they change ... this is a revelation?

Most of the pollsters got it right.

Remember that website unskewedpolls? Fun times.

Nope, trends I'll follow but one pinch it time, too easily manipulated.

Yep, the rational world in 2012 looked at all the polls saw Obama was winning. Wingnuts like Dick Morris and the guy who created unskewedpolls.com (no longer up) thought they knew better. The rest is history.

Now, Tinydancer thinks a Rasmussen poll (that consistantly over polls Republicans) thinks a single poll with Trump behind Clinton by a point is a good thing. That's all.

 

[saveliberty]

I doubt most liberals understand the word worship. Makes for an inflammatory OP title though huh?

 

[midcan5]

Rasmussen is the polling equivalent of Fox media. When they call you to survey, they ask three questions before proceeding. The first question: is the earth flat, next they ask if you have ever been taken up in an alien spaceship, and finally they ask if you have seen Bigfoot recently? If you don't answer 'yes' to all three questions they skip over you as you are too bright for a Rasmussen poll. Rasmussen is pure junk, that anyone follows them is a clear indicator of partisan insanity syndrome.

The Rasmussen Problem

Note about Rasmussen

Pollster.com - Political Surveys and Election Polls, Trends, Charts and Analysis

.

 

[Redfish]

As you can see in this thread Trump vs Hillary : A dead heat | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Conservatives lack the part of the brain in charge of processing information on how much Scott Rasmussen sucks as a pollster.
Rasmussen had Romney beating Obama in his last pre-election poll in 2012.
His Senate forecasts were similarly atrocious, and had a pro-Republican bias.

Political analyst and statistician Nate Silver analyzed pollsters and ranked Rasmussen among the bottom worst.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/

Conservatives have been told this, but they have not heard it. Because of the absence of the aforementioned brain region.
And since Rasmussen is a self-confessed conservative who called for the privatization of Social Security, they trust his biased polls, as he is always ready to pretend that Republicans are faring better than they really are.
Truth about Social Security reform
An alternative possibility is that conservatives know how much Rasmussen sucks but are just playing dumb.

Let them continue thinking Trump can win. This is a good thing.

Let them continue thinking the hildebeast can win, This is a good thing.

 

[my2¢]

I voted for Romney but was prepared for defeat. Although CNN's final poll had it tied at 49%-49%, John King explained very well what mountain Romney had to climb to get to the needed 270 electoral votes.

​

 

[Redfish]

Sheesh, polls are wrong and they change ... this is a revelation?

Most of the pollsters got it right.

Remember that website unskewedpolls? Fun times.

Nope, trends I'll follow but one pinch it time, too easily manipulated.

Yep, the rational world in 2012 looked at all the polls saw Obama was winning. Wingnuts like Dick Morris and the guy who created unskewedpolls.com (no longer up) thought they knew better. The rest is history.

Now, Tinydancer thinks a Rasmussen poll (that consistantly over polls Republicans) thinks a single poll with Trump behind Clinton by a point is a good thing. That's all.

All polls are designed to influence public opinion, not to report on it.

Pay me to do a poll, tell me what result you want and I will find a "random sample" to support that result.

Its a game, people. wake up.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Sheesh, polls are wrong and they change ... this is a revelation?

Most of the pollsters got it right.

Remember that website unskewedpolls? Fun times.

Nope, trends I'll follow but one pinch it time, too easily manipulated.

Yep, the rational world in 2012 looked at all the polls saw Obama was winning. Wingnuts like Dick Morris and the guy who created unskewedpolls.com (no longer up) thought they knew better. The rest is history.

Now, Tinydancer thinks a Rasmussen poll (that consistantly over polls Republicans) thinks a single poll with Trump behind Clinton by a point is a good thing. That's all.

Tinydancer started a discussion/thread and she had a point of view...A Perez ripped off her thread and made a mountain out a molehill. Diapers were grabbed, melodrama ensued.. sounds about right...

 

[HappyJoy]

All polls are designed to influence public opinion, not to report on it.

Pay me to do a poll, tell me what result you want and I will find a "random sample" to support that result.

Its a game, people. wake up.

Sure, to some extent polls can influence an election. Hell, that appears to be Trump's only strategy.

However, some polls are more accurate than others and Rasmussen is on the low, low end of accuracy when it comes to presidential polling. As I mentioned before, the polls in 2012 were pretty accurate but for many wingnuts they had to create an entire conspiracy that Romney was actually in the lead and they began misreading/weighing valid poll results to help them sleep at night.

I for one don't put much stock in any general election polling, with that being said, I'd completely discount Rasmussen until he creates a more positive track record when it comes to presidential elections.

 

[HappyJoy]

Sheesh, polls are wrong and they change ... this is a revelation?

Most of the pollsters got it right.

Remember that website unskewedpolls? Fun times.

Nope, trends I'll follow but one pinch it time, too easily manipulated.

Yep, the rational world in 2012 looked at all the polls saw Obama was winning. Wingnuts like Dick Morris and the guy who created unskewedpolls.com (no longer up) thought they knew better. The rest is history.

Now, Tinydancer thinks a Rasmussen poll (that consistantly over polls Republicans) thinks a single poll with Trump behind Clinton by a point is a good thing. That's all.

Tinydancer started a discussion/thread and she had a point of view...A Perez ripped off her thread and made a mountain out a molehill. Diapers were grabbed, melodrama ensued.. sounds about right...

I think this thread is also a point of view about how unreliable a polling firm is. no diapers, no melodrama, relax.

 

[Kosh]

All polls are designed to influence public opinion, not to report on it.

Pay me to do a poll, tell me what result you want and I will find a "random sample" to support that result.

Its a game, people. wake up.

Sure, to some extent polls can influence an election. Hell, that appears to be Trump's only strategy.

However, some polls are more accurate than others and Rasmussen is on the low, low end of accuracy when it comes to presidential polling. As I mentioned before, the polls in 2012 were pretty accurate but for many wingnuts they had to create an entire conspiracy that Romney was actually in the lead and they began misreading/weighing valid poll results to help them sleep at night.

I for one don't put much stock in any general election polling, with that being said, I'd completely discount Rasmussen until he creates a more positive track record when it comes to presidential elections.

Says the far left drone!

Want to see all the scientific polls out there?

PollingReport.com

Yes al lot of the polls far left drones like this one would "completely discount" as it would not fit into their religious narratives..

 

[Redfish]

All polls are designed to influence public opinion, not to report on it.

Pay me to do a poll, tell me what result you want and I will find a "random sample" to support that result.

Its a game, people. wake up.

Sure, to some extend polls can influence an election. Hell, that appears to be Trump's only strategy.

However, some polls are more accurate than others and Rasmussen is on the low, low end of accuracy when it comes to presidential polling. As I mentioned before, the polls in 2012 were pretty accurate but for many wingnuts they had to create an entire conspiracy that Romney was actually in the lead and they began misreading/weighing valid poll results to help them sleep at night.

I for one don't put much stock in any general election polling, with that being said, I'd completely discount Rasmussen until he creates a more positive track record when it comes to presidential elections.

You are missing the point. There is no way that a sample of 1000 out of a population of 330,000,000 can ever have any statistical validity.

I fully understand how the pollsters claim to proportionally represent all demographics in their 1000 sample, but its mathematical bullshit.

Believe them or don't believe them, just recognize that their purpose is to influence the voters, not to report on how they are thinking.

 

[Lumpy 1]

All polls are designed to influence public opinion, not to report on it.

Pay me to do a poll, tell me what result you want and I will find a "random sample" to support that result.

Its a game, people. wake up.

Sure, to some extend polls can influence an election. Hell, that appears to be Trump's only strategy.

However, some polls are more accurate than others and Rasmussen is on the low, low end of accuracy when it comes to presidential polling. As I mentioned before, the polls in 2012 were pretty accurate but for many wingnuts they had to create an entire conspiracy that Romney was actually in the lead and they began misreading/weighing valid poll results to help them sleep at night.

I for one don't put much stock in any general election polling, with that being said, I'd completely discount Rasmussen until he creates a more positive track record when it comes to presidential elections.

I'm thinking Trump has pretty well proven that pollsters, talking political heads, political analysts and such are basically full of crap like you know, most Democrats....

 

[HappyJoy]

All polls are designed to influence public opinion, not to report on it.

Pay me to do a poll, tell me what result you want and I will find a "random sample" to support that result.

Its a game, people. wake up.

Sure, to some extend polls can influence an election. Hell, that appears to be Trump's only strategy.

However, some polls are more accurate than others and Rasmussen is on the low, low end of accuracy when it comes to presidential polling. As I mentioned before, the polls in 2012 were pretty accurate but for many wingnuts they had to create an entire conspiracy that Romney was actually in the lead and they began misreading/weighing valid poll results to help them sleep at night.

I for one don't put much stock in any general election polling, with that being said, I'd completely discount Rasmussen until he creates a more positive track record when it comes to presidential elections.

You are missing the point. There is no way that a sample of 1000 out of a population of 330,000,000 can ever have any statistical validity.

I fully understand how the pollsters claim to proportionally represent all demographics in their 1000 sample, but its mathematical bullshit.

Believe them or don't believe them, just recognize that their purpose is to influence the voters, not to report on how they are thinking.

First off, it's more like 120 million. Secondly, yes, you can go back and look at the results of every pollster and see how they did. Some were very accurate, accurate enough to know that we all knew Obama was going to win in 2012. Rasmussen chose another direction.

 

[HappyJoy]

All polls are designed to influence public opinion, not to report on it.

Pay me to do a poll, tell me what result you want and I will find a "random sample" to support that result.

Its a game, people. wake up.

Sure, to some extend polls can influence an election. Hell, that appears to be Trump's only strategy.

However, some polls are more accurate than others and Rasmussen is on the low, low end of accuracy when it comes to presidential polling. As I mentioned before, the polls in 2012 were pretty accurate but for many wingnuts they had to create an entire conspiracy that Romney was actually in the lead and they began misreading/weighing valid poll results to help them sleep at night.

I for one don't put much stock in any general election polling, with that being said, I'd completely discount Rasmussen until he creates a more positive track record when it comes to presidential elections.

I'm thinking Trump has pretty well proven that pollsters, talking political heads, political analysts and such are basically full of crap like you know, most Democrats....

How has Trump proven pollsters wrong? What do you guage Trump's success by so far?

Maybe you should have a conversation with the wingnuts who think Rasmussen is credible.