Conservatives continue to worship pollster who predicted Romney would beat Obama

[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....

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.

Well, Rasmussen doesn't please you or me for that matter, who cares, we can both find polls that will.

The constant, "count out" of Trump from all sides has made fools of most of them and the political parties look just as dumbfounded. In my opinion, if Trump had a D next to his name Democrats would be delirious with loving butt kisses.

Trump's success is calling it like he see's it whether we like it or not. He get's results and starts from a desirable negotiating position.

 

[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.

Well, Rasmussen doesn't please you or me for that matter, who cares, we can both find polls that will.

The constant, "count out" of Trump from all sides has made fools of most of them and the political parties look just as dumbfounded. In my opinion, if Trump had a D next to his name Democrats would be delirious with loving butt kisses.

Trump's success is calling it like he see's it whether we like it or not. He get's results and starts from a desirable negotiating position.

So, once again, how has Trump proven pollsters wrong?

 

[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 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.

Well, Rasmussen doesn't please you or me for that matter, who cares, we can both find polls that will.

The constant, "count out" of Trump from all sides has made fools of most of them and the political parties look just as dumbfounded. In my opinion, if Trump had a D next to his name Democrats would be delirious with loving butt kisses.

Trump's success is calling it like he see's it whether we like it or not. He get's results and starts from a desirable negotiating position.

So, once again, how has Trump proven pollsters wrong?

And the far left drones do it again..

You can not prove a negative!

 

[bodecea]

Gallup also had Romney winning, Politcio, Monmouth and CNN had it all tied up...shall we disregard those polls also?

No...because they were all right......right?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

It is so cute to watch the far left drones actually believe they get a choice in their nominations..

They do!

Old white person number 1
Old white person number 2
Old white person number 3

 

[HappyJoy]

Gallup also had Romney winning, Politcio, Monmouth and CNN had it all tied up...shall we disregard those polls also?

If you only pay attention to the polls that tell you what you want to hear, then by all means, let Gallup be your guide, but why limit yourself?

Take into account all polls, if you did that you weren't in for a big surprise in 2012.

So, enjoy your Rasmussen poll in December of 2015. I wouldn't worry about general election polling until the primaries are more sorted out and when that time comes, don't fixate on a specific poll because it tells you what you want to here. In other words, be a grown up.

 

[Kosh]

Gallup also had Romney winning, Politcio, Monmouth and CNN had it all tied up...shall we disregard those polls also?

If you only pay attention to the polls that tell you what you want to hear, then by all means, let Gallup be your guide, but why limit yourself?

Take into account all polls, if you did that you weren't in for a big surprise in 2012.

So, enjoy your Rasmussen poll in December of 2015. I wouldn't worry about general election polling until the primaries are more sorted out and when that time comes, don't fixate on a specific poll because it tells you what you want to here. In other words, be a grown up.

Says the far left that discounts certain polls that do not fit their narrative..

 

[tinydancer]

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.

Hey asshole! PPP a D pollster has the R candidates and Hillary neck and neck as well.

"PPP's new national poll finds very close match ups for the general election for President, with Hillary Clinton leading the top 5 Republicans by an average of less than 2 points. The strongest Republican against Clinton, as we've found repeatedly in recent polling, is Marco Rubio. He's the only hopeful with a lead over Clinton at 44/43. Ben Carson also manages a tie at 45/45. Clinton's leads are 46/43 over both Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, and 44/39 over Jeb Bush. This is the 4th straight poll since Thanksgiving where we've found Bush doing the worst of any of the Republicans in head to head match ups."

Public Policy Polling: Polls

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

Hey asshole! PPP a D pollster has the R candidates and Hillary neck and neck as well.

"PPP's new national poll finds very close match ups for the general election for President, with Hillary Clinton leading the top 5 Republicans by an average of less than 2 points. The strongest Republican against Clinton, as we've found repeatedly in recent polling, is Marco Rubio. He's the only hopeful with a lead over Clinton at 44/43. Ben Carson also manages a tie at 45/45. Clinton's leads are 46/43 over both Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, and 44/39 over Jeb Bush. This is the 4th straight poll since Thanksgiving where we've found Bush doing the worst of any of the Republicans in head to head match ups."

Public Policy Polling: Polls

Once again. Probably a bit too early to be looking at general election polls.

But, if you do, stop cherry picking the ones that make you feel good.

Look at more than one. Like here:RealClearPolitics - 2016 Presidential Race

Last 8 polls from various sources all show Clinton over Trump. Does it mean much now? Maybe a little, not much, stop glomming onto things just because you want them to be true.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I really did think that the polls were skewed in favor of Obama since those who were passionately against Obama were not counted. It is a matter of sampling.

Obama won pretty decisively in 2012 so it is hard to say anything was wrong with the pollsters themselves.

 

[A Perez]

Gallup also had Romney winning, Politcio, Monmouth and CNN had it all tied up...shall we disregard those polls also?

If you only pay attention to the polls that tell you what you want to hear, then by all means, let Gallup be your guide, but why limit yourself?

Take into account all polls, if you did that you weren't in for a big surprise in 2012.

So, enjoy your Rasmussen poll in December of 2015. I wouldn't worry about general election polling until the primaries are more sorted out and when that time comes, don't fixate on a specific poll because it tells you what you want to here. In other words, be a grown up.

On average, Clinton leads Trump by 5.5%. Why didn't you say that? RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

 

[IcebergSlim]

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.

Top 10% capturing all those jobs too?

Is there a limit to the stupid shit you heavily closeted Unrepentant 2 Time Scrub Voting Imbeciles in Hiding won't say in the service of Denial?

Anything at all?

 

[IcebergSlim]

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.

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

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.

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

It will always depend on what 1000 you pick. The pollsters could easily skew any stat by picking a sample that either reflects their own bias or satisfies an agenda.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Trump has a problem and that is the fact that a lot of republicans won't vote for him beacuse they are pissed off that their canidate lost to him. Once the anger subsides and they realize how much they hate hillary they will vote for trump. Hillary doesn't have that problem because the entire thing was a set up for her. Their is no division to deal with. Trump wouldn't be the first canidate for president who was behind and then managed to come back and win.

 

[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.

Top 10% capturing all those jobs too?

Is there a limit to the stupid shit you heavily closeted Unrepentant 2 Time Scrub Voting Imbeciles in Hiding won't say in the service of Denial?

Anything at all?

Yep...everything is wonderful...if only Obama the Great could rule forever.

 

[IcebergSlim]

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.

I'm gonna take a wild stab here and guess that you've never actually studied statistics.....

Would that be right?

It will always depend on what 1000 you pick. The pollsters could easily skew any stat by picking a sample that either reflects their own bias or satisfies an agenda.

Real pollsters will provide explanations for their methodologies......Random sampling means exactly that......

 

[IcebergSlim]

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.

Top 10% capturing all those jobs too?

Is there a limit to the stupid shit you heavily closeted Unrepentant 2 Time Scrub Voting Imbeciles in Hiding won't say in the service of Denial?

Anything at all?

Yep...everything is wonderful...if only Obama the Great could rule forever.

No one is calling for anything of the sort.......but I sure wish someone could travel back in time and convince Poppy and Babs to get that hamster instead.....

 

[Moonglow]

Gallup also had Romney winning, Politcio, Monmouth and CNN had it all tied up...shall we disregard those polls also?

I would say that no poll is correct...

 

[IcebergSlim]

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.

Top 10% capturing all those jobs too?

Is there a limit to the stupid shit you heavily closeted Unrepentant 2 Time Scrub Voting Imbeciles in Hiding won't say in the service of Denial?

Anything at all?

Yep...everything is wonderful...if only Obama the Great could rule forever.

But I'm curious......how many votes did you cast for Scrub (or any other Supply Side Charlatan) before you discovered your inner "Libertarian/Anarchist"?