Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

[nodoginnafight]

Their flaw (as clearly demonstrated above) is in how they qualify "likely" voters. According to Rassmussen, far-righters are "FAR MORE likely to vote" than moderates. left-leaners, or far lefties.

 

[Vast LWC]

And that would be false, as per my prior post.

your prior post was full of bullshit
look at last election

Ok - let's look.

Florida - Rass says Obama 49 McCain 50 - actual Obama 51 McCain 48
Pennsylvania - Ras says 52 - 46 Obama - actual 55 - 44 Obama
Ohio - Rass: 49 - 49 Actual 52 - 47 Obama
Nevada Rass: 50 - 46 Obama Actual 55 - 43 Obama
Colorado Rass: 51 - 47 Obama Actual: 54 - 45 Obama
Iow Rass: 51-43 Obama Actual: 54-45 Obama
New Mexicao Rass: 49 - 44 Obama Actual: 57 - 42 Obama

Are we pattern-recognition challenged? Obama's support was systematically under-reported by Rassmussen.

Even in the totals, RCP was more reliable. But this is very telling. VERY telling.

 

[DiveCon]

even rassmussen has a 52 - 48 split in favor of Obama approval today. (Here's a real clear indication that they are messing with their numbers - when is the last time you asked more than six or seven people a question and not a SINGLE ONE OF THEM was neutral on the subject????????)

no, its clear they are reporting the findings of their polls
and it does jump because they ask strongly approve, somewhat approve, somwhat disapprove, and strongly disapprove
they dont have an option for neutral
so some that are in the middle could switch from somewhat approve to somewhat disapprove on a daily basis

but where are the people who are in the middle RIGHT NOW recorded? Every single person they talked to reported being in one of their four categories? It's absurd. If they asked more than 20 people - at LEAST ONE would have been neutral.

slam dunk - they're lying.

they dont give an OPTION for middle
what part of that dont you understand
you have to pick either somewhat approve or somewhat disapprove
its why the numbers will be different for the rest
sheeeesh

 

[DiveCon]

your prior post was full of bullshit
look at last election

Ok - let's look.

Florida - Rass says Obama 49 McCain 50 - actual Obama 51 McCain 48
Pennsylvania - Ras says 52 - 46 Obama - actual 55 - 44 Obama
Ohio - Rass: 49 - 49 Actual 52 - 47 Obama
Nevada Rass: 50 - 46 Obama Actual 55 - 43 Obama
Colorado Rass: 51 - 47 Obama Actual: 54 - 45 Obama
Iow Rass: 51-43 Obama Actual: 54-45 Obama
New Mexicao Rass: 49 - 44 Obama Actual: 57 - 42 Obama

Are we pattern-recognition challenged? Obama's support was systematically under-reported by Rassmussen.

Even in the totals, RCP was more reliable. But this is very telling. VERY telling.

god damn you are fucking ignorant

 

[DiveCon]

And that would be false, as per my prior post.

your prior post was full of bullshit
look at last election

Ok - let's look.

Florida - Rass says Obama 49 McCain 50 - actual Obama 51 McCain 48
Pennsylvania - Ras says 52 - 46 Obama - actual 55 - 44 Obama
Ohio - Rass: 49 - 49 Actual 52 - 47 Obama
Nevada Rass: 50 - 46 Obama Actual 55 - 43 Obama
Colorado Rass: 51 - 47 Obama Actual: 54 - 45 Obama
Iow Rass: 51-43 Obama Actual: 54-45 Obama
New Mexicao Rass: 49 - 44 Obama Actual: 57 - 42 Obama

Are we pattern-recognition challenged? Obama's support was systematically under-reported by Rassmussen.

and what did the other pollsters have?

 

[nodoginnafight]

your prior post was full of bullshit
look at last election

Ok - let's look.

Florida - Rass says Obama 49 McCain 50 - actual Obama 51 McCain 48
Pennsylvania - Ras says 52 - 46 Obama - actual 55 - 44 Obama
Ohio - Rass: 49 - 49 Actual 52 - 47 Obama
Nevada Rass: 50 - 46 Obama Actual 55 - 43 Obama
Colorado Rass: 51 - 47 Obama Actual: 54 - 45 Obama
Iow Rass: 51-43 Obama Actual: 54-45 Obama
New Mexicao Rass: 49 - 44 Obama Actual: 57 - 42 Obama

Are we pattern-recognition challenged? Obama's support was systematically under-reported by Rassmussen.

Even in the totals, RCP was more reliable. But this is very telling. VERY telling.

I'll say it's telling. Ore maybe exposing!

 

[nodoginnafight]

So - number one we see in the state polling that they systematically under-reported Obama's support.
Number two - they claim 100% of their respondents hold an opinion on the question
and - strike three - their results are outside the norms of all other reputable polling

You can put all your eggs in that basket if you choose - but they gonna fall out of all the holes and get broken.

 

[Vast LWC]

they dont give an OPTION for middle
what part of that dont you understand
you have to pick either somewhat approve or somewhat disapprove
its why the numbers will be different for the rest
sheeeesh

Which is of course the point we brought up the last time we had this endlessly repetitive conversation.

If people don't have enough information to form an opinion about something, asking them to answer anyway is just moronic, and provides skewed results.

I believe my example was:

Let's say the population was asked for an approval rating for the Secretary of Agriculture, but:

65% of the respondents didn't know who he or she was,
34% of the respondents knew who they were, but didn't know anything about how well or badly they did their job,
and 1% of the respondents felt comfortable enough to have an informed opinion.

Now let's say the pollsters asked people to form an opinion and respond anyway...

The results of such a poll would be completely meaningless.

This is more or less what Rasmussen is doing when they ask people who would normally not have opinion to produce one anyway. You see, not everyone follows politics. I know that is a shock, but it's true.

 

[nodoginnafight]

your prior post was full of bullshit
look at last election

Ok - let's look.

Florida - Rass says Obama 49 McCain 50 - actual Obama 51 McCain 48
Pennsylvania - Ras says 52 - 46 Obama - actual 55 - 44 Obama
Ohio - Rass: 49 - 49 Actual 52 - 47 Obama
Nevada Rass: 50 - 46 Obama Actual 55 - 43 Obama
Colorado Rass: 51 - 47 Obama Actual: 54 - 45 Obama
Iow Rass: 51-43 Obama Actual: 54-45 Obama
New Mexicao Rass: 49 - 44 Obama Actual: 57 - 42 Obama

Are we pattern-recognition challenged? Obama's support was systematically under-reported by Rassmussen.

and what did the other pollsters have?

Survey USA was consistently much more on target -

Let's also look at what Rassmussen did with their numbers.
In August they were reporting McCain by 1 point, In Sept they were reporting a 1 point Obama lead, in their national poll.
but right after that they suddenly started reporting a 5 point race

Was there a sudden shift in the race? The other polls don't show it.

Or was Rassmussen trying to save face by suddenly reporting accurate results?

The evidence piles up against Rassmussen - but obviously folks can make up their own minds.

 

[nodoginnafight]

they dont give an OPTION for middle
what part of that dont you understand
you have to pick either somewhat approve or somewhat disapprove
its why the numbers will be different for the rest
sheeeesh

Which is of course the point we brought up the last time we had this endlessly repetitive conversation.

If people don't have enough information to form an opinion about something, asking them to answer anyway is just moronic, and provides skewed results.

I believe my example was:

Let's say the population was asked for an approval rating for the Secretary of Agriculture, but:

65% of the respondents didn't know who he or she was,
34% of the respondents knew who they were, but didn't know anything about how well or badly they did their job,
and 1% of the respondents felt comfortable enough to have an informed opinion.

Now let's say the pollsters asked people to form an opinion and respond anyway...

The results of such a poll would be completely meaningless.

This is more or less what Rasmussen is doing when they ask people who would normally not have opinion to produce one anyway. You see, not everyone follows politics. I know that is a shock, but it's true.

yes, the lack a neutral option (if that really is the case - I find it very hard to believe an experienced polling company would make THAT rookie mistake) is essentially push polling in that you are pushing people into an option that may or may not accurately reflect their views. Why on earth would any pollster do that?

Unless tjhey are TRYING to push an agenda. Or create the illusion of a movement (or an illusion of a close race) when really none exists.

 

[DiveCon]

they dont give an OPTION for middle
what part of that dont you understand
you have to pick either somewhat approve or somewhat disapprove
its why the numbers will be different for the rest
sheeeesh

Which is of course the point we brought up the last time we had this endlessly repetitive conversation.

If people don't have enough information to form an opinion about something, asking them to answer anyway is just moronic, and provides skewed results.

I believe my example was:

Let's say the population was asked for an approval rating for the Secretary of Agriculture, but:

65% of the respondents didn't know who he or she was,
34% of the respondents knew who they were, but didn't know anything about how well or badly they did their job,
and 1% of the respondents felt comfortable enough to have an informed opinion.

Now let's say the pollsters asked people to form an opinion and respond anyway...

The results of such a poll would be completely meaningless.

This is more or less what Rasmussen is doing when they ask people who would normally not have opinion to produce one anyway. You see, not everyone follows politics. I know that is a shock, but it's true.

yes, the lack a neutral option (if that really is the case - I find it very hard to believe an experienced polling company would make THAT rookie mistake) is essentially push polling in that you are pushing people into an option that may or may not accurately reflect their views. Why on earth would any pollster do that?

Unless tjhey are TRYING to push an agenda. Or create the illusion of a movement (or an illusion of a close race) when really none exists.

how is that push polling?
you could just as easily say somewhat approve as you could somewhat disapprove?
unless you are saying they also got lower numbers for bush because of that
it doesnt stand to reason that they would get higher numbers for bush than they would for Obama


but i do agree they should add a neutral option

 

[NYcarbineer]

then it would do the SAME THING FOR OBAMA YOU DUMBFUCK

We know for a fact that it isn't doing that for Obama. Rasmussen's Obama polls are LOWER than the averages. That's my point.

Rasmussen

Higher than the averages when a Republican is president

Lower than the averages when a Democrat is president.

Those are indisputable facts, and it is also indisputable that Rasmussen uses a unique polling method with unique questions to get those results.

This may be the dumbest post I've ever read...Chris, is that you?

Prove ANY of it wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

then it would do the SAME THING FOR OBAMA YOU DUMBFUCK

We know for a fact that it isn't doing that for Obama. Rasmussen's Obama polls are LOWER than the averages. That's my point.

Rasmussen

Higher than the averages when a Republican is president

Lower than the averages when a Democrat is president.

Those are indisputable facts, and it is also indisputable that Rasmussen uses a unique polling method with unique questions to get those results.

yeah, sure, he changes his methodology by what party controls the white house

I didn't make any such claim. I merely pointed out the facts. It may be related to his screening of those polled. Rasmussen admits his method for screening costs Obama a few points.

 

[Vast LWC]

how is that push polling?
you could just as easily say somewhat approve as you could somewhat disapprove?
unless you are saying they also got lower numbers for bush because of that
it doesnt stand to reason that they would get higher numbers for bush than they would for Obama


but i do agree they should add a neutral option

Because people who do not have an opinion, and are asked to state an opinion anyway inevitably state someone else's opinion.

And the opinion they adopt is usually the opinion of the loudest, most strident voices in the media, which, at the moment, are right-wingers.

 

[DiveCon]

how is that push polling?
you could just as easily say somewhat approve as you could somewhat disapprove?
unless you are saying they also got lower numbers for bush because of that
it doesnt stand to reason that they would get higher numbers for bush than they would for Obama


but i do agree they should add a neutral option

Because people who do not have an opinion, and are asked to state an opinion anyway inevitably state someone else's opinion.

And the opinion they adopt is usually the opinion of the loudest, most strident voices in the media, which, at the moment, are right-wingers.

ROFLMAO

yeah, the right controls the media
:ROFLMAO

 

[Vast LWC]

how is that push polling?
you could just as easily say somewhat approve as you could somewhat disapprove?
unless you are saying they also got lower numbers for bush because of that
it doesnt stand to reason that they would get higher numbers for bush than they would for Obama


but i do agree they should add a neutral option

Because people who do not have an opinion, and are asked to state an opinion anyway inevitably state someone else's opinion.

And the opinion they adopt is usually the opinion of the loudest, most strident voices in the media, which, at the moment, are right-wingers.

ROFLMAO

yeah, the right controls the media
:ROFLMAO

I did not say the right controls the media, but all media thrives on conflict, which gives them the biggest ratings.

So, right now, giving protestors and right-wing radicals more airtime, means more conflict, and thus more ratings.

And, generally, people with an axe to grind are louder and more strident in tone.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We know for a fact that it isn't doing that for Obama. Rasmussen's Obama polls are LOWER than the averages. That's my point.

Rasmussen

Higher than the averages when a Republican is president

Lower than the averages when a Democrat is president.

Those are indisputable facts, and it is also indisputable that Rasmussen uses a unique polling method with unique questions to get those results.

This may be the dumbest post I've ever read...Chris, is that you?

Prove ANY of it wrong.

I say again,

prove ANY of it wrong, Miss Ourian.

 

[ozzmdj]

Wednesday, October 07, 2009 -8.....Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

they dont give an OPTION for middle
what part of that dont you understand
you have to pick either somewhat approve or somewhat disapprove
its why the numbers will be different for the rest
sheeeesh

Which is of course the point we brought up the last time we had this endlessly repetitive conversation.

If people don't have enough information to form an opinion about something, asking them to answer anyway is just moronic, and provides skewed results.

I believe my example was:

Let's say the population was asked for an approval rating for the Secretary of Agriculture, but:

65% of the respondents didn't know who he or she was,
34% of the respondents knew who they were, but didn't know anything about how well or badly they did their job,
and 1% of the respondents felt comfortable enough to have an informed opinion.

Now let's say the pollsters asked people to form an opinion and respond anyway...

The results of such a poll would be completely meaningless.

This is more or less what Rasmussen is doing when they ask people who would normally not have opinion to produce one anyway. You see, not everyone follows politics. I know that is a shock, but it's true.

yes, the lack a neutral option (if that really is the case - I find it very hard to believe an experienced polling company would make THAT rookie mistake) is essentially push polling in that you are pushing people into an option that may or may not accurately reflect their views. Why on earth would any pollster do that?

Unless tjhey are TRYING to push an agenda. Or create the illusion of a movement (or an illusion of a close race) when really none exists.

Have you ever been polled?
They want sides, not straddles

 

[nodoginnafight]

Which is of course the point we brought up the last time we had this endlessly repetitive conversation.

If people don't have enough information to form an opinion about something, asking them to answer anyway is just moronic, and provides skewed results.

I believe my example was:

Let's say the population was asked for an approval rating for the Secretary of Agriculture, but:

65% of the respondents didn't know who he or she was,
34% of the respondents knew who they were, but didn't know anything about how well or badly they did their job,
and 1% of the respondents felt comfortable enough to have an informed opinion.

Now let's say the pollsters asked people to form an opinion and respond anyway...

The results of such a poll would be completely meaningless.

This is more or less what Rasmussen is doing when they ask people who would normally not have opinion to produce one anyway. You see, not everyone follows politics. I know that is a shock, but it's true.

yes, the lack a neutral option (if that really is the case - I find it very hard to believe an experienced polling company would make THAT rookie mistake) is essentially push polling in that you are pushing people into an option that may or may not accurately reflect their views. Why on earth would any pollster do that?

Unless tjhey are TRYING to push an agenda. Or create the illusion of a movement (or an illusion of a close race) when really none exists.

Have you ever been polled?
They want sides, not straddles

Yes, I have - why do you ask and what difference does it make?

What they SHOULD want is an accurate reflection of the opinions of the people. If you go into a poll with any other objective - your poll is fatally flawed.