Rasmussen bias

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Its quite irrelevant who the Republicans use
for the their polling...and for that matter its also irrelevant who the Dems use...
You have a hair up your tush because Fox News contracts with Rasmussen to do polling for them
and mentions them regularly on TV.

Some years Rasmussen is right on the mark and some years they're not...so what...7 of 8 were wrong to some degree or another (all in favor of Republicans), thats the fact of the matter....

I find it much more telling that the author of the article describes himself as "rational progressive" and the NY Times is a left leaning rag....

Nick Silver's opinion does lean to the left, his predictions are usually spot on, even though, unlike pretty much every other election predictor, he doesn't have an "undecided" column.

In the house he predicted the Democrats would get 200, and they got 190 (although he did admit that they uncertainty in the model was huge because of the large number of seats changing hands, and that they could go anywhere from a slight majority to 180). In the senate he predicted they would win 52 and they won 53. Overall it was a pretty good model.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Heaven forbid you might think on your own....

I realize you lefties love this kind of shit to no end and believe it without any analysis of your own....

Thats quite as accusation considering the figures in the link following this paragraph.

The table below presents results for the eight companies in FiveThirtyEight’s database that released at least 10 polls of gubernatorial and Senate contests into the public domain in the final three weeks of the campaign, and which were active in at least two states.

Simple Polling Accuracy Analysis....

CNN average error was 4.9 Bias R's by 2.1
Rasmussen.................5.8................3.9

Rasmussin taking 88 more polls than CNN....

Sounds like hes making a mountain out of molehill....

7 out of 8 polls erred in favor of Repubs....and Marist Polls even had a higher "bias" than Rasmussen....

Reading about Mr. Silver, I see Mr. Silver describes his ideological orientation as one of "rational progressivism" and the NY Times? Well, the Times is usually described as having a liberal bias or described as being a liberal newspaper. So consider the source.

I suspect the thrust of this article is biased in itself....but I know pinheads love it

Rasmussen was worse than everyone in this election besides Marist.

 

[NOVA]

Rass always has results that lean right compared to the other pollsters.


That is what makes them suspect in my mind.

7 out 8 erred right along with Ras. ALL favoring republicans...

That don't seem to bother you in the least, you just ignore it...
=======

By his own admission, Mr. Silver describes his ideological orientation as one of "rational progressivism" and the NY Times has always leaned to the left...

But that doesn't seem to make you suspect does it...

You're a hack....

 

[Good Luck]

It's funny how people grasp at straws where their side just took a drubbing.

Yes, Rasmussen did not do well this election cycle. However, a number of major pollsters did not do well, and most erred in favor of republicans. Are they all biased then? Or, perhaps, was there an unbalanced factor out there skewing polling data? All polsters mentioned repeatedly the disparity in enthusiasm between registered membership of both parties. Perhaps this difference was not thoroughly compensated for in polling results. For instance, a person enthused about going out and "throwing the bums out" is far more likely to reply in the first place, thus resulting in more responses from republican or republican leaning voters. Then again, it is very difficult to adjust for variances in response rates. So we end up with MOST polls erring in favor of republicans this election cycle.

Additionally, when looking at all the data, comparing poll results to election results in the 6 national elections, from 2000 through present, Rasmussen has more accurate results more often, over all, than most other pollsters. Looking at a single year, with admittedly higher than usual errors, and using that outlier as a means of analysis of any presupposed bias is about as dishonest as one can get.

 

[NOVA]

Rasmussen was worse than everyone in this election besides Marist.

Then just say Rasmussen WAS NOT the worst....
and choke on those words....

 

[Damocles]

It's not illegal, just difficult. Robocalls are completely blocked, so that eliminates rasmussen right off the bat. Also, they're not listed, so to get them you have to call randomized 10 digit numbers until you hit a cell phone, and ask about the persons race and such over the phone.

You're wrong, and so was I.

Unsolicited marketing calls, not polling, to cell phones are illegal. Robocalls are specifically illegal to cell phones and have been for a long time, however the law actually exempts political calls specifically and they can be called, even by Rasmussen.

http://www.the-dma.org/cgi/dispannouncements?article=419++++++

That law was passed in 1991.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Then just say Rasmussen WAS NOT the worst....
and choke on those words....

Yeah, they weren't the worst, they were the second worst. And they were only 0.1% better than the worst. 7th out of 8. CNN was the only other pollster that was worse than around 1%. If we eliminate these three huge outliers, the average is around 0.6%. Rasmussen did 7 times worse than that. The average with Rasmussen is 1.66%, the average without is 1.34%. Rasmussens number were so bad that they add 0.3% to the average just by including them. Rasmussen is so bad that they account for a third of the total error in the polling all by themselves. This was a complete and total cluster-fuck.