03 Jan 2012, 9:58 am
rickyp wrote:"an ongoing link for responsibility between Rasmussen and Pulse."
Scott Rasmussen is the president of both....
That should be easy to source, right? So, why don't you do it?
If you did read Silver you know that what they did with Pulse is simply set up an online access point, called it Pulse and allowed clients to formulate their own questionnares for the robo calling...
They use the same methodology for sampling, and qualification of samples. Pulse is only a store front.
No, it's not a "store front." Do some research. I did:
The key to Rasmussen Reports’ success, longevity and credibility has always been its independent stance. We cannot be hired to conduct a poll for anyone, and we work hard to retain objectivity in what we poll and how we cover it. But because of our track record for accuracy, we frequently get asked to do paid polling for individuals and businesses. To meet this demand, a separate company was launched several years ago, now called Pulse Opinion Research, to provide field work (interviews and processing) for commissioned surveys. Pulse licenses methodology developed by Scott Rasmussen and provides the field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys. It provides all customers with the same quality field work that we rely on every day.
So, Pulse is a separate entity in which companies, parties, or candidates ask their own questions. Rasmussen Reports "cannot be hired."
My point about your article claiming that CBS is over sampling dems, is that for justiifaction they use Rasmussen, who over sample republicans.
I bolded that sentence and would put in in neon if I could. Why? Because it demonstrates the sheer empty-headedness of your argument. I don't care if Dumbo the Elephant saw those gaps, they would still demonstrate a bias in the NYT/CBS poll. To you, the gap is immaterial because Rasmussen is the one who says it. Either NYT/CBS has a reason for such a huge gap (16 points in one poll) or they don't. Rather than attempt to prove the legitimacy of the gap they use, you go after Rasmussen.
Thank you for so ably demonstrating and defining ad hominem argumentation!
You can continue to paint a self-portrait of yourself as a jackass or you can move on. My guess is you will continue to play the artist, so to speak.
Of course they'll take that view as its so different from theirs.. Fact is Rasmussen would say the same thing about any other pollster who also weights respondents by party affilitation. If the authors of the story had gone to Pew and asked them about the CBS polls they might have had a different reaction.
When you look at RCP summaries
see link
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... dates.html
you get a sense of the trend. Rasmussen always seems to favour the repubs. And since they weight the Repubs more in their sample that stands to reason.
First, how does rcp prove what you say it proves? For example, none of the other head-to-head Romney v. Obama polls are "likely voters." So, unless you just don't care about comparing apples to apples, you'd have to do some extrapolating. Is that going to be your next post?
Second, there are polls that show Obama doing better AND worse against other candidates than in the Rasmussen polls, so . . . how does that demonstrate Rasmussen's alleged bias?
It seems like you just looked at the Obama vs. Romney numbers and jumped to your own biased conclusions. If not, you have a lot of 'splaining to do.
You seem to think I take anything reported about Obama personnally. I don't I just think its amusing how you cherry pick your poll postings..
Rasmussen and Fox News have a cozy relationship. Its very profitable to Rasmussen.
You seem incapable of doing research. It's incredibly simple, but I suppose it's not convenient for someone like you because the facts don't back up your assertions. For example, Pulse says, "Over the period from 2003 to 2009, Pulse generated 18% of its revenue from Republican sources, 20% from Democrats and 61% from sources not affiliated with either major party." That's weird, isn't it? Why would Democrats use such a "biased" source? Furthermore, remember what a big deal your man, Nate Silver made about Hawaii? Remember: you cited Rasmussen missing Hawaii by 50 points?
Imagine my *shock* when I actually look at this and see that Hawaii is listed by Rasmussen as "Solid Dem."
So, unless "Solid Dem" means "Republican wins by 50 points, I go back to wondering how objective Mr. Silver is. Could it be that he somehow mixed in an outlier Pulse poll with Rasmussen?
Feel free to actually read this page, it might do you some good. Some highlights:
To support this extensive news coverage, we conduct more public opinion polls than any other firm and in a variety of ways. Rasmussen Reports is the only firm conducting -- and covering -- both an ongoing series of nightly national tracking polls and regularly scheduled state surveys. . . .
We were right on the money in both the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections. But it’s more than getting the final answer right that matters. Our polling is generally less volatile than other firms, and because Rasmussen Reports polls more frequently than others, we are often the first to catch major trends.
In 2008, for example, we showed essentially the same result for nearly every day over the final six weeks of the campaign. In 2004, our data showed that hardly anybody changed their mind from the moment John Kerry won the Democratic nomination until George W. Bush won the election.
Also in 2008, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show Barack Obama gaining on Hillary Clinton among Democratic primary voters, the first to show John McCain on top among Republicans and the first to show the massive unpopularity of the bank and auto company bailouts.
In 2009, while most firms showed New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine with a modest lead in his reelection bid, Rasmussen Reports consistently showed challenger Chris Christie ahead and eventually matched his margin of victory. That New Jersey race, combined with our earlier track record, led liberal columnist Mickey Kaus to declare, “If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious N.Y. Times, go with Rasmussen!”
In 2010, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show Republican Scott Brown had a chance to defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in the special Massachusetts Senate race to fill the late Ted Kennedy's seat. Just after Brown's upset win, the influential Washington publication The Politico said of our polling, “The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both parties … was that Martha Coakley was a lock. It's hard to recall a single poll changing the mood of a race quite that dramatically." A study by Boston University and the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism about how the Massachusetts Senate race was covered in the media concluded that the “(Rasmussen) poll, perhaps more than anything else, signaled that a possible upset was brewing and galvanized both the media and political worlds” and “in the two weeks after the Rasmussen poll, media coverage (of the race) picked up frantically.” The New York Times Magazine opened a March 14 cover story with a scene highlighting the impact of that poll in an internal White House meeting involving President Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.
Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen, pollsters for Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, say that Rasmussen Reports has “an unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy.”
Regarding the 2010 midterm elections, noted national political analyst Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said, “This was one tough election to poll and forecast, and no one came close to getting all the races right. But from my vantage point, Rasmussen Reports caught the major trends of the election year nationally and in most states.”
One of our national trend pick-ups for the recent midterms was noticed as early as December 2009, a full 11 months before Election Day. A Democratic strategist concluded that if the Rasmussen Reports Generic Congressional Ballot data was accurate, Republicans would gain 62 seats in the House during the 2010 elections. Other polls at the time suggested the Democrats would retain a comfortable majority. The Republicans gained 63 seats in last month's elections.
Also in 2010, we were the first to show incumbent Arlen Specter losing in the GOP Senate Primary in Pennsylvania which helped prompt him to switch parties and the first to show Joe Sestak catching him in the Democratic Primary. We were also the first to show Russ Feingold in trouble even against a no-name opponent in the Wisconsin Senate race.
How about this mea culpa:
Every pollster misses something along the way and our biggest miss came in Nevada. Our final survey in that Senate race showed Republican challenger Sharron Angle ahead 49% to 45% but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won 50% to 45%. The two candidates had been three points apart or less in eight of the nine surveys we conducted in the state since July.
You'll rarely see more conflicting info in a wiki article than in the one on Scott Rasmussen, however, it is interesting how Silver's impressions of him have "evolved."
At the end of the 2008 Presidential election, there were eight national tracking polls and many other polls conducted on a regular basis. Polling guru Nate Silver reviewed the tracking polls and said that while none were perfect, and Rasmussen was "frequently reputed to have a Republican lean", the "house effect" in their tracking poll was small and "with its large sample size and high pollster rating [it] would probably be the one I'd want with me on a desert island."[39] After the election, Rasmussen's poll was rated as the most accurate, when compared to various other final pre-election polls. By 2010, however, Silver's opinion of the Rasmussen polls had changed, concluding that the likely voter model was insufficient to explain the increasingly large "house effect".[28]
Republicans often use his polling to make their arguments. “Republicans right now are citing our polls more than Democrats because it’s in their interest to do so,” Scott Rasmussen said in 2009. “I would not consider myself a political conservative — that implies an alignment with Washington politics that I don’t think I have.”[34]
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Democratic pollsters and FOX News contributors Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen (a coauthor of Rasmussen) remark, "...recent attempts by the Democratic left to muzzle Scott Rasmussen reflect a disturbing trend in our politics: a tendency to try to stifle legitimate feedback about political concerns—particularly if the feedback is negative to the incumbent administration."[40]
I found this in an interview with Rasmussen. You might not like it, but it happens to be pretty accurate:
SR: When a President runs for re-election, the single most important number is his job approval rating. Whatever that is, that’s about the share of the vote he’s going to get. In 2004, George Bush got 51 percent of the vote. On Election Day his job approval was 51 percent and the big issue of the time was the war on terror. 51 percent of Americans thought we were winning the war on terror. It was a very clear identification.
With President Obama, it’s not the war on terror that’s the big issue. It’s the economy. If people begin to feel their own finances are getting better, if that goes back to 40 to 43 percent, Barack Obama will be much better off. If it stays where it is, it’s going to be dicey territory for him. The President’s job approval this morning is at 47 percent. He has been in that same holding pattern range for over a year. So that says if the election were held today he would probably get about 47 percent of the vote, assuming a non-distracting republican candidate, which means it would be a close election. If Obama’s numbers go up to 52, 53 he’ll win big. If his numbers tank, he’ll either lose or pray for a third party candidate. So right now that’s the number to watch. If his job approval does not go up, it’s going to be a close election.
That's been my point. Obama could win, but he's not likely to win if his approval rating is low and the economy is not visibly improving. Since I doubt the latter will happen, I'm dubious the former will either. That portends difficulty for the President.
So, unless you have some new info, I'm ready to declare victory on Rasmussen, and get back to the topic. Again, my guess is that you don't, but that won't stop you from distorting the truth.
