Wow

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow.. Romney is going to win and there is nothing you can do about it.

Hahahaha, keep dreaming, my friend.

look at Gallup and Rasmussen on 10/18/2008, look at the final election results, and then get back to me.

Romney is legitimately up 5-6 points nationally right now. The election is not over, but to pretend it is not in game is silly.

Romney is up 5-6 points nationally in one poll that may be an outlier.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Monday showed Obama at 49 percent and Romney at 46 percent, while a Politico-George Washington University poll showed Obama at 49 percent and Romney at 48 percent.

As for Rasmussen, no one takes it seriously. No one. It is consistently one of the most inaccurate poll out there.

http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/2008%20poll%20accuracy%20panagopoulos.pdf

Rasmussen had Obama over McCain 52-46 I believe, which made them one of the most accurate out there.

"Rasmussen, for instance, generally conducts all of its interviews during a single, 4-hour window; speaks with the first person it reaches on the phone rather than using a random selection process; does not call cellphones; does not call back respondents whom it misses initially; and uses a computer script rather than live interviewers to conduct its surveys. These are cost-saving measures which contribute to very low response rates and may lead to biased samples."

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/

Again. No one takes Rasmussen seriously. No one except the type of person gullible enough to watch Fox News.

In any case, I prefer Intrade, which still gives Obama a 65% probability of winning. Surely conservatives appreciate a market-based analysis, right? http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743474

Can't argue with the market forces. Isn't that the GOP mantra?

The only poll that matters is the one Nov. 6, anyway.

[Anonymous]

This is how Intrade performed on 2008:

http://electoralmap.net/2012/2008_election.php

Clearly stronger than Rasmussen. Since Intrade has Obama with a 65% chance of winning, I assume you'll accept that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is how Intrade performed on 2008:

http://electoralmap.net/2012/2008_election.php

Clearly stronger than Rasmussen. Since Intrade has Obama with a 65% chance of winning, I assume you'll accept that.

of course intrade is accurate the date before the election. duh. it is looking at the most recent polls. intrade fluctuates with the polls, and is a week or so behind the movement. I assume we will see intrade get closer and closer if the polls remain tight. and intrade is not polling, it is just people making bets based on the latest valuable data.

Also intrade was way off in 2000.

regardless, Rasmussen WAS very accurate in 2008. not really in dispute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is how Intrade performed on 2008:

http://electoralmap.net/2012/2008_election.php

Clearly stronger than Rasmussen. Since Intrade has Obama with a 65% chance of winning, I assume you'll accept that.

of course intrade is accurate the date before the election. duh. it is looking at the most recent polls. intrade fluctuates with the polls, and is a week or so behind the movement. I assume we will see intrade get closer and closer if the polls remain tight. and intrade is not polling, it is just people making bets based on the latest valuable data.

Also intrade was way off in 2000.

regardless, Rasmussen WAS very accurate in 2008. not really in dispute.

Very much in dispute, in fact. Rasmussen's sampling bias and failings are extremely well documented.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/

And Rasmussen totally blew it in 2000:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/05/blast-from-rasmussen-past.html

Now, I realize the talking point of the day is that "Rasmussen was accurate" in 2008, so therefore it must be some gold standard, but it's not.

Again, no one takes Rasumussen seriously. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/gallup-rasmussen-polling-outliers-lean-republican

Gallup, btw, apparently has a bad record in recent elections.

Again, I'm not sure what the preoccupation is. If it makes you feel better to indulge a fantasy that Romney is winning because Scott Rasmussen contorts his findings to tell you so, go right ahead. Those of us rooted in reality are just waiting patiently for Nov. 6 to ratify what everyone else is showing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is how Intrade performed on 2008:

http://electoralmap.net/2012/2008_election.php

Clearly stronger than Rasmussen. Since Intrade has Obama with a 65% chance of winning, I assume you'll accept that.

of course intrade is accurate the date before the election. duh. it is looking at the most recent polls. intrade fluctuates with the polls, and is a week or so behind the movement. I assume we will see intrade get closer and closer if the polls remain tight. and intrade is not polling, it is just people making bets based on the latest valuable data.

Also intrade was way off in 2000.

regardless, Rasmussen WAS very accurate in 2008. not really in dispute.

Very much in dispute, in fact. Rasmussen's sampling bias and failings are extremely well documented.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/

And Rasmussen totally blew it in 2000:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/05/blast-from-rasmussen-past.html

Now, I realize the talking point of the day is that "Rasmussen was accurate" in 2008, so therefore it must be some gold standard, but it's not.

Again, no one takes Rasumussen seriously. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/gallup-rasmussen-polling-outliers-lean-republican

Gallup, btw, apparently has a bad record in recent elections.

Again, I'm not sure what the preoccupation is. If it makes you feel better to indulge a fantasy that Romney is winning because Scott Rasmussen contorts his findings to tell you so, go right ahead. Those of us rooted in reality are just waiting patiently for Nov. 6 to ratify what everyone else is showing.

ah, 2000 was a bad year for polling. too much weird shit going down, plus its very hard to quantify the effect of the DUI reports a day or two before the election. I give money to Obama by the way, so this is not rooted in partisanship, just funny that you think Rasmussen is a bad poll. It is not. It is one of many, and by and large it has a good track record.

Poll Score Grade
Accuracy Consistency
Rasmussen Reports 91% A-
92% 86%
Ipsos/McClatchy 89% B+
92% 79%
CNN/Opinion Research 88% B+
92% 77%
Fox News 84% B
92% 61%
Pew 83% B-
92% 56%
GWU/Battleground 79% C+
92% 41%
Diageo/Hotline 77% C+
77% 79%
NBC News / Wall St. Journal 76% C
77% 75%
Gallup Traditional 73% C-
77% 63%
Marist 67% D+
62% 82%
ABC News / Wash Post 67% D+
62% 82%
IBD/TIPP 66% D
77% 34%
Gallup Expanded 66% D
62% 78%
CBS News / NYT 60% D-
62% 56%
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby 35% F
31% 48%

Continue reading at NowPublic.com: Analysis: Most Accurate polls from 2008 presidential election | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/world/analysis-most-accurate-polls-2008-presidential-election#ixzz29cON79pK