Reply to Wow

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Wow"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics