All Forums > The Pit > The Pit > Rasmussen and Polling
9/28/2012 4:38 PM
9/28/2012 4:53 PM
Posted by rcrusso on 9/28/2012 4:24:00 PM (view original):
This is a great point.

Is simple gaffes the reason to elect a President...

Or...

A logical and rational analysis of who would make a better President??
9/28/2012 4:57 PM
What gaffes?

That's all propaganda from the democrat news media. Telling lies and making up news.
9/28/2012 5:08 PM
Posted by jclarkbaker on 9/28/2012 3:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jiml60 on 9/27/2012 10:46:00 PM (view original):
More from today's 538 blog:


Still, this Electoral College discussion is going to be academic unless Mr. Romney can reverse his poor run of polling. We’ll conclude with a scary thought for Republicans.

Right now, the Nov. 6 forecast projects that Mr. Obama will win the popular vote by 3.6 percentage points. As I mentioned, that does account for about a two-point decline from where Mr. Obama seems to be in the polls right now. Otherwise, however, the model assumes that the uncertainty in the forecast is symmetric: Mr. Obama is as likely to overperform it as underperform it.

If Mr. Obama misses to the downside by 3.7 percentage points, then Mr. Romney would win, at least in the popular vote. However, if Mr. Obama missed to the upside by 3.7 percentage point instead, he’d win the popular vote by 7.3 percentage points, exactly replicating his margin from 2008.

In other words, there looks to be about a 20 percent chance that Mr. Romney will win, but also about a 20 percent chance that Mr. Obama will actually beat his 2008 margin in the popular vote. The smart money is on an outcome somewhere in the middle – as it has been all year. But if you can conceive of a Romney comeback – and you should account for that possibility – you should also allow for the chance that things could get really out of hand, and that Mr. Obama could win in a borderline landslide.
You know why this is complete BS?  Because there is a 0% chance he will beat his 2008 popular vote margin.  Whoever wrote this is a ******* moron.
The master is back to teach us minions a lesson in polls and statistics now; first cabin pressurization and now this, one can only wonder what other nuggets of wisdom he has in store for us.
9/28/2012 5:10 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 9/28/2012 4:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by rcrusso on 9/28/2012 4:24:00 PM (view original):
This is a great point.

Is simple gaffes the reason to elect a President...

Or...

A logical and rational analysis of who would make a better President??
After the stupidity of Dubya, the American public has finally wised up and not going to make the same mistake in electing a Republican doofus.
9/28/2012 5:15 PM
Posted by jiml60 on 9/28/2012 5:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jclarkbaker on 9/28/2012 3:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jiml60 on 9/27/2012 10:46:00 PM (view original):
More from today's 538 blog:


Still, this Electoral College discussion is going to be academic unless Mr. Romney can reverse his poor run of polling. We’ll conclude with a scary thought for Republicans.

Right now, the Nov. 6 forecast projects that Mr. Obama will win the popular vote by 3.6 percentage points. As I mentioned, that does account for about a two-point decline from where Mr. Obama seems to be in the polls right now. Otherwise, however, the model assumes that the uncertainty in the forecast is symmetric: Mr. Obama is as likely to overperform it as underperform it.

If Mr. Obama misses to the downside by 3.7 percentage points, then Mr. Romney would win, at least in the popular vote. However, if Mr. Obama missed to the upside by 3.7 percentage point instead, he’d win the popular vote by 7.3 percentage points, exactly replicating his margin from 2008.

In other words, there looks to be about a 20 percent chance that Mr. Romney will win, but also about a 20 percent chance that Mr. Obama will actually beat his 2008 margin in the popular vote. The smart money is on an outcome somewhere in the middle – as it has been all year. But if you can conceive of a Romney comeback – and you should account for that possibility – you should also allow for the chance that things could get really out of hand, and that Mr. Obama could win in a borderline landslide.
You know why this is complete BS?  Because there is a 0% chance he will beat his 2008 popular vote margin.  Whoever wrote this is a ******* moron.
The master is back to teach us minions a lesson in polls and statistics now; first cabin pressurization and now this, one can only wonder what other nuggets of wisdom he has in store for us.
Yes, and this is how it is done:

Name one group in which Obama will increase his votes from 2008?  There is perhaps one: single females.  But I doubt it.  White males?  Hell no.  Married women?  No.  African Americans?  No.  Veterans/military?  Hell no.  Catholics?  Hell no.  Jews?  Hell no.  College students?  Hell no.

He is down in each and every category from last time.  Which is why all this talk of the election being over is a joke.

9/28/2012 5:16 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 9/28/2012 2:38:00 PM (view original):
More from Rasmussen...

Tied at 48%.

And this makes sense. The economy is in shambles and people are unemployed at record levels.

How could Obama be up by 10 points!

How could seniors and military personel be going for Obama.

It doesnt make sense. The polls must be wrong.

Rasmussen makes sense.
 I think you need to read this: www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/07/is-poll-scientific-if-it-excludes-more.html

Last night, I wrote the following on Twitter:

The way YouGov does online polling is no less scientific than the way Rasmussen does telephone polling.
Let me explain what I mean by that. One definition of how "scientific" a poll is is the percentage of the adult population that it can potentially hope to reach. That isn't a complete definition, mind you -- it's more of a necessary than a sufficient condition -- but it isn't a useless one. By this definition, Rasmussen's polling isn't very scientific: because of certain shortcuts that they take, well over half of the American population will be physically unable to take one of their phone calls.

Rasmussen typically conducts its polling on weeknights, calling between 5 PM and 9 PM over the course of a single evening. They do not call phone numbers back, as most other pollsters do, in the event they don't get an answer the first time. They don't call cellphones -- only landlines. And they speak to the first person they get on the line if they speak to anybody at all; other polling firms use carefully-designed procedures to randomize the selection of respondent within the household (a typical mechanism is something like asking that the adult with the next birthday come to the phone).


To sum it up for you, Rasmussen is not reliable.
9/28/2012 5:18 PM
Posted by jclarkbaker on 9/28/2012 5:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jiml60 on 9/28/2012 5:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jclarkbaker on 9/28/2012 3:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jiml60 on 9/27/2012 10:46:00 PM (view original):
More from today's 538 blog:


Still, this Electoral College discussion is going to be academic unless Mr. Romney can reverse his poor run of polling. We’ll conclude with a scary thought for Republicans.

Right now, the Nov. 6 forecast projects that Mr. Obama will win the popular vote by 3.6 percentage points. As I mentioned, that does account for about a two-point decline from where Mr. Obama seems to be in the polls right now. Otherwise, however, the model assumes that the uncertainty in the forecast is symmetric: Mr. Obama is as likely to overperform it as underperform it.

If Mr. Obama misses to the downside by 3.7 percentage points, then Mr. Romney would win, at least in the popular vote. However, if Mr. Obama missed to the upside by 3.7 percentage point instead, he’d win the popular vote by 7.3 percentage points, exactly replicating his margin from 2008.

In other words, there looks to be about a 20 percent chance that Mr. Romney will win, but also about a 20 percent chance that Mr. Obama will actually beat his 2008 margin in the popular vote. The smart money is on an outcome somewhere in the middle – as it has been all year. But if you can conceive of a Romney comeback – and you should account for that possibility – you should also allow for the chance that things could get really out of hand, and that Mr. Obama could win in a borderline landslide.
You know why this is complete BS?  Because there is a 0% chance he will beat his 2008 popular vote margin.  Whoever wrote this is a ******* moron.
The master is back to teach us minions a lesson in polls and statistics now; first cabin pressurization and now this, one can only wonder what other nuggets of wisdom he has in store for us.
Yes, and this is how it is done:

Name one group in which Obama will increase his votes from 2008?  There is perhaps one: single females.  But I doubt it.  White males?  Hell no.  Married women?  No.  African Americans?  No.  Veterans/military?  Hell no.  Catholics?  Hell no.  Jews?  Hell no.  College students?  Hell no.

He is down in each and every category from last time.  Which is why all this talk of the election being over is a joke.

Well you really boiled that down in a clear, concise manner with facts and documentation to prove your point.  Thanks a lot.  (it's gonna be fun listening to your whining on Nov. 7)
9/28/2012 5:20 PM
Sure, he may win.  But no rationale follower of politics thinks he is going to come close to his win margin from '08.  Anyone who claims he even has a small chance of that is a ******* retard.  And anyone who subscribes to such thinking by posting it on boards such as these has **** for brains.
9/28/2012 5:21 PM
And don't you wonder, how in all these polls he is down from his '08 levels in all those groups, yet those same polls show him ahead.  Why is that?  Think the sample might be flawed?
9/28/2012 5:39 PM
Posted by jclarkbaker on 9/28/2012 5:20:00 PM (view original):
Sure, he may win.  But no rationale follower of politics thinks he is going to come close to his win margin from '08.  Anyone who claims he even has a small chance of that is a ******* retard.  And anyone who subscribes to such thinking by posting it on boards such as these has **** for brains.
I don't know why anyone would take the word of a mostly anonymous poster on a board such as this over a guy who puts a little more thought and effort into his predictions than calling anyone who doesn't believe him a moron or a retard.

You haven't given us anything to discredit Nate Silver's prediction models other than jealous rantings.

9/28/2012 10:26 PM (edited)
Nate who?
9/28/2012 11:02 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 9/28/2012 4:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by rcrusso on 9/28/2012 4:24:00 PM (view original):
This is a great point.

Is simple gaffes the reason to elect a President...

Or...

A logical and rational analysis of who would make a better President??
The 47% video isn't a simple gaffe. That thing will live through the entirety of our lifetimes.
9/28/2012 11:22 PM
Posted by jclarkbaker on 9/28/2012 5:20:00 PM (view original):
Sure, he may win.  But no rationale follower of politics thinks he is going to come close to his win margin from '08.  Anyone who claims he even has a small chance of that is a ******* retard.  And anyone who subscribes to such thinking by posting it on boards such as these has **** for brains.
Maybe not in the popular vote..but in the electoral college, it's going to be damn close to the same margin of victory.
9/28/2012 11:23 PM
And if you think differently, you are a ******* retard and you have **** for brains.
of 24
All Forums > The Pit > The Pit > Rasmussen and Polling

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.