I'm an SOB for doing so, I freely admit.

Posted by genghisxcon on 8/19/2012 3:48:00 PM (view original):
iow, they don't tell teh Tea Party what they want to hear.

Nope, they make Rush Limbaugh look like a legitimate news source.  They constantly lie in their actual news and get caught multiple times a year, yet people still are dumb enough to believe them. 

The fact of the matter is anyone can lie in a poll and skew the results.  I do for certain companies I don't like when they have a survey. 

In the 2004 presidential election, "Rasmussen...beat most of their human competitors in the battleground states, often by large margins," according to Slate magazine.^[37] Rasmussen projected the 2004 presidential results within one percentage point of the actual vote totals earned by both George W. Bush and John Kerry.^[38]

In 2004, Slate said they “publicly doubted and privately derided Rasmussen” polls because of the methodology. However, after the election, they concluded that Rasmussen’s polls were the most accurate.^[37]

2008

According to Politico, "Rasmussen’s final poll of the 2008 general election — showing Obama defeating Arizona Sen. John McCain 52 percent to 46 percent — closely mirrored the election’s outcome."^[39] In reference to the 2008 presidential election, a Talking Points Memo article said, "Rasmussen's final polls had Obama ahead 52%-46%, which was nearly identical to Obama's final margin of 53%-46%, and made him one of the most accurate pollsters out there."^[40]

In 2004 and 2008 Rasmussen knocked it out of the park. It appears there is some dispiute over their 2000 numbers. Some think they were the beast, others not so much.

So given that record why would anyone be willing to just reject them?

Because the left lives in a bubble.

Hey Swamp...you want to double down on that $20?

Posted by seamar_116 on 8/22/2012 9:58:00 AM (view original):
Hey Swamp...you want to double down on that $20?

Changing the topic?

Answer mine and I will answer yours....

intrade says

heh, here's a good one

Swamp, why would you post the stuff from Wiki about 2000 and knowingly leave off the part that shows that Rasmussen was off by 5.4% while the MOE for all the polls was 1.1% unless it was to play fast and loose with the facts, as per the Republican playbook?

Genghis already schooled you in another thread. You are pathological.

Posted by seamar_116 on 8/22/2012 6:09:00 PM (view original):
Swamp, why would you post the stuff from Wiki about 2000 and knowingly leave off the part that shows that Rasmussen was off by 5.4% while the MOE for all the polls was 1.1% unless it was to play fast and loose with the facts, as per the Republican playbook?

Genghis already schooled you in another thread. You are pathological.

I put the part about one study that said they were the best. I left off another study that said they were not.

My point was that many people think they did great. Over every election.

Why is that so hard for you to admit?

<<I put the part about one study that said they were the best. I left off another study that said they were not. >>

Posted by seamar_116 on 8/23/2012 4:20:00 AM (view original):
<<I put the part about one study that said they were the best. I left off another study that said they were not. >>

I was not trying to make the case that Rasmussen was perfect, just that they were just as good if not better than all the rest.

Can you admit that?

And if you can than why wouldnt you accept the rasmussen polls as valid as all the rest?

Quote post by swamphawk22 on 8/19/2012 1:10:00 PM:<<How about the fact that Rasmussen nailed 2000, 2004 and 2008.

No one else did as well by a wide margin.>> 

<<I was not trying to make the case that Rasmussen was perfect, just that they were just as good if not better than all the rest.>>


Liar, liar pants on fire. Or your command of the English language is on par with Todd Akins.

Posted by seamar_116 on 8/23/2012 9:43:00 AM (view original):
Quote post by swamphawk22 on 8/19/2012 1:10:00 PM:<<How about the fact that Rasmussen nailed 2000, 2004 and 2008.

No one else did as well by a wide margin.>> 

<<I was not trying to make the case that Rasmussen was perfect, just that they were just as good if not better than all the rest.>>


Liar, liar pants on fire. Or your command of the English language is on par with Todd Akins.

Taken as a whole over the last 3 elections they did well. Some people ranked their performance in 2000 high and some did not.

Again your position seems to be that they cannot be trusted because of bias and I ask you where is the evidence of this?