1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 10:07 am
Foxfyre wrote:

Not a bad pony to pick regardless of ideology as Rasmussen beat everybody else in accuracy in predicting the outcome of 2006 and 2008 elections. They must be getting it right even with a conservative leaning.


I'm pretty sure in 2008, they were not the most accurate once the votes were all tallied. Didn't Parados point this out to you the other day?

Cycloptichorn
  2  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 10:12 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Not a bad pony to pick regardless of ideology as Rasmussen beat everybody else in accuracy in predicting the outcome of 2006 and 2008 elections. They must be getting it right even with a conservative leaning.


I'm pretty sure in 2008, they were not the most accurate once the votes were all tallied. Didn't Parados point this out to you the other day?

Cycloptichorn
never question foxfyre, it always means you are attacking her personage and that is just not allowed.
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 10:15 am
Besides that, Rasmussen polls have not been at the forefront of polls until recent times - as I can recall. It's been Gallup and the major newspaper/tv companies that we are all familiar with.
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 01:33 pm
I did find some stuff on the various polling outfits in the November election.
On 11/5 Fordham University released a "preliminary" ranking of 23 pollers based on what the "actual" spread in the popular vote was between Mr Obama and Mr McCain of 6.15%. They used data from Pollster.com.
I am not going to list all 23. I dropped pollsters who took their last polls on 10/27 and I dropped some of the lesser known (to us) polls.
#1: Rasmussen
#1: Pew
#10: Fox
#13: NBC/WSJ
#14: ABC/Post
#16: CBS
#17: Gallup
#20: Newsweek
Interestingly, on 12/1 Pollster.com produced an article showing the spread as reported by the various outfits (but with no decimals; i.e, Rasmussen said 6%) compared to the "actual" spread of 6.7% - not 6.15%. So it could be Fox, at 7%, beat out Rasmussen and Pew. But that is, perhaps, picking nits.
View Profile parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 02:27 pm
Since you are picking nits, the final spread wasn't 6.7 it was 7.2.

I find it interesting that you dropped out CNN and kept Fox since they both had the spread at 7. Are you displaying a bias by not including CNN?

It's interesting how the final numbers compare to the final poll results and then compare to the "preliminary" ranking of the pollsters in the article you posted.
The preliminary ranking in that report shows a bias toward democrats but when the final numbers were totaled about half the polls were weighted too heavily toward Republicans. That shows the polls as a total were fairly accurate.
View Profile parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 02:29 pm
You my dear boy need to read up on the definitions of surplus/deficit and debt.

You shouldn't tell others to read up when you don't know the meanings of some of the most basic terms.
0 Replies
 
View Profile nimh
 
  3  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 02:34 pm
It's always fun to make lists of best-performing pollsters - I've done it a lot in my polls etc thread too (though, I found looking back now, not actually for last year's general election result!).

But there are a few things to keep in mind, and pollster.com's Mark Blumenthal did a good job going through them:

Pollster Accuracy and the National Polls

Somewhat along the same lines:

WSJ's Bialik on Pollster Performance
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 03:09 pm
7.2? Could be. I haven't seen that. Can you source it?
Why Fox but not CNN? I don't recall. I suspect it was because the last CNN poll in the Fordham report card was 10/27, which I wrongly perhaps regarded as "old." The articles Nimh linked to suggest I may have been in error in assuming that.
Am I displaying a bias, parados? My political views are probably well known but I try damn hard to be even-handed on the threads that involve statistics, like talking about polling or economics. I do try hard.
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 03:20 pm
realjohnboy wrote:

7.2? Could be. I haven't seen that. Can you source it?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

52.9-45.75%. Includes absentee and military ballots, etc.

Cycloptichorn
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 03:22 pm
Thank you.
0 Replies
 
View Profile parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 05:35 pm
Quote:
Am I displaying a bias, parados? My political views are probably well known but I try damn hard to be even-handed on the threads that involve statistics, like talking about polling or economics. I do try hard.

I hope we all try hard.

I don't see it as an indictment of you rjb but a warning to all of us that try hard. No matter how hard we try we still might see things through our prism.
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 06:11 pm
I don't see any problem with rjb's posts on any subject; I still get the "liberal" label no matter how many times I disagree with Obama's policies.
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 06:20 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:

I don't see any problem with rjb's posts on any subject; I still get the "liberal" label no matter how many times I disagree with Obama's policies.


Oh yeah! Those who identify themselves as right wing conservatives have moved the line so far to the right that anyone left of the line is, in their view, a left wing liberal numbnut with no ability to engage in critical analysis. They have, by the way, redefined the phrase "critical analysis" to mean their own special brand of rationalizing the irrational. The extent of their Orwellian groupthink is staggering.
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 06:32 pm
Those are the MACs. The Limbaugh group who slaps himself and says "it's not torture."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/17/rush-limbaugh-begins-slap_n_188388.html
View Profile H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 07:23 pm


cice is a MAC.
  2  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 07:25 pm
Hardly; I don't even believe such a thing exists (in the whole world).
View Profile H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 07:50 pm


Yeah, I've noticed that you are quite fond of pontificating
about subjects and individuals that you don't believe exists.

Your mind is a terrible thing and it must be stopped.
View Profile nimh
 
  2  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 08:03 pm
parados wrote:
I don't see it as an indictment of you rjb but a warning to all of us that try hard. No matter how hard we try we still might see things through our prism.

Yeah but RJB is a liberal, so why would he have an anti-CNN, pro-Fox bias? That doesnt make sense.
0 Replies
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 08:03 pm
waterman, Go waterboard yourself.
  1  
Reply Tue 5 May, 2009 01:25 am
cicerone imposter wrote:

Those are the MACs. The Limbaugh group who slaps himself and says "it's not torture."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/17/rush-limbaugh-begins-slap_n_188388.html


Check out Jon Stewart's video: WE DON'T TORTURE

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
I AM PROUD - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. able2know
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1243
Copyright © 2009 Horizontal Verticals :: Page generated in 0.54 seconds on 11/26/2009 at 05:34:11 Top End