Obama '08?

@Cycloptichorn,

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

@Cycloptichorn,

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

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.

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

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.

1 Reply

@Woiyo9,

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

@realjohnboy,

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

@parados,

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.

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

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

@Cycloptichorn,

Thank you.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

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.

2 Replies

@parados,

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

@cicerone imposter,

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

@Debra Law,

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

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cice is a MAC.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Hardly; I don't even believe such a thing exists (in the whole world).

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

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.

1 Reply

@parados,

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

@H2O MAN,

waterman, Go waterboard yourself.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know