Romney, Obama, Rasmussen

Neally said:
LOL, Now RCP is conspiring to give bad results, except of course when BO is surging ahead.
Click to expand...
I realize that infantile neenering is the norm but nonetheless -- "the notion of them having an agenda isn't far-fetched" is a far cry from this.

And since you mention -- it would require approximately nil "conspiring" for an aggregator to fudge around the margins in the way that has been suggested as possible (not by me).
 
Upchurch said:
That, in no way, contradicts what I said. They did the best last minute prediction, but were terrible the rest of the time.
Click to expand...

I'm a great weather forecaster too, but only for the weather the next 30 minutes or so. ;)
 
SkepticalDrew said:
Ah I see it now!

The change seems to be based on Rasmussen, as that's the only major national poll since the debate.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's your problem, right there. Basing the "shift" in the polls on only one polling outlet is a mistake.

Until there are a number of polls showing the same (or comparable) results, I would take anything from Rasmussen with a grain of salt.
 
RandFan said:
Romney is up at Intrade with a 34.1%
Click to expand...

Latest numbers from IEM

Obama 71.2%
Romney 28.4%

Those numbers are worse for Romney than right before the debate. And all through this election cycle, except for one or two times, Intrade has basically lagged IEM by about 5% or so on Obama's numbers.

So, yeah, it looks as if the "bounce" in the markets for Romney is gone, and we're back to variation based upon other events, like Friday's jobs report.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Source?
Click to expand...
I'd prefer to link directly to article in Human Events but alas:
Site co-founder McIntyre told Human Events magazine in 2003 that, "We have a frustration that all conservatives have, which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives."
Click to expand...

And:
Forbes Media is taking a 51 percent stake in popular politics site RealClearPolitics.com
Click to expand...
 
varwoche said:
I realize that infantile neenering is the norm but nonetheless -- "the notion of them having an agenda isn't far-fetched" is a far cry from this.
Click to expand...
Um no, you are indeed supporting the far fetched idea that there is some sort of intent to skew the results, after all, RCP is part of that vast right wing conspiracy. You guys are just as sad as the the right wingers two weeks before that were crying about how biased and unreliable the polls were when BO's lead kept growing.
 
Neally said:
Um no, you are indeed supporting the far fetched idea that there is some sort of intent to skew the results, after all, RCP is part of that vast right wing conspiracy. You guys are just as sad as the the right wingers two weeks before that were crying about how biased and unreliable the polls were when BO's lead kept growing.
Click to expand...
You guys? How many have advocated this position?
 
Ask the next person you see how long it takes for the earth to go around the sun.
 
Neally said:
The pollsters were graded on both the accuracy of their final poll (popular vote) and the consistency of their polling during the month of October 2008.
Rasmussen was at the top of the list. http://electoralmap.net/2012/2008_election.php
Click to expand...

Your link lied about its data in order to forge Rasmussen to the top, even though it claims its data source was RCP:

FTL said:
Poll Obama McCain Spread (actual=6.5)
Click to expand...

The actual spread was 7.3, according to RCP; see previous link. Your link claims to mirror the RCP data, but its sources link only to a blank textfile with incorrect (likely out-of-date) numbers in it, and to a generic "polls" spread on RCP which does not show the historical data it claims to.

In addition to being just plain wrong, your link does not address the documented methodological flaws in Rasmussen's polling, the fact that Rasmussen's most recent performance (2010) was terrible compared to the field, and that despite these errors, Rasmussen refuses to correct them, preferring to position itself as a far-right outlier to more satisfy its owner's views.

Face it, Rasmussen was nothing more than middle of the pack in '08 and was horrible in '10 -- and they're shaping up to be horrible in '12 as well unless they make a hard left swing around November.

Of course, you could also just go to Intrade (second most accurate state-by-state in '08, missing only two -- from your own source) or FiveThirtyEight (most accurate, missing only one and that in McCain's favor) if you want to see the _real_ picture. But I guess reality doesn't mesh with what you need to believe. Such a shame.
 
remirol said:
Face it, Rasmussen was nothing more than middle of the pack in '08
Click to expand...
Yet your beloved Nate Silver thought it was the best in 08:

In summation, none of these tracking polls are perfect, although Rasmussen -- with its large sample size and high pollster rating -- would probably be the one I'd want with me on a desert island.

and they're shaping up to be horrible in '12 as well unless they make a hard left swing around November.
Click to expand...
Really, how do exactly do determine that they need to "shape up?" In case you don't know, polls don't predict future outcomes, despite what JoeTheJuggler and Upchurch seem to think. When correctly done, the small sample they poll, accurately reflects the total population at that point in time. That's it. It's not a weather forecast for next week, or next month. The only way you determine their accuracy is when the entire population voices their opinion, as on election day. The methodology in adjusting the polling data to reflect who will turn up at the polls is what could make a huge impact on any pollsters final determination of accuracy.

Of course, you could also just go with the RCP averages and accept the data if you want to be consistent. But I guess reality doesn't mesh with what some here need to believe. So the minute it starts to trend in the wrong direction, there's some nefarious reason behind it, like the right-wingers were claiming when BO had a 4 point edge. Hypocrisy much?
 
Looks like Romney has gained, and sustained, a bit of momentum since last week's debate. Nate Silver breaks it down nicely.

Of course, one of the big questions is how long can Romney hold onto this momentum? There are not yet any polls, that I know of, which came out after the Friday jobs report.

The prediction markets still give President Obama a strong edge...

IEM
Obama 70.9%
Romney 29.2%

Intrade
Obama 64.3%
Romney 35.6%

My guess is that those gambling on the markets are betting that Romney doesn't maintain this bump in momentum, at least in part because of the jobs report.
 
Last edited:
Neally said:
So the minute it starts to trend in the wrong direction, there's some nefarious reason behind it, like the right-wingers were claiming when BO had a 4 point edge. Hypocrisy much?
Click to expand...
You view things in such a binary manner that speculation is lost on you. (It's not just you. It's a shame the extent that JAQ has tainted jaq.)

For the record, I do not claim that RCP fudged. My operating assumption is they did not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom