New Poll Out Today- Marco Rubio Leads in Florida
Travel A
da pickle nospam
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/ele...
lol..... Why did I know it was Rasmussen before I even looked.
Dave the Clueless
Because it was accurate? Reliable?
______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
ramashiva
> On Jul 8 2010 8:33 PM, da pickle nospam wrote:
> > On Jul 8, 3:38 pm, nine...@webtv.net (Travel A) wrote:
> > > http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/ele...
> > lol..... Why did I know it was Rasmussen before I even looked.
> Because it was accurate? Reliable?
Uhh, no. Contrary to the claims of the liar Travel, Rasmussen has not
been proven to be the most accurate poll. He has no proof of this,
and he knows it. Yet he continues to spew this lie. There is no
point in arguing with him, because he just ignores definitive proof he
is wrong and continues to spew his lies.
Here is the most sophisticated and comprehensive study of poll
accuracy ever done --
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/pollster-ratings-v40-results.html
As you can see, Rasmussen is well down the list, not even close to
being the most accurate poll.
As far as the Florida Senate race is concerned, all the other polls
have Crist in the lead --
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/2010_florida_senate_race.html
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Dave the Clueless
A Record of Accuracy Rasmussen Reports takes pride in its accuracy. We
were right on the money in both the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections.
But it’s more than getting the final answer right that matters. Our
polling is generally less volatile than other firms. In 2008, for example,
we showed essentially the same result for just about every day over the
final six weeks of the campaign. In 2004, our data showed that hardly
anybody changed their mind from the moment John Kerry won the Democratic
nomination until George W. Bush won the election.Because Rasmussen Reports
polls more frequently than others, we are usually the first to pick up on
major trends.
In 2008, for example, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show Barack Obama
gaining on Hillary Clinton among Democratic primary voters, the first to
show John McCain on top among Republicans and the first to show the
massive unpopularity of the bank and auto company bailouts.
In 2009, while most firms showed New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine with a
modest lead in his reelection bid, Rasmussen Reports consistently showed
challenger Chris Christie ahead and eventually matched his margin of
victory. That New Jersey race, combined with our earlier track record, led
liberal columnist Mickey Kaus to declare, “If you have a choice between
Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious N.Y. Times, go with Rasmussen!”
In 2010, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show Republican Scott Brown
had a chance to defeat Martha Coakley in a Massachusetts Senate race. Just
after Brown's upset win, the influential Washington publication The
Politico wrote, “The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both parties …
was that Martha Coakley was a lock. It's hard to recall a single poll
changing the mood of a race quite that dramatically." A study by Boston
University and the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in
Journalism about how the Massachusetts Senate race was covered in the
media concluded “That (Rasmussen) poll, perhaps more than anything else,
signaled that a possible upset was brewing and galvanized both the media
and political worlds” and “In the two weeks after the Rasmussen poll,
media coverage (of the race)coverage picked up frantically.” The New York
Times Magazine opened a March 14 cover story with a scene highlighting the
impact of that poll in an internal White House meeting involving President
Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.
Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen, pollsters for Presidents Jimmy Carter and
Bill Clinton, say that Rasmussen Reports has “an unchallenged record for
both integrity and accuracy.”See our Senate polling summary for 2004,
2006, and 2008.
Care to refute the factual basis for any of these claims?
--------
ramashiva
> from http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us
Sure. The very first paragraph. Rasmussen was not "right on the
money" in the 2008 Presidential Election. As you can easily see from
this link, there were five polls which were closer to the actual
election result than Rasmussen --
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
If you click on the 2008 link in the original of your link, you get
this Rasmussen bullshit --
"The final Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for
Election 2008 showed Barack Obama leading John McCain 52% to 46%. We
are pleased to report that those figures precisely matched the actual
election returns.
A Fordham University analysis put Rasmussen Reports on top of the list
for accuracy among 23 national pollsters."
If you click on the Fordham University link, you get this --
"For all the derision directed toward pre-election polling, the final
poll estimates were not
far off from the actual nationwide voteshares for the two candidates.
On average, preelection
polls from 23 public polling organizations projected a Democratic
advantage of
7.52 percentage points on Election Day, which is only about 1.37
percentage points away
from the current estimate of a 6.15-point Obama margin in the national
popular vote.
Following the procedures proposed by Martin, Traugott and Kennedy (see
Public Opinion
Quarterly, Fall 2006, pp. 342-369) to assess poll accuracy, I analyze
poll estimates from
these 23 polling organizations. Four of these polls appear to have
overestimated McCain
support (indicated with a * below), while most polls (17)
overestimated Obama strength.
Pre-election projections for two organizations’ final polls—Rasmussen
and Pew—were
perfectly in agreement with the actual election result (**).
The following list ranks the 23 organizations by the accuracy of their
final, national preelection
polls (as reported on pollster.com).
1. Rasmussen"
As you can see, the Fordham University study was based on preliminary
results, showing a 6.15% margin of victory for Obama. As I have shown
you, when you look at the actual final results, a 7.3% margin of
victory for Obama, there were five polls more accurate than Rasmussen.
Yet to this day, Rasmussen continues to tout the Fordham University
study as proof that his poll was the most accurate for the 2008
Presidential election.
When Rasmussen tells a flat out lie which is easily refuted in the
very first paragraph, I see no reason to address his other claims.
The link I gave you is a detailed statistical analysis of ALL polls
conducted by the major polling companies since 1998. Based on that
analysis, Rasmussen is NOT the most accurate poll. Here is the link
again --
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/pollster-ratings-v40-results.html
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Travel A
Your bogus list has mickey mouse ABC polls etc., at the top, lol. Any
stats can be manipulated to a desired conclusion.
Did you read your own linked site and the qualifying criteria for the
list?
Unfortunately for you, Rasmussen has proved their accuracy. It's just a
matter of their polls being compared to the elections results.
Rasmussusen publishes their past accuracy results at the end of many of
the daily, continuous current polls. They have published their accuracy
record on their website. They prove it: showing their published polls
and then the elections results. End of story.
We've been over this before, Coledumb, and you got your ass kicked. Oh,
that must be that must be what's bothering you, now.
As far as the "other polls" on RealClearPolitics.com, they don't use
"likely voter" polls because they're mickey mouse polls. Their inferior
"all adults" polls questioning can be of as much as 8 out of ten replies
from people who aren't even regisetered to vote, or registered and
rarely vote: people who don't even know the issues, never mind vote.
Those polls aren't accurate in reflecting actual elections results.
Travel A
Travel A
Dave The Clueless wrote:
Because it was accurate? Reliable?
_____________________________________
I wrote:
And becuae they don't like the accurate results, as in: the VA and NJ
governors races, and especially the Scott Brown/Ted Kennedy senate seat
race that
ONLY Rasmussen accurately polled.
ramashiva
> Thanks for the joke link, Coledumb.
It's not a joke. It's reality, something with which you do not have
even a passing acquaintance.
> Your bogus list has mickey mouse ABC polls etc., at the top, lol. Any
> stats can be manipulated to a desired conclusion.
No stats were manipulated and there was no desired conclusion.
> Did you read your own linked site and the qualifying criteria for the list?
Yes.
> Unfortunately for you, Rasmussen has proved their accuracy.
No they have not.
> It's just a matter of their polls being compared to the elections results.
Correct. Rasmussen has a terrible record.
> Rasmussusen publishes their past accuracy results at the end of many of
> the daily, continuous current polls. They have published their accuracy
> record on their website. They prove it: showing their published polls
> and then the elections results. End of story.
Please provide links to all this alleged proof. I cannot find
anything remotely like what you describe.
> We've been over this before, Coledumb,
Yes, we have.
> and you got your ass kicked.
Uhh, no. I rammed that Fordham University study so far up you ass
that I am sure your proctologist told you that it could not be
surgically removed. In case you have forgotten how badly I buried
you, here is a link to the thread --
> Oh, that must be that must be what's bothering you, now.
No, what's bothering me is that you continue to repeat the lie that
Rasmussen has been proved to be the most accurate poll. That is a
lie, and you know it. There is no such proof.
Go ahead. Prove me wrong. Show me the proof.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Travel A
Travel A
Here's some more results from Rasmussen. As a professional polling
company, Rasmussen does light years more polls than the mickey mouse
media, news outlet polls; that do a few spot polls close to the election
date and then end up on your bogus "ratings" list. Your giving them
credit for a tiny fraction of the total number polls results for one
thing.
They're not even in the same league as Rasmussen and shouldn't be
anywhere near a list with Rasmussen. Even Gallup doesn't take anywhere
near the number of elections polls as Rasmussem, and Gallup uses the
inferior "all adults" polls.
Travel A
severe ass-kicking that you've obviously been in clinical, delusional
denial ever since.
Travel A
Re: New Poll Out Today- Marco Rubio Leads in Florida
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Fri, Jul 9, 2010, 4:53am
From: Dave the Clueless <frac...@comcast.net>
from http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us
A Record of Accuracy Rasmussen Reports takes pride in its accuracy. We
were right on the money in both the 2004 and 2008 presidential
elections.
But it�s more than getting the final answer right that matters.
Our polling is generally less volatile than other firms. In 2008, for
example, we showed essentially the same result for just about every day
over the final six weeks of the campaign. In 2004, our data showed that
hardly anybody changed their mind from the moment John Kerry won the
Democratic nomination until George W. Bush won the election.Because
Rasmussen Reports polls more frequently than others, we are usually the
first to pick up on major trends.
In 2008, for example, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show Barack
Obama gaining on Hillary Clinton among Democratic primary voters, the
first to show John McCain on top among Republicans and the first to show
the massive unpopularity of the bank and auto company bailouts.
In 2009, while most firms showed New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine with a
modest lead in his reelection bid, Rasmussen Reports consistently showed
challenger Chris Christie ahead and eventually matched his margin of
victory. That New Jersey race, combined with our earlier track record,
led liberal columnist Mickey Kaus to declare, �If you have a
choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious N.Y. Times, go with
Rasmussen!�
In 2010, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show Republican Scott Brown
had a chance to defeat Martha Coakley in a Massachusetts Senate race.
Just after Brown's upset win, the influential Washington publication The
Politico wrote, �The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both
parties � was that Martha Coakley was a lock. It's hard to
recall a single poll changing the mood of a race quite that
dramatically." A study by Boston University and the Pew Research
Center�s Project for Excellence in Journalism about how the
Massachusetts Senate race was covered in the media concluded
�That (Rasmussen) poll, perhaps more than anything else,
signaled that a possible upset was brewing and galvanized both the media
and political worlds� and �In the two weeks after the
Rasmussen poll, media coverage (of the race)coverage picked up
frantically.� The New York Times Magazine opened a March 14
cover story with a scene highlighting the impact of that poll in an
internal White House meeting involving President Obama's chief of staff
Rahm Emanuel.
Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen, pollsters for Presidents Jimmy Carter and
Bill Clinton, say that Rasmussen Reports has �an unchallenged
record for both integrity and accuracy.�See our Senate polling
summary for 2004, 2006, and 2008.
Care to refute the factual basis for any of these claims?
--------�
ramashiva
> And becuae they don't like the accurate results, as in: the VA and NJ governors races,
Virginia governor, huh? These final polls were all more accurate than
Rasmussen's final poll --
SurveyUSA
PPP
Suffolk University
Roanoke College
VCU
> and especially the Scott Brown/Ted Kennedy senate seat
> race that ONLY Rasmussen accurately polled.
How big of a moron are you???
Rasmussen's final poll in Massachusetts, conducted on 1/11, had
Coakley winning by 2% --
Just about all the other polls had Brown winning big --
William Coleman (ramashiva)
ramashiva
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/ele...
> Here's some more results from Rasmussen.
OK. Fine. Now where is the comparison to the results of other
polling organizations?
If you are going to prove that Rasmussen is the most accurate poll,
you are going to have to compare their results to the results of other
polling organizations for the same elections.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
ramashiva
Thanks for confirming that you are a pathological liar. The thread
speaks for itself. You were totally destroyed, and you know it.
Anyone can read the thread for themselves and see who kicked whose
ass.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Travel A
comparisons" on the senate, governors and presidential races, state by
state.
Now, YOU can post the similar results from your "ABC News" etc., mickey
mouse polls for comparison with Rasmussen.
Let's see you do that.
ramashiva
Why should I do that??? You are the one claiming that Rasmussen has
been proved to be the most accurate poll. You are making the claim.
It is up to you to provide the proof.
You have stated many times that Rasmussen has been proved to be the
most accurate poll. Since you use the past tense, this proof must
already exist. All you have to do is provide a link.
Of course, there is no link. When you say that Rasmussen has been
proved to be the most accurate poll, you are simply lying, and you
know it.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Travel A
only poll that showed it tightening up. By ekection day on th 19th,
Brown won and rasmussen had the poll where Brown went ahead, later.
The poll you that you linked is the proof that Rasmusssen was accurately
on top of the Brown surge in the final two weeks before the election,
you idiot, lol.
Here's a link with an article by the Washington Post declaring Rasmussen
was ahead of the
cuve.http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/massachusetts/rasmussen_reports_ahead_of_the_curve_on_massachusetts_race
When you're proven to be lying on top of being a dumb fuck, why continue
to make a fool of yourself?
Travel A
Re: New Poll Out Today- Marco Rubio Leads in Florida
Group: rec.gambling.poker
From: Travel A <nin...@webtv.net>
Travel A
Travel A
ramashiva
> You dumb fuck, you linked the poll of the 11th when Rasmussen was the
> only poll that showed it tightening up. By ekection day on th 19th,
> Brown won and rasmussen had the poll where Brown went ahead, later.
Are you suggesting that Rasmussen conducted a later poll showing Brown
leading? As you can see in the RCP link I provided, the last
Rasmussen poll is listed as 1/11, the poll I linked. Here is a link
from pollster.com showing the same thing --
http://www.pollster.com/polls/ma/10-ma-gov-ge-bvco.php
> When you're proven to be lying on top of being a dumb fuck, why continue
> to make a fool of yourself?
I suggest you look in the mirror and ask yourself that question.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Travel A
there somewhere that went about the business of proving which was the
most accurate poll. That's the bogus standard you fabricated and
desperately clinging to.
I say that Rasmussen has been proven to be the most accurate in response
to idiot posts trying to degrade Rasmussen, because they don't like the
results: by point out that one only needs to compare Rasmussen polls to
the election results to prove that the "all adults" polls from the
mickey mouse media polls aren't accurate and Rasumssen is the most
accurate.
So, YOU prove that that's not the case by producing similar polls of the
ABC, CNN, etc., polls to my, already provided, detailed poll results of
Rasmussen.
Travel A
Rasmussen's last poll was far and way the most accurate. The Boston
Globe poll had Coakley ahead by about 17 points, you idiot. All other
polls, and there weren't many who even attempted, were equally
inaccurate and waaay off.
You dumb fuck, you linked the poll of the 11th when Rasmussen was the
only poll that showed it tightening up. By election day on the 19th,
Travel A
It's right here shitful brains. Look through the Rasmussen final poll
(linked below) and you'll see the phrase: "For those who were certain
that they would vote, Brown was ahead by two points."
Rasmussen in January 11th poll (election day the 19th) had Brown only
back by two for "likely voters" and a further internal that showed that
those who were CERTAIN to vote, Brown was ahead by two points.
It doesn't get any more detailed and accurate than that.
Eight days later Brown won by five points. Rasmussen was the only one
who revealed the Brown monentum.
Any other mickey mouse poll was came in later, "went to school" on the
Rasmusssen poll, and surley just copied Rasmussen.
You lose.
ramashiva
> It's right here shitful brains. Look through the Rasmussen final poll
> (linked below) and you'll see the phrase: "For those who were certain
> that they would vote, Brown was ahead by two points."
> Rasmussen in January 11th poll (election day the 19th) had Brown only
> back by two for "likely voters" and a further internal that showed that
> those who were CERTAIN to vote, Brown was ahead by two points.
> It doesn't get any more detailed and accurate than that.
> Eight days later Brown won by five points. Rasmussen was the only one
> who revealed the Brown monentum.
> Any other mickey mouse poll was came in later, "went to school" on the
> Rasmusssen poll, and surley just copied Rasmussen.
> You lose.
Not hardly. The link you provided is a post mortem analysis of the
election results, you fucking idiot.
Please notice, from your own link --
"A week later, the shock continued as our final poll in the race
showed that Brown had pulled to within two points of Coakley. At that
time, among those who were certain they would vote, Brown was up by
two."
Got that, numbnuts??? OUR FINAL POLL IN THE RACE.
The last Rasmussen poll was on 1/11, just as I said. That poll had
Coakley winning by 2%.
Either provide a link to a Rasmussen poll AFTER 1/11, or STFD and
STFU.
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/ele...
William Coleman (ramashiva)
ramashiva
> I never said there was some intense, objectively performed study out
> there somewhere that went about the business of proving which was the
> most accurate poll. That's the bogus standard you fabricated and
> desperately clinging to.
I didn't fabricate any standard. When you claim something has been
proven, that means, well, that it has been proven.
You can't produce any proof that Rasmussen has been proven to be the
most accurate poll. Therefore, everytime you claim it has been so
proven, you are simply lying.
> I say that Rasmussen has been proven to be the most accurate in response
> to idiot posts trying to degrade Rasmussen, because they don't like the
> results: by point out that one only needs to compare Rasmussen polls to
> the election results to prove that the "all adults" polls from the
> mickey mouse media polls aren't accurate and Rasumssen is the most
> accurate.
But it doesn't prove that Rasmussen is the most accurate. That's the
whole point. Simply comparing Rasmussen's final polls to the final
election results does not in any way prove that Rasmussen is the most
accurate poll.
> So, YOU prove that that's not the case
I don't have to prove that it's not the case, moron. You made the
claim. The burden of proof is on you.
Plus, I have given you a link to a comprehensive comparison of polling
results of many different polling firms. The conclusion of that
comparison is that Rasmussen is not the most accurate poll. You can
babble all you want about this comparison being bogus and a joke.
Nate Silver has refined and developed his methodology over several
years. He explains in detail his methodology and his criteria for
which polls he includes.
You have absolutely nothing comparable to the work of Nate Silver to
support your bullshit claim that Rasmussen has been proved to be the
most accurate poll.
Here is the link again. Read and learn --
Travel A
Translation: your caught and now weaseling.
The link I posted was discussing their last poll, idiot. It's in plain
English. They polled "certain to vote" in their pre-election poll.
I'll now go even one better in proving you're a lying/dumbfuck.
I'm now going to use the very same link that you used for Rasmussen's
last poll before the election.
Here's it is dumbfuck:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/massachusetts/election_2010_massachusetts_special_senate_election
Scroll down and you'll see that on YOUR link that it also states that
among voters who were CERTAIN that they would be voting on election day,
Rasmussen had Brown in the lead by two points.
You're nailed, you cocksucka.
Travel A
Travel A
I wrote previously wih regardto Rasmussens accuracy in general:
I never said there was some intense, objectively performed study out
there somewhere that went about the business of proving which was the
most accurate poll. That's the bogus standard you fabricated and
desperately clinging to.
I say that Rasmussen has been proven to be the most accurate in response
to idiot posts trying to degrade Rasmussen, because they don't like the
results: by pointing out that one only needs to compare Rasmussen polls
Travel A
I wrote previously:
Travel A
Pepe Papon
Trying to argue with Travel is the same as trying to argue with
Beldim. That's why those two are the only RGPers ever to hit my
killfile.
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
Clave
news:336g36dmd2k2t84if...@4ax.com...
<...>
> Trying to argue with Travel is the same as trying to argue with
> Beldim. That's why those two are the only RGPers ever to hit my
> killfile.
Just curious -- what's kept Irish Mike out?
Jim
Pepe Papon
He doesn't pile on the abuse the way the other two idiots do.
Travel A
Peepee Poupon whined:
Trying to argue with Travel is the same as trying to argue with Beldim.
That's why those two are the only RGPers ever to hit my killfile.
--
I wrote:
In my case, yes, it must be frustrating for you to be so easily proved
wrong on a consistent basis. Funny, your promised killfilling doesn't
apply to your retaded, passive-aggressive quips. At least you're not
alone, you're in the retard club with Jimsie.
Travel A
He doesn't pile on the abuse the way the other two idiots do.
--
Translation: Peepee Poupon knows that he can get the "last word in" on
Irish Mike.
For example, everyone has seen Peepee Poupon go on for days with Beldin,
and Peepee Poupon is equally abusive (in fact, Poupon used the word
"idiots" above). Beldin is always right it seems, when it comes to an
argument with Poupon. Maybe if you stopped lying so much, you'd get
along better with others.