Trump Jumps Over The Big Fat Pig

[Travel]

Rasmussen today (likely voters):

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DailyNewsletter



FOX News poll- yesterday (registered voters):

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/19/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-fox-news-poll/


Note:
The more predictively accurate "likely voters" poll has Trump up by 2 more points than the "registered voters" poll.

[anon1]

On 5/19/2016 10:22 AM, Travel wrote:>
>
> Rasmussen today (likely voters):
>
>
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=
>email&utm_campaign=DailyNewsletter
>
>
>
> FOX News poll- yesterday (registered voters):
>
>

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/19/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clintonfox-news-poll/

>
>
> Note:
> The more predictively accurate "likely voters" poll has Trump up by
2 more points than the "registered voters" poll.

The 2 polls showing Trump leading mean nothing because Bernie Sanders is
still in the race. Sanders beats Trump (by 11.4 points RCP average & and
a USA Today/Suffolk poll of 1000 LIKELY VOTERS has Sanders up +15) in
EVERY single poll* but he’s not likely getting the nomination. When
Sanders supporters are polled they are saying they will vote Trump over
Hillary but Sanders over Trump in an attempt to boost Sanders in the
remaining states. Once Sanders is out they will grumble and bitch but
end up voting for Hillary anyway. Fox News and Rasmussen understand this
but are happy to go along because they are both Republican biased
pollsters. You shouldn’t get too excited until after Hillary gets the
nomination and a couple of debates are finished.

*http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

[Travel]

Lol, it's you who shouldn't get too excited, seeing how you're losing, and wrong, again (chortle).

Isn't it you who said that Rubio would be the Republican nominee? And now you're behind Trump over Hillary.

FOX and Rasmussen are the two best and unbiased polls. The network/newspaper polls are obviously biased for Democrats.

Rasmussen, today, has Sanders ahead of Trump by 4 points.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/sanders_45_trump_41?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DailyNewsletter

But he's a niche (unelectable Socialist) candidate who falls apart if he were ever nominated and his socialism pounded upon (that isn't being done now by Trump and the Republicans, because he won't be the nominee).

[anon1]

I never said the chump little Marco would be the nominee. I supported
Trump for the nomination from day one. He’ll be easy to beat in the
general.

In the Rasmussen poll released today 5/26/16 Hillary is back with a 1
point lead a 6 point jump from the last poll. Once Bernie gives up
she’ll get about an addistional 7-8 point bump.

Thursday, May 26, 2016

‘The national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds
Clinton with 40% support to Trump’s 39%. Fourteen percent (14%) like
some other candidate, while seven percent (7%) are undecided.

Last week in the debut White House Watch survey, Trump held a 42% to 37%
lead...’
-----
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_
house_watch

[Clave]

"anon1" <an...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:ni7amt$1ld2$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

<...>

> ‘The national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds
> Clinton with 40% support to Trump’s 39%. Fourteen percent (14%) like some
> other candidate, while seven percent (7%) are undecided.

What kind of bonehead is paying attention to general election polls now?

At this point, general election polls are nothing more than cries for
attention from a media industry desperate to make this election look like a
horserace -- until there's a Democratic nominee, Democratic votes are split,
and the polls don't mean dick.

[Travel]

Oh, "we see," this week you like Rasmussen and you're quoting it (chortle).

Rasmussen is the most predictively-accurate poll because of "likely voter" methodology, etc., but they're in no way "for" the conservative. In fact, what they do is: omit polls that are favorable to the conservative; e.g. throughout the primary they didn't publish a poll of Trump and the other candidates They just had polls asking: "who do you thing will win the nomination." They didn't do a hard numbers percentage poll on a regular basis like all the other polling companies, because it overwhelmingly favored Trump.

As I've been saying for some time, the general election polls are only meaningful after the conventions, and then after each debate. The current polls are all within the "margin of error" and pretty much a push at this point. That's actually bad for Hillary because she's almost viewed as an incumbent.

And, why would Hillary get a 7%-8% bump if Bernie gets out? The polls, now, are just two choices: Bernie or Hillary with current Bernie supporters included in the polls. Hillary is expected to win the nomination, anyway, so where's the big surprise?

[Travel]

I'll clarify that: the general election polling is Trump or Hillary. The Bernie supporters are included in the polling. However, they don''t have a choice of
choosing Bernie in that poll, just Trump or Hillary (or undecided/neither).

Presumably, the Bernie supporters will choose Hillary over Trump if Bernie is not a poll-option. It isn't as if, when Bernie gets out, Hillary will get a flood of favorable, extra responses in the polls. So, why would she get a big bounce of 7% to 8% in the poll results, just because Bernie got out? She may get a small, temporary bump-up because of the positive publicity, but any particular impact of being the Democrat nominee is already baked-in.

[BillB]

On 27/05/2016 8:59 AM, Travel wrote:

> Rasmussen is the most predictively-accurate poll

lol...who told you that? That's not even close to being true.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/

[da pickle]

And who rates the rater?

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGNI_enUS573US574&q=rating+pollsters&gs_l=hp..0.41l953.0.0.0.3295...........0.

[anon1]

On 5/27/2016 9:42 AM, Travel wrote:

< As I've been saying for some time, the general election polls are only
meaningful after the conventions, and then after each debate.

Which begs the question, why did you start this thread in the first
place? (I guess you used to think they were meaningful when you posted
about Trump’s bump in the polls a few times lately. LOL.)

Speaking of meaningful polls have you checked Obama`s approval rating
lately? Trump is toast.

< And, why would Hillary get a 7%-8% bump if Bernie gets out?

See my answer below.

< I`ll clarify that: the general election polling is Trump or Hillary.
The Bernie supporters are included in the polling. However, they don`t

have a choice of choosing Bernie in that poll, just Trump or Hillary.

I guess you didn`t read your own link. Here is the pertinent sentence. I
capitalized the important line:

`The national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds
Clinton with 40% support to Trump`s 39%. FOURTEEN PERCENT (14%) LIKE
SOME OTHER CANDIDATE, while seven percent (7%) are undecided.`

(Some other candidate = Bernie. Hillary will get 3% - 4% of the
undecided and about 11% out of the 14% for Sanders. )

[Joe Camel]

I thought we had that nonsense settled after the 2012 election.

FROM BUSINESS INSIDER:

"Rasmussen came under scrutiny in the 2012 election for its polling, which turned out to be the fourth-least accurate of 28 firms measured. The company's polls frequently had results more favorable to Mitt Romney and other Republican candidates . . ."

--source:
http://www.businessinsider.com/scott-rasmussen-leaving-polling-company-2013-8

[Clave]

"da pickle" <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9aKdnY8aP5tnC9XK...@giganews.com...

> On 5/27/2016 1:16 PM, BillB wrote:
>> On 27/05/2016 8:59 AM, Travel wrote:
>>
>>> Rasmussen is the most predictively-accurate poll
>>
>>
>> lol...who told you that? That's not even close to being true.
>>
>> http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/
>
> And who rates the rater?

Anyone with at least half a brain, which I guess is why you need to ask.

[popinjay]

On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 12:42:19 PM UTC-7, Clave wrote:


>
> Anyone with at least half a brain, which I guess is why you need to ask.

Why do you always have to be insulting? Can't you just discuss something like a normal ADULT?

[anon1]

Here’s the list. Rasmussen and Gallup suck and Fox did poorly too.

1. PPP (D)
1. Daily Kos/SEIU/PPP
3. YouGov
4. Ipsos/Reuters
5. Purple Strategies
6. NBC/WSJ
6. CBS/NYT
6. YouGov/Economist
9. UPI/CVOTER
10. IBD/TIPP
11. Angus-Reid
12. ABC/WP
13. Pew Research
13. Hartford Courant/UConn
15. CNN/ORC
15. Monmouth/SurveyUSA
15. Politico/GWU/Battleground
15. FOX News
15. Washington Times/JZ Analytics
15. Newsmax/JZ Analytics
15. American Research Group
15. Gravis Marketing
23. Democracy Corps (D)
24. Rasmussen
24. Gallup
26. NPR
27. National Journal
28. AP/GfK

[Travel]

Exactly. Isn't FiveThirtyEight hi ho silverfraud's joke website?

Rasmussen has proven to be the most accurate and that's why there's so much effort put into trying to criticize it. They try to cherry pick their bogus argument, and only idiots believe it.

[Travel]

Just as we thought, you're reduced to gobblygoop. And it has been well noted that you're now quoting Rasmussen, after they published a poll that you like. Too funny.

[Joe Camel]

Sorry, but it’s hardly just Nate Silver.

The quotes and source links below are just a small percentage of available information on the sad fall of Rasmussen. (It got so bad the company founder Scott Rasmussen quit in disgrace.)

In other bad news it turns out Trump is just as fat as Hillary.


----------------------Rasmussen bias--------------------------
After the 2010 midterm elections Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an AVERAGE ERROR OF 5.8 POINTS AND A PRO-REPUBLICAN BIAS OF 3.9 POINTS.

A New York Times article points out Rasmussen Reports research has a "record of relying on DUBIOUS SAMPLING AND WEIGHTING TECHNIQUES.

The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters.

Rasmussen gets a lot of attention, especially from conservative media outlets and pundits, because its polls consistently produce results more favorable to Republican candidates than the overall averages — RESULTS THAT FREQUENTLY DON’T MATCH THE ACTUAL ELECTION RESULTS very well.

The Center for Public Integrity listed "Scott Rasmussen Inc" as a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign.

The Washington Post reported that the 2004 Bush re-election campaign had used a feature on the Rasmussen Reports website that allowed customers to program their own polls, and that Rasmussen asserted that he had not written any of the questions nor assisted Republicans.

Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls.

Asking a polling question with different wording can affect the results of the poll; the commentators in question allege that the questions Rasmussen ask in polls are skewed in order to favor a specific response.

Talking Points Memo has questioned the methodology of Rasmussens Presidential Approval Index, which takes into account only those who "strongly" approve or disapprove of the President's job performance. TPM noted that this inherently skews negative, and reported that multiple polling experts were critical of the concept.

In news that I’m sure is shocking to absolutely no one, when last night’s election results are compared to the polls conducted by Rasmussen Reports, it turns out that Scott Rasmussen PUT A SWEATY, SLAB-LIKE, THUMB ON THE SCALE IN FAVOR OF REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES AT BOTH THE PRESIDENTIAL AND US SENATE LEVELS.

The Demise of the Rasmussen Report, From Most Accurate to LEAST ACCURATE Poll.

Time magazine has described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group.

The Washington Post called Rasmussen a "polarizing pollster. John Zogby said that Scott Rasmussen has a "conservative constituency.
------------------------------------------------


sources:
-----
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2012/09/17/rasmussen-the-gops-cure-for-the-common-poll/
-----
http://crasstalk.com/2012/11/rasmussen-reports-shows-undeniable-pro-gop-bias/
-----
http://www.businessinsider.com/scott-rasmussen-leaving-polling-company-2013-8
-----
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-abramowitz/the-rasmussen-difference_b_2030330.html
-----
http://www.businessinsider.com/most-accurate-polls-of-2012-election-obama-romney-ppp-daily-kos-gallup-rasmussen-2012-11
-----
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports
-----
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/rating_pollster_accuracy_predi.html
-----
http://aun-tv.com/2014/10/the-demise-of-the-rasmussen-report-from-most-accurate-to-least-accurate-poll/
-----
http://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/polls/2014/02/14/rasmussen-reports-bias-scott-rasmussen/
-----
http://www.wral.com/be-skeptical-of-rasmussen-s-recent-poll-result/13883833/
-----
http://www.wral.com/be-skeptical-of-rasmussen-s-recent-poll-result/13883833/#r7y0YX0aGA7glCOl.99

[Travel]

Lol, Joe Camel {who's risky Biz, and was so sure Rubio would be the Republican nominee but had to do it with a laughable sock puppet (chortle)}, is still pumping up the disgraced hi ho Silverfraud. Rasmussen is the only poll that showed Scott Brown winning "the Kennedy senate seat," for example, while the other polls bagged it for Princess Spreading Bull. No wonder the left- media wants to discredit Rasmussen.

Rasmussen= relatively, the most trustworthy poll.

[Travel]

Make that: Martha Cookley v. Scott Brown.

And, also, when Rasmussen shows the Democrat ahead, all of sudden they like Rasmussen.

[anon1]

President Obama recent approval rating
--------------------------------------
Pollster dates size approve disapprove
------------------------------------------------
Gallup 5/31-6/2 1500 51 45 +6
Rasmussen 5/31-6/2 1500 LV 52 46 +6
Reuters/Ipsos 5/28-6/1 1615 52 44 +8

[Bea Foroni]

Have you seen the Clinton/T rump numbers? Clinton gives one big speech and she jumped ahead by double digits. I bet T rump agrees to one debate and then finds an excuse to avoid them until election. Put them side by side and there will be no comparison.

[anon1]

I saw that today. It was a Reuters/Ipsos survey of 1,421 likely voters
conducted between May 30 and today. Reuters/Ipsos is an `A` rated
pollster based on past results which is much better than `C` rated
Rasmussen.

But I hope she doesn’t get too far ahead too fast, we wouldn’t want the
Republicans trying to take Trump out and put in a real candidate at the
convention. (Low profile until after the convention.)

[Bea Foroni]

That's what I'm worried about. T rump may burn out too quickly, then I'll have wasted my vote.

[Travel]

Reuters has actually been caught doing phony polls in the past.

[Travel]

The Daily Kos tied for first place (lol). Bogus rater, bogus ratings.

Why are you posting under one of your sock puppets and not Risky Biz with "Hillary will win" posts, btw (chortle)?

[risky biz]

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 9:12:13 AM UTC-7, Travel wrote:

~ Lol, Joe Camel {who's risky Biz, and was so sure Rubio would be the Republican nominee but had to do it with a laughable sock puppet (chortle)}, is still pumping up the disgraced hi ho Silverfraud. Rasmussen is the only poll that showed Scott Brown winning "the Kennedy senate seat," for example, while the other polls bagged it for Princess Spreading Bull. No wonder the left- media wants to discredit Rasmussen.

>
> Rasmussen= relatively, the most trustworthy poll.

Sheesh. What a blabbering bonehead.

[Clave]

"risky biz" <swing...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f0c662c5-4b62-464a...@googlegroups.com...

> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 9:12:13 AM UTC-7, Travel wrote:

<...>

>> Rasmussen= relatively, the most trustworthy poll.
>
> Sheesh. What a blabbering bonehead.

Easily the most clueproof poster RGP has ever seen, and that bar is pretty
fucking high.

[Joe Camel]

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 5:18:59 PM UTC-7, Travel LIED:

.< Reuters has actually been caught doing phony polls in the past.

Really? I just spent an hour searching Google, Bing, Yahoo, and a couple of more and found nothing. Would you please provide your source? Because I know you would never just make shit up. Not you!

[Travel]

This, from Clavey of over 100,000 retarded snark-quips on alt.dr.laura (chortle). Yes, Clavey is THAT much of a loser.

[da pickle]

Not "phony" but questionable.

This was the first hit I got.


Before Citing a Poll, Read the Fine Print



By Nate Silver
January 15, 2012 5:35 pm

On Saturday, a survey came out showing Mitt Romney with a large,
21-point lead in South Carolina. The poll is something of an outlier
relative to other recent polls of the state, all of which show Mr.
Romney ahead, but by margins ranging from 2 to 9 points.

The poll, conducted by Ipsos for Reuters, has already attracted more
than 200 citations in the mainstream media. Most of these articles,
however, neglected to mention a key detail: in a break with Ipsos’
typical methodology, the survey was conducted online.

Reuters did disclose this in its write-up of the poll, but it wasn’t
mentioned until the 17th paragraph:


The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted online from January 10-13 with a
sample of 995 South Carolina registered voters. It included 398
Republicans and 380 Democrats.

There are a couple of other important details here as well, none of
which necessarily speak favorably to the poll’s potential accuracy. The
poll was conducted among registered rather than likely voters, something
which is almost certainly a mistake so close to a primary since turnout
in primaries is normally quite low. And it contained a relatively small
sample size: 398 Republicans, about half the average of other recent
surveys of the state.

Now it becomes easier to understand why the poll showed such distinct
results from others conducted at the same time: it used a very
different, and possibly rather dubious, methodology.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/before-citing-a-poll-read-the-fine-print/?_r=0

[Travel]

What did you expect to find? The left wing media reporting on "their own" for bogus polling? The proof is in the actual vote count comparison to the poll numbers. They'll call it an outlier in getting away with. You wouldn't make shit up by trying to say that the left wing media doesn't bag polls for Democrats would you?

Rasmussen has Clinton up by just 1 point on June 1st. Your Reuters poll that you like so much has her up by 11. Big difference, and the RCP average has her up by only 1.5 points.

[da pickle]

ngcfc

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Travel <trave...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...

>Rasmussen has Clinton up by just 1 point on June 1st. Your Reuters poll
>that you like so much has her up by 11. Big difference, and the RCP
>average has her up by only 1.5 points.

> ...

It's going to be schadenfreudilistic to watch Trump crash
and burn when the September polls show him trailing. He's
been the complete front-runner since he inherited his first
$100,000,000.

It's possible he will drop out before the election.

--bks

[da pickle]

This is an interesting proposition. Have you a guess on a possible date?

[Bradley K. Sherman]

da pickle <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 6/5/2016 10:18 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>> Travel <trave...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Rasmussen has Clinton up by just 1 point on June 1st. Your Reuters poll
>>> that you like so much has her up by 11. Big difference, and the RCP
>>> average has her up by only 1.5 points.
>>> ...
>>
>> It's going to be schadenfreudilistic to watch Trump crash
>> and burn when the September polls show him trailing. He's
>> been the complete front-runner since he inherited his first
>> $100,000,000.
>>
>> It's possible he will drop out before the election.
>

>This is an interesting proposition. Have you a guess on a possible date?

Hallowe'en.

--bks

[Travel]

And, you would know this...how?

[Bradley K. Sherman]

>And, you would know this...how?

I am the foremost RGP expert on exploding heads, and the pressure
in Orange Messiah's head is obviously building. That's why he's
so Orange.

--bks

[Joe Camel]

You cite disgraced hi ho Silverfraud (according to travel not me) as your source on one 4 year old state (not national) poll as your evidence? (And it’s admitted they explained how everything was done.) That’s all you could find after 20 hours of searching?

The same person you cite, Nate Silver rates Ipsos with A- rating for track record and Rasmussen with C+ track record. And that’s not 4 years old, that’s . . . . let me see . . . THREE days old.
-----
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

The fact that your search (“first hit I got” LOL – I think you meant “only”) provided such a benign 4 year old criticism just proves my point, travel just makes shit up.

[Joe Camel]

On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 8:13:14 AM UTC-7, Travel wrote:

< What did you expect to find? The left wing media reporting on "their own" for bogus polling?

I would expect to find some mention, some criticism, accusation, something, anything coming from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Fox Fake News, Breitbart, somebody . . . .

< The proof is in the actual vote count comparison to the poll numbers.

You mean like in 2012 when Ipso came in 4th and Rasmussen came in 24th out of 28 pollsters?
----------
<snip<
4. Ipsos/Reuters
<snip<
24. Rasmussen
----------

< You wouldn't make shit up by trying to say that the left wing media doesn't bag polls for Democrats would you?

“Left wing media” is mostly a made up boogeyman – made up by people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity because it’s the only way to explain to their parrots why the things they are saying rarely resemble the actual facts reported by everyone else.

< Rasmussen has Clinton up by just 1 point on June 1st. Your Reuters poll that you like so much has her up by 11. Big difference, and the RCP average has her up by only 1.5 points.

June 1st is ancient in polling. The Reuters/Ipsos poll was 21 hours ago. Maybe it is high. Let’s call it +7 Clinton for now and see what the future brings.

[anon1]

Here is an interesting graphic. Five days before the 2012 vote, this is
based on likely voters polls taken in the 21 days prior (pollsters with
a minimum of 5 polls) and compared to the actual results. Since it’s a
graphic I can’t paste it here but look at the link below. Of the 24
pollsters included only 4 erred Democratic – 20 erred Republican (noted
in red/blue). Rasmussen was off 3.7% to the R side and Ipsos was off
1.4% also to the R side. So much for your left wing media argument.

link:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/11/10/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-1110-accuracy2012-1/fivethirtyeight-1110-accuracy2012-1-blog480.png

[da pickle]

We will be watching. Interesting guess.