US payoff to the dutch ???????
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
evince
Truthmatters
riticism[edit]
FiveThirtyEight blog[edit]
In 2010, Nate Silver of The New York Times’ blog FiveThirtyEight wrote the article "Is Rasmussen Reports biased?", in which he mostly defended Rasmussen from allegations of bias.[79] However, later in the year, Rasmussen's polling results diverged notably from other mainstream pollsters, which Silver labeled a "house effect."[80] He went on to explore other factors which may have explained the effect such as the use of a likely voter model,[81] and claimed that Rasmussen conducted its polls in a way that excluded the majority of the population from answering.[82]
After the 2010 midterm elections, Silver concluded that 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 according to Silver's model.[71] Conservative polling analyst Neil Stevens wrote, "after the primaries [Silver] said Rasmussen was in his crosshairs for ducking out on a number of races by not polling primaries."[83] FiveThirtyEight currently rates Rasmussen Reports with a C+ grade and notes a simple average error of 5.3 percent across 657 polls analyzed.[84]
New Republic[edit]
New Republic called Rasmussen "the gold standard in the conservative world"[85] and suggested the polling company asks the questions specifically to show public support for the conservative position. They cited an example when Rasmussen asked "Should the government set limits on how much salt Americans can eat?" when the issue was whether to limit the amount of salt in pre-processed food. No one suggested the government should set limits on an individual's salt intake.[86]
Other[edit]
Time magazine has described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group."[87] The Washington Post called Rasmussen a "polarizing pollster."[88] John Zogby said that Scott Rasmussen has a "conservative constituency."[89] The Center for Public Integrity listed "Scott Rasmussen Inc" as a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign.[90] 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.[72]
Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls.[91][92] Asking a polling question with different wording can affect the results of the poll;[93] the commentators in question allege that the questions Rasmussen ask in polls are skewed in order to favor a specific response. For instance, when Rasmussen polled whether Republican voters thought Rush Limbaugh was the leader of their party, the specific question they asked was: "Agree or Disagree: 'Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party—he says jump and they say how high.'"[92]
Talking Points Memo has questioned the methodology of Rasmussen's 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.[43] A New York Times article claims Ramussen Reports research has a "record of relying on dubious sampling and weighting techniques."[94]
A 2017 article by Chris Cillizza for CNN raised doubts about Rasmussen's accuracy, drawing attention specifically to potential sampling biases such as the exclusion of calls to cell-phones (which, Cillizza argued, tended to exclude younger voters), and also more generally to a lack of methodological disclosure. Cillizza did, however, note in the same piece that Rasmussen was one of the more accurate polling organizations during the 2016 United States presidential election.[95]
Founder Scott Rasmussen is the author of a conservative book[96], and was a featured guest on a cruise by the conservative media outlet The National Review, along with other conservative luminaries.[97
FiveThirtyEight blog[edit]
In 2010, Nate Silver of The New York Times’ blog FiveThirtyEight wrote the article "Is Rasmussen Reports biased?", in which he mostly defended Rasmussen from allegations of bias.[79] However, later in the year, Rasmussen's polling results diverged notably from other mainstream pollsters, which Silver labeled a "house effect."[80] He went on to explore other factors which may have explained the effect such as the use of a likely voter model,[81] and claimed that Rasmussen conducted its polls in a way that excluded the majority of the population from answering.[82]
After the 2010 midterm elections, Silver concluded that 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 according to Silver's model.[71] Conservative polling analyst Neil Stevens wrote, "after the primaries [Silver] said Rasmussen was in his crosshairs for ducking out on a number of races by not polling primaries."[83] FiveThirtyEight currently rates Rasmussen Reports with a C+ grade and notes a simple average error of 5.3 percent across 657 polls analyzed.[84]
New Republic[edit]
New Republic called Rasmussen "the gold standard in the conservative world"[85] and suggested the polling company asks the questions specifically to show public support for the conservative position. They cited an example when Rasmussen asked "Should the government set limits on how much salt Americans can eat?" when the issue was whether to limit the amount of salt in pre-processed food. No one suggested the government should set limits on an individual's salt intake.[86]
Other[edit]
Time magazine has described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group."[87] The Washington Post called Rasmussen a "polarizing pollster."[88] John Zogby said that Scott Rasmussen has a "conservative constituency."[89] The Center for Public Integrity listed "Scott Rasmussen Inc" as a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign.[90] 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.[72]
Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls.[91][92] Asking a polling question with different wording can affect the results of the poll;[93] the commentators in question allege that the questions Rasmussen ask in polls are skewed in order to favor a specific response. For instance, when Rasmussen polled whether Republican voters thought Rush Limbaugh was the leader of their party, the specific question they asked was: "Agree or Disagree: 'Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party—he says jump and they say how high.'"[92]
Talking Points Memo has questioned the methodology of Rasmussen's 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.[43] A New York Times article claims Ramussen Reports research has a "record of relying on dubious sampling and weighting techniques."[94]
A 2017 article by Chris Cillizza for CNN raised doubts about Rasmussen's accuracy, drawing attention specifically to potential sampling biases such as the exclusion of calls to cell-phones (which, Cillizza argued, tended to exclude younger voters), and also more generally to a lack of methodological disclosure. Cillizza did, however, note in the same piece that Rasmussen was one of the more accurate polling organizations during the 2016 United States presidential election.[95]
Founder Scott Rasmussen is the author of a conservative book[96], and was a featured guest on a cruise by the conservative media outlet The National Review, along with other conservative luminaries.[97
evince
Truthmatters
Dutch operatives informed the CIA and helped remove Cozy Bear from US State Department computers they had hacked into in late 2014.
American spies were reportedly so grateful they sent cake and flowers to their counterparts in the Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service, known as AIVD.
Pruitt is using 3 unsecured email accounts. None of these old coots are very computer savvy.
evince
Truthmatters
evince
Truthmatters
If they aren't being used to send classified material...what difference does it make?......NONE
I doubt the EPA deals with any secret material anyway.....
Superfreak
Verified User
Now that you bumped this like an idiot. Answer the questions.
evince
Truthmatters
here
Superfreak
Verified User
You didn't answer the question moron. Are you afraid to use your own words? Every time someone asks you a question, you respond with some link that doesn't answer the question. That is why you are the boards biggest retard... though Thing is trying hard to take that title from you.
Superfreak
Verified User
Two things:
1) According to your article, they hacked into some Russian hackers back in 2014. Why is it that they didn't help the FBI stop the Russian hackers back then? Why did the Obama admin fail to protect us. they knew about the hackers... the dutch had access... did the Dutch hate the Obama admin that much? Or did the Obama admin fail us?
2) The article states that the Dutch have evidence the Russians tried (and succeeded) in hacking us. It does not say anything about collusion.
1) According to your article, they hacked into some Russian hackers back in 2014. Why is it that they didn't help the FBI stop the Russian hackers back then? Why did the Obama admin fail to protect us. they knew about the hackers... the dutch had access... did the Dutch hate the Obama admin that much? Or did the Obama admin fail us?
2) The article states that the Dutch have evidence the Russians tried (and succeeded) in hacking us. It does not say anything about collusion.
Superfreak
Verified User
Shocking... Desh ran away
Superfreak
Verified User
You didn't answer the questions moron. Why did the Obama admin fail to protect us?