Rasmussen bias

christiefan915

Catalyst
Sheesh, where's TuTu when you need her? She had to be the biggest Rasmussen apologist ever.

November 4, 2010, 10:41 pm
Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly
By NATE SILVER

Every election cycle has its winners and losers: not just the among the candidates, but also the pollsters.

On Tuesday, polls conducted by the firm Rasmussen Reports — which released more than 100 surveys in the final three weeks of the campaign, including some commissioned under a subsidiary on behalf of Fox News — badly missed the margin in many states, and also exhibited a considerable bias toward Republican candidates.

Other polling firms, like SurveyUSA and Quinnipiac University, produced more reliable results in Senate and gubernatorial races. A firm that conducts surveys by Internet, YouGov, also performed relatively well.

What follows is a preliminary analysis of polls released to the public in the final 21 days of the campaign. Our process here is quite simple: we’ve taken all such polls in our database, and assessed how accurate they were, on average, in predicting the margin separating the two leading candidates in each race. For instance, a poll that had the Democrat winning by 2 percentage points in a race where the Republican actually won by 4 would have an error of 6 points.

We’ve also assessed whether a company’s polls consistently missed in either a Democratic or Republican direction — that is, whether they were biased. The hypothetical poll I just described would have had a 6 point Democratic bias, for instance.

The analysis covers all polls issued by firms in the final three weeks of the campaign, even if a company surveyed a particular state multiple times. In our view, this provides for a more comprehensive analysis than focusing solely on a firm’s final poll in each state, since polling Read more…


http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
 
gee imagine that.

have been saying this for years now.

Every time there are multiple polls rass is always leaning right in comparison.
 
Heaven forbid you might think on your own....

I realize you lefties love this kind of shit to no end and believe it without any analysis of your own....

Thats quite as accusation considering the figures in the link following this paragraph.

The table below presents results for the eight companies in FiveThirtyEight’s database that released at least 10 polls of gubernatorial and Senate contests into the public domain in the final three weeks of the campaign, and which were active in at least two states.

Simple Polling Accuracy Analysis....

CNN average error was 4.9 Bias R's by 2.1
Rasmussen.................5.8................3.9

Rasmussin taking 88 more polls than CNN....

Sounds like hes making a mountain out of molehill....

7 out of 8 polls erred in favor of Repubs....and Marist Polls even had a higher "bias" than Rasmussen....

Reading about Mr. Silver, I see Mr. Silver describes his ideological orientation as one of "rational progressivism" and the NY Times? Well, the Times is usually described as having a liberal bias or described as being a liberal newspaper. So consider the source.

I suspect the thrust of this article is biased in itself....but I know pinheads love it
 
gee imagine that.

have been saying this for years now.

Every time there are multiple polls rass is always leaning right in comparison.

You and me both. And get this, from the second page. Just because they made two good calls during the bush years doesn't mean they're the most reliable pollster out there.

"Rasmussen’s polls have come under heavy criticism throughout this election cycle, including from FiveThirtyEight. We have critiqued the firm for its cavalier attitude toward polling convention. Rasmussen, for instance, generally conducts all of its interviews during a single, 4-hour window; speaks with the first person it reaches on the phone rather than using a random selection process; does not call cellphones; does not call back respondents whom it misses initially; and uses a computer script rather than live interviewers to conduct its surveys. These are cost-saving measures which contribute to very low response rates and may lead to biased samples.

Rasmussen also weights their surveys based on preordained assumptions about the party identification of voters in each state, a relatively unusual practice that many polling firms consider dubious since party identification (unlike characteristics like age and gender) is often quite fluid.

Rasmussen’s polls — after a poor debut in 2000 in which they picked the wrong winner in 7 key states in that year’s Presidential race — nevertheless had performed quite strongly in in 2004 and 2006. And they were about average in 2008. But their polls were poor this year.

The discrepancies between Rasmussen Reports polls and those issued by other companies were apparent from virtually the first day that Barack Obama took office. Rasmussen showed Barack Obama’s disapproval rating at 36 percent, for instance, just a week after his inauguration, at a point when no other pollster had that figure higher than 20 percent."
 
Heaven forbid you might think on your own....

I realize you lefties love this kind of shit to no end and believe it without any analysis of your own....

Thats quite as accusation considering the figures in the link following this paragraph.

The table below presents results for the eight companies in FiveThirtyEight’s database that released at least 10 polls of gubernatorial and Senate contests into the public domain in the final three weeks of the campaign, and which were active in at least two states.

Simple Polling Accuracy Analysis....

CNN average error was 4.9 Bias R's by 2.1
Rasmussen.................5.8................3.9

Rasmussin taking 88 more polls than CNN....

Sounds like hes making a mountain out of molehill....

7 out of 8 polls erred in favor of Repubs....and Marist Polls even had a higher "bias" than Rasmussen....

Reading about Mr. Silver, I see Mr. Silver describes his ideological orientation as one of "rational progressivism" and the NY Times? Well, the Times is usually described as having a liberal bias or described as being a liberal newspaper. So consider the source.

I suspect the thrust of this article is biased in itself....but I know pinheads love it

Any pollster that regularly skews to one side is suspect, and it doesn't matter which side is skewed. It's about the numbers.
 
Any pollster that regularly skews to one side is suspect, and it doesn't matter which side is skewed. It's about the numbers.
Thats the reason I pointed out
7 out of 8 polls erred in favor of Repubs....and Marist Polls even had a higher "bias" than Rasmussen....

But then one or even 2 election cycles isn't a trend or proof of bias...
7 out of 8 polls erred in favor of Repubs. Its just a matter of degree....
In this case 7 out of 8 were wrong.

Being wrong is a mistake, not bias....being intentionally wrong is bias...
 
Thats the reason I pointed out
7 out of 8 polls erred in favor of Repubs....and Marist Polls even had a higher "bias" than Rasmussen....

But then one or even 2 election cycles isn't a trend or proof of bias...
7 out of 8 polls erred in favor of Repubs. Its just a matter of degree....
In this case 7 out of 8 were wrong.

Being wrong is a mistake, not bias....being intentionally wrong is bias...

The point of this is that repubs consider Rasmussen to be the gold standard of pollsters when it's clear they're no better and sometimes worse than the others. Did you even read this paragraph?

"Rasmussen’s polls have come under heavy criticism throughout this election cycle, including from FiveThirtyEight. We have critiqued the firm for its cavalier attitude toward polling convention. Rasmussen, for instance, generally conducts all of its interviews during a single, 4-hour window; speaks with the first person it reaches on the phone rather than using a random selection process; does not call cellphones; does not call back respondents whom it misses initially; and uses a computer script rather than live interviewers to conduct its surveys. These are cost-saving measures which contribute to very low response rates and may lead to biased samples."
 
The point of this is that repubs consider Rasmussen to be the gold standard of pollsters when it's clear they're no better and sometimes worse than the others. Did you even read this paragraph?

"Rasmussen’s polls have come under heavy criticism throughout this election cycle, including from FiveThirtyEight. We have critiqued the firm for its cavalier attitude toward polling convention. Rasmussen, for instance, generally conducts all of its interviews during a single, 4-hour window; speaks with the first person it reaches on the phone rather than using a random selection process; does not call cellphones; does not call back respondents whom it misses initially; and uses a computer script rather than live interviewers to conduct its surveys. These are cost-saving measures which contribute to very low response rates and may lead to biased samples."
Its quite irrelevant who the Republicans use
for the their polling...and for that matter its also irrelevant who the Dems use...
You have a hair up your tush because Fox News contracts with Rasmussen to do polling for them
and mentions them regularly on TV.

Some years Rasmussen is right on the mark and some years they're not...so what...7 of 8 were wrong to some degree or another (all in favor of Republicans), thats the fact of the matter....

I find it much more telling that the author of the article describes himself as "rational progressive" and the NY Times is a left leaning rag....
 
Rass always has results that lean right compared to the other pollsters.


That is what makes them suspect in my mind.
 
Its quite irrelevant who the Republicans use
for the their polling...and for that matter its also irrelevant who the Dems use...
You have a hair up your tush because Fox News contracts with Rasmussen to do polling for them
and mentions them regularly on TV.

Some years Rasmussen is right on the mark and some years they're not...so what...7 of 8 were wrong to some degree or another (all in favor of Republicans), thats the fact of the matter....

I find it much more telling that the author of the article describes himself as "rational progressive" and the NY Times is a left leaning rag....

Since I don't watch Faux News, your comment is irrelevant.

If you think RWs on this site don't consider Rasmussen to be the most accurate pollster, you haven't been paying attention.
 
If you are going to err in a honest way the error would show up randomly and shift.

Rass always errs in the republican favor.

Funny that.
 
Yeah, this was a really shitty election for Rasmussen. They seriously over-tightened their polls. Their robocalls already dissuade most who aren't extremely politically involved, and they put a very tight likely voter screen over that. Hopefully they revise their methedology and get back to the good track record they had in 2000-2008.
 
No. I think it is illegal.

It's not illegal, just difficult. Robocalls are completely blocked, so that eliminates rasmussen right off the bat. Also, they're not listed, so to get them you have to call randomized 10 digit numbers until you hit a cell phone, and ask about the persons race and such over the phone.
 
If you are going to err in a honest way the error would show up randomly and shift.

Rass always errs in the republican favor.

Funny that.

If your polls were noisy, which would happen if you had a low sample size or just called random people instead of demographically weighting your poll, the error would be random.

The problem with Rasmussen is that their methodology erroneously overtightened the polls, which will produce a consistent Republican bias. Rasmussen was not just sitting in his room and adding 3% to whatever the Republican score was.

The damage is done though. What had been considered possibly the top polling firm is at the very least on probation until the next election. This is going to be a big hit to their reputation.
 
Back
Top