Romney will win Ohio
- Thread starter Rationalist
- Start date
Rasmussen most accurate in 2008:
http://electoralmap.net/2012/2008_election.php
http://www.fordham.edu/images/acade...ccuracy in the 2008 presidential election.pdf
And?
The OP isn't looking at the Rasmussen poll numbers but the Rasmussen poll numbers for those "certain to vote." Among Rasmussen's likely voters, Obama leads. The "certain to vote" results are stupid.
Certain to vote numbers are based on those who answer the question affirmatively. "Are you certain to vote in the upcoming Presidential election?"...
I am certain to be one of those...
I know what they are. I'm questioning the value of a poll that includes only those certain to vote. A lot of people who are not certain to vote will end up voting.
Basically, the number tells us which side has more "excitement"...
Say, in the last election Obama's numbers in that area were huge. In this one, not so much.
I know what the numbers tell us. My point, sir, is that a poll of those certain to vote (while maybe a good indicator of "excitement") is not a good measure of who is winning the race or will win the race. In fact, it's a shitty indicator, as lots of people who are not certain to vote will end up voting.
So you are upset that they included those numbers in the poll. We get it. However, it isn't the whole of the poll results and really is a bit pedantic.
I'm not upset about anything. I find it humorous that a thread titled "Romney will win Ohio" is based on a poll showing Obama in the lead but that shows Romney leading "among those certain to vote." Hence my post: ". . . among those certain to vote" Lolers.
Then Grind came along and vomited up some stuff about how awesome Rasmussen is, which was completely beside the point considering Rasmussen shows Obama winning Ohio. And then you came along -- ever the helpful fellow -- attempting to explain to me things that I already understood.