Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TomCADem

(17,390 posts)
Tue Nov 6, 2012, 12:24 AM Nov 2012

"Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly" (11/4/2010)

The amazing thing is that mainstream media heavily relies on Rasmussen even though its history has demonstrated that its polls display a significant Republican bias. We should keep in mind who missed and by what amount and in what direction for future elections.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/

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.

* * *
Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.

If one focused solely on the final poll issued by Rasmussen Reports or Pulse Opinion Research in each state — rather than including all polls within the three-week interval — it would not have made much difference. Their average error would be 5.7 points rather than 5.8, and their average bias 3.8 points rather than 3.9
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly" (11/4/2010) (Original Post) TomCADem Nov 2012 OP
Faux News Love Them TexasCPA Nov 2012 #1
Scotty rubs his head and gets his results in an evangelical manner IfPalinisAnswerWatsQ Nov 2012 #2
Interestingly Daily KoS Criticizes Nate Silver's Ratings for Focusing On Last Three Weeks TomCADem Nov 2012 #3
Totally agree IfPalinisAnswerWatsQ Nov 2012 #5
Well, duh--that outfit is owned by a wingnut. nt MADem Nov 2012 #4
 
2. Scotty rubs his head and gets his results in an evangelical manner
Tue Nov 6, 2012, 12:28 AM
Nov 2012

What, you don't think that's scientific? Haha. Guy's a total idiot. He makes fake super pro republican polls every presidential year then brings them somewhat more in line with other polls in
the last few days before the election.

TomCADem

(17,390 posts)
3. Interestingly Daily KoS Criticizes Nate Silver's Ratings for Focusing On Last Three Weeks
Tue Nov 6, 2012, 12:41 AM
Nov 2012

The gist of KoS's critique is that Nate Silver does not take into account potential funny business done at the early part of the election cycle and that Nate's methodology allows pollsters to game the system by tweaking their numbers in the final days to get closer to the "true" election result. Still, how do you prove this?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/11/07/918497/-Should-2010-s-most-accurate-pollsters-pay-for-their-earlier-sins

A couple of other pollsters were rated higher than PPP, but that lofty rating, based on an examination of the whole cycle, might have been overstated.

You see, Silver only grades pollsters on the final three weeks of the campaign. There is an operant logic here, of course: dynamics of a race often change late in the game, and rating a pollster on their early polling might be considered akin to grading a history test based on only the first 20 questions out of the 100 on the test.

Fair enough. And, most of the time, it wouldn't be an issue. Pollsters that are strong at the beginning tend to be solid throughout. Duds tend to stay duds.

But, this cycle, Nate's pollster report card, because of the constraints of counting only the final 21 days, gives credit to a pair of pollsters that deserve enormous asterisks on their plaques.
 
5. Totally agree
Tue Nov 6, 2012, 12:57 AM
Nov 2012

But Rasmussen fucked up in 2010. Worst pollster out there. His results this time,
Even with the late corrections, are still going to be near the bottom in reliability.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»"Rasmussen Polls Wer...