Noonan Hits One Out Of The Park...

Bryce · **Joined:** Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:04 pm **Posts:** 1475

Sparky wrote:

And despite the attempt at spin by posters here, Obama is CLEARLY ahead in Wisconsin.

Is has become WAS.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... _president

Sparky · **Joined:** Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:35 am **Posts:** 1100

Rasmussen is horseshit.
And you know it.

Matt · **Posted:** Thu Jun 14, 2012 7:52 pm

Rasmussen is not horse shit. You are thinking of Public Policy Polling.

Neckbeard · **Posted:** Thu Jun 14, 2012 8:20 pm

Matt wrote:

Rasmussen is not horse shit. You are thinking of Public Policy Polling.

I hesitate to waste my time responding as you have admitted yourself that you only seek to "get an over the top reaction" and not engage in real conversation, but Rasmussen has been found to be highly inaccurate. That doesn't mean that Obama will win or lose Wisconsin, just that their data collection is suspect and models have found it to be inaccurate. I'd find sources but frankly you've proven yourself to be too damn dumb to engage in discussion.

Sparky · **Joined:** Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:35 am **Posts:** 1100

I know NB. Its the internet equivalent of writing in crayon.
:rolleyes

Matt · **Posted:** Fri Jun 15, 2012 5:29 am

You Dmeocrats are hysterical. You trash a polling company because you don't like their results evevpn though time and time again they are rated as one of the top three most accurate pollsters: http://www.depauw.edu/news-media/latest ... ails/24644

Fire Chief · **Posted:** Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:45 am

Matt wrote:

You Dmeocrats are hysterical. You trash a polling company because you don't like their results evevpn though time and time again they are rated as one of the top three most accurate pollsters: http://www.depauw.edu/news-media/latest ... ails/24644

Not being a Democrat I find conservative Republicans as hysterical. Don't like the source? Not Fox News? Polls not in their favor?

Liberals, damn Liberals. Trash the messenger.

Any questions? Listen to your pundits on the radio and cable news.

Neckbeard · **Posted:** Fri Jun 15, 2012 3:22 pm

Matt wrote:

You Dmeocrats are hysterical. You trash a polling company because you don't like their results evevpn though time and time again they are rated as one of the top three most accurate pollsters: http://www.depauw.edu/news-media/latest ... ails/24644

What is this "time and time again" you speak of? You know, I saw that you posted a link from a fine university like DePauw and thought "wow, he went to an academic study! I misjudged this guy". I click the link, and what is it? A press release for Scott Rasmussen, a former student. I now know I am correct to trust my senses.

Now, in this press release they tout that Nate Silver found Rasmussen to be in the top three concerning accuracy for the 2008 elections. This is correct, very, very correct. So now that we can agree that Nate Silver is a reliable source, as you yourself presented a press release which uses him as the foundation for the guy they wish to push for, let's look further at Nate Silver's studies of Rasmussen, shall we? Here is a quote from a 2010 article by Silver, found here http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... -strongly/

Quote:

Rasmussen Reports has rarely provided substantive responses to criticisms about its methodology. At one point, Scott Rasmussen, president of the company, suggested that the differences it showed were due to its use of a likely voter model. A FiveThirtyEight analysis, however, revealed that its bias was at least as strong in polls conducted among all adults, before any model of voting likelihood had been applied.

Some of the criticisms have focused on the fact that Mr. Rasmussen is himself a conservative — the same direction in which his polls have generally leaned — although he identifies as an independent rather than Republican. In our view, that is somewhat beside the point. What matters, rather, is that the methodological shortcuts that the firm takes may now be causing it to pay a price in terms of the reliability of its polling.

In 2010 Silver found Rasmussen to have a 5.8% pro-republican error rating... Least accurate of all polling organizations. It is always nice to discuss these things when you can agree that a source is reliable! :blink

Now, if you are trying to measure something, you need to develop a reliable instrument which accurately measures what you are trying to understand. Rasmussen on the other hand allows his customers to structure their own questions http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 090_2.html

Quote:

His company kept growing, and in 2004 the Bush reelection campaign used a feature on his site that allowed customers to program their own polls. Rasmussen asserted that he never wrote any of the questions or assisted Republicans in any way

The structure of a survey can fundamentally change it's results. Who is that chunky looking freak FOX likes to push out there who wordsmiths you conservatives into thinking it's a good idea to attack countries for no good reason? I forget his name, but that jackass could tell you that, too.

Matt · **Posted:** Sun Jun 17, 2012 7:48 am

Nate Silver has an admitted Democrat bias. That being said, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that 2010 was not a great cycle for Rasmussen. It does not invalidate his work in the prior three cycles, and it certainly does not validate Ohio Sparky's assertion that his polls are not worth the crayon they are written with. Unless of course you are saying that his recent poll showing Obama leading by 8 is bullshit. It does seem to be an outlier as EPIC-MRA shows Romney up by 2 and another pollster had Obama up by 2. The crazy thing is that Mitt does not need to win this state. If he does, it means he's won the election with room to breathe.

Neckbeard · **Posted:** Sun Jun 17, 2012 9:19 am

Matt wrote:

Nate Silver has an admitted Democrat bias.

...Yet his work was the basis for your source where he was "consistently in the top 3". WTF dude... One second he's a king maker the next he's biased. Make up your mind.

Matt wrote:

That being said, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that 2010 was not a great cycle for Rasmussen.

What benefit of the doubt are you giving me? We apparently agree in the validity of a source. You should be standing up and saying, "Wow, Rasmussen is shit. Can't create reliable instruments of measurement, uses statistical models which he doesn't allow the public to see and which he admits do not represent the entire block of voters, has results which are completely haywire, bouncing all over the place." Give me the benefit of the doubt? What? Idgaf if he's liberal or conservative, anyone with respect for numbers should be disgusted that anyone takes him seriously.

Matt wrote:

It does not invalidate his work in the prior three cycles, and it certainly does not validate Ohio Sparky's assertion that his polls are not worth the crayon they are written with.

If you have absolutely bi-polar results, explain to me how your methods can be considerd in any way reliable.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/05/ ... -past.html

In 2000 they were at the bottom of the barrel, can't find anything on 2002, in 2004 and 2006 they did well, 2008 average, 2010 bottom of the barrel. WTF is that?

Matt wrote:

Unless of course you are saying that his recent poll showing Obama leading by 8 is bullshit. It does seem to be an outlier as EPIC-MRA shows Romney up by 2 and another pollster had Obama up by 2. The crazy thing is that Mitt does not need to win this state. If he does, it means he's won the election with room to breathe.

I don't care if he shows Obama up by 50, the guy isn't reliable. Left, right, center, wherever, everything we see of his methodology is a grand mix of laziness, cheapness and inherent bias. But then again, your aim is to get a rise out of a guy, not have legitimate discussion, so why waste my time?

Sparky · **Joined:** Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:35 am **Posts:** 1100

Neckbeard, you have to take whatever he posts with a grain of salt. I saw in another thread he wants to waive Justin Verlander. :lol

In any event, you are correct about Rasmussen. He is never to be taken seriously, and frankly, he isn't. Nate Silver is accurate. He is committed to that, regardless of his own political beliefs. Rasmussen can't get over the hump.

Noonan Hits One Out Of The Park...

Who is online