Rassmussen vs Nate Silver

[buckshot24]

Yes, you did. You constantly defended Rasmussen's track record and his credibility, even though he was way, way outside the numbers of all of the other pollsters.

But that isn't arguing that anything that conflicted with it was wrong. Up until last night his Party affiliation poll tracked the electorate fairly accurately. There was a conflict between Rasmussen's and Gallup's idea of what the electorate was going to be with the rest of the polling outfits, this has since been resolved.

Making a case for something isn't actually accepting it as true and therefore any opposite position must be false. Do you think Johnny Cochrane thought that OJ was innocent? I hoped the electorate resembled the two party ID polls but thats about it. I never "knew" it was right.

 

[randomrogue]

Buckshot is so stupid that he doesn't know when to quit. Give it up already. You already look like a half witted partisan hack. Suck it up and move on.

 

[Todd33]

Up until last night? What world do you live on? The polls and predictions matched reality spot on, except for all the polls who had credibility problems like Rasmussen.

 

[buckshot24]

Up until last night? What world do you live on? The polls and predictions matched reality spot on, except for all the polls who had credibility problems like Rasmussen.

The party affiliation polls specifically is what I'm talking about. They had never been so far off. Rassy could have been off by 10 points and Obama would have most likely lost. It was off by an unprecedented margin, by around 12 points.

 

[buckshot24]

Buckshot is so stupid that he doesn't know when to quit. Give it up already. You already look like a half witted partisan hack. Suck it up and move on.

I'll take the shots for what I said and argued but I won't for those things that I didn't.

 

[Phokus]

I like to think the woman in his avatar with the smug smirk is smirking at buckshot's terrible analysis and pathetic attempt at backtracking.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Making a case for something isn't actually accepting it as true and therefore any opposite position must be false.

Technically true, but you're trying to claim here that you were only neutrally looking at both sides of the argument. You weren't. You were very firmly in one camp.

I'd rather not dig up quotes but I will if you persist with the revisionism.

 

[Todd33]

The party affiliation polls specifically is what I'm talking about. They had never been so far off. Rassy could have been off by 10 points and Obama would have most likely lost. It was off by an unprecedented margin, by around 12 points.

Links or you are just making shit up.. again.

As far as I read turnout and demographics were close to 2008, just a bit down just like expected. Nothing last night was out of the norm or unpredicted by hundreds of polls.

 

[buckshot24]

Technically true, but you're trying to claim here that you were only neutrally looking at both sides of the argument. You weren't. You were very firmly in one camp.

I'd rather not dig up quotes but I will if you persist with the revisionism.

Hell yes I was! I wanted what I was saying to be true. I was clearly advocating for the side I wanted to be true. I was making a case, yes.

But never did I accept one set of data whole heartedly and reject conflicting data out of hand.

My ass was definitely convinced but my head wasn't.

 

[buckshot24]

Links or you are just making shit up.. again.

As far as I read turnout and demographics were close to 2008, just a bit down just like expected. Nothing last night was out of the norm or unpredicted by hundreds of polls.

I don't think I need to produce any evidence at this point. If you're interested you can search on google rasmussen party affiliation poll and it should be the first result. Rasmussen had it +5.8 Republican which couldn't have been more wrong.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I had no projections. Turns out I was wrong about the electorate and I never said that Silver's methodology was wrong. The data he was using turned out to be right. What is wrong about this "reality"?

Wake up Karl...the election is over and Romney lost.

LOL at buckshot and the historical revisionism he is trying to do now.

 

[buckshot24]

Wake up Karl...the election is over and Romney lost.

No shit.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Hell yes I was! I wanted what I was saying to be true. I was clearly advocating for the side I wanted to be true. I was making a case, yes.

But never did I accept one set of data whole heartedly and reject conflicting data out of hand.

If that hair-splitting makes you feel better, fine.

I do give you credit for at least being here to take your lumps.

 

[Blackjack200]

I don't think I need to produce any evidence at this point. If you're interested you can search on google rasmussen party affiliation poll and it should be the first result. Rasmussen had it +5.8 Republican which couldn't have been more wrong.

Who the fuck cares about party affiliation? All anyone really cares about in a presidential poll is 'will this person vote?' and 'who will they vote for?'

What did Romney's vaunted lead among "Independents" mean? Not a goddamn thing, that's what.

If the Republican's want to focus on a sub-stat, they should probably take a hard look at the minority voting stats. Because no one except old white men seemed to vote for them. They better turn that around and fast.

And I'm not talking just about the candidates, I'm talking about their masses. You know, the race baiting, the mocking, the arrogance. Because guess what, the electorate is not getting any whiter. So keep denying that your avatar is a racist and provacative, keep thinking you're clever. Until you make a sincere effort to embrace the new face of this nation, your party will continue to lose elections.

 

[buckshot24]

Who the fuck cares about party affiliation? All anyone really cares about in a presidential poll is 'will this person vote?' and 'who will they vote for?'

What did Romney's vaunted lead among "Independents" mean? Not a goddamn thing, that's what.

Thanks for that irrelevant rant.

 

[Blackjack200]

Thanks for that irrelevant rant.

Irrelevant... isn't that Mitt Romney's new nickname?

 

[AstroManLuca]

I'm normally not a big fan of Daily Kos but this particular one deals in numbers, not rhetoric.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/07/1157804/-Rasmussen-exposed-as-Republican-shill

Nationally, Rasmussen polled at 49%-48%. The actual result was (so far) 50%-49% Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll.

In Colorado, Rasmussen polled at 50%-47% for Romney. The actual result was 51%-47% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll.

In Florida, Rasmussen polled at 50%-48% for Romney. The actual result was 50%-49% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll.

In Iowa, Rasmussen polled at 49%-48% for Romney. The actual result was 52%-47% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll, doubled.

In New Hampshire, Rasmussen polled at 50%-48% for Romney. The actual result was 52%-47% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll.

In Ohio, Rasmussen polled at a 49%-49% tie. The actual result was 50%-48% for Obama, a two-point swing.

In Virginia, Rasmussen polled at 50%-48% for Romney. The actual result was 50%-48% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll.

In Wisconsin, Rasmussen polled at a 49%-49% tie. The actual result was 52-47% for Obama, a six-point swing.

In other words, in all the races that mattered, Rasmussen got it egregiously wrong. They didn't call a single battleground state right except for North Carolina, and even there it appears that they overestimated the margin of Romney's win.

So if you look at the degree to which Rasmussen favored Romney in polls vs. the actual result, here are the numbers we see:

National +2
Colorado +7
Florida +3
Iowa +6
New Hampshire +7
Ohio +2
Virginia +4
Wisconsin +5

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Buckshot: read this.

Slowly.

And learn from it.

You'll thank me later.

 

[buckshot24]

Irrelevant... isn't that Mitt Romney's new nickname?

Just about.

 

[emperus]

I'm normally not a big fan of Daily Kos but this particular one deals in numbers, not rhetoric.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/07/1157804/-Rasmussen-exposed-as-Republican-shill

Who is still arguing this? Everyone knows Rasmussen has a Right wing slant. Usually by 2 points or so.

 

[emperus]

Buckshot: read this.

Slowly.

And learn from it.

You'll thank me later.

That's a good article. But like the last line says. Will be quickly forgotten.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Who is still arguing this? Everyone knows Rasmussen has a Right wing slant. Usually by 2 points or so.

In this case it was significantly more than that.

People were still arguing it yesterday. Now that we have actual numbers, it can be put to rest. RIP Rasmussen Reports.

 

[Farang]

I'm normally not a big fan of Daily Kos but this particular one deals in numbers, not rhetoric.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/07/1157804/-Rasmussen-exposed-as-Republican-shill



So if you look at the degree to which Rasmussen favored Romney in polls vs. the actual result, here are the numbers we see:

National +2
Colorado +7
Florida +3
Iowa +6
New Hampshire +7
Ohio +2
Virginia +4
Wisconsin +5

It's hard to look at those numbers and not call it deliberate.

 

[jpeyton]

It's hard to look at those numbers and not call it deliberate.

We already knew Rasmussen had a Republican lean for years. Advanced models like 538's had that accounted for (as well as the Democratic lean of other pollsters).

The point being that Rasmussen can still provide useful data for a model, as long as they are consistent in their bias. And to that extent, I think they are. It's just unfortunate for some right-wingers that they took Rasmussen's data at face value instead of properly running it through a model.

 

[HomerJS]

Bucky illustrates how conservatives and liberals deal with reality.

Bad news...

Libs - Grumble and accept

Cons - Grumble and still claim results are wrong, bias or conspiracy theory.

Presidential debates are perfect example