PDA

View Full Version : Rasmussen Known for Right Slant



Gayle in MD
10-23-2009, 01:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is a difference between election polling and opinion polling. In election polling, if Rasmussen were to distort the numbers to favor the right-wing, it is very easy to check his numbers against the actual results. The actual result of an election is the measuring stick. Predicting an election result does not translate to accurate opinion polls. It's apples to oranges.

There is no way to measure if opinion polls are accurate however. Is Gallup right or Rasmussen right about support for the Health Reform Package? There is no actual result to compare to. What can be seen is that Rasmussen's results in opinion polls generally always skew towards the right-wing opinion.

Rasmussen is a former staffer of the very right-wing Worldnetdaily.com and was a paid consultant for the Bush campaign in 2004.
Source(s):
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/tal…
2 months ago
</div></div>

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090824010728AARPoGC



on Wed Jun-03-09 01:50 PM by AlexanderProgressive
A new poll on Sonia Sotomayor by right-wing pollster Scott Rasmussen has been released. Its results differ significantly from results in other recent similar polls. Here is a comparision:

Rasmussen (June 1-2):
Confirm/Do not confirm her nomination: 41%-36%

AP/GfK (May 28-June 1)
Confirm/Do not confirm: 50%-22%

USA Today/Gallup: (May 29-31)
Confirm/Do not confirm: 54-28%

link to all Sotomayor polls.
http://pollingreport.com/Court.htm


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did you know that if you go to the Rasmussen's page you will see political commentary from Bob Novak and Michelle Malkin?
Did you know that Rasmussen once worked for the World Net Daily, one of the heavily financed right-wing joints that bashed the Clintons throughout the 90's?
And when it comes to PRIMARIES, he's not good. In NH, he had Obama by 7% and Hillary won by 3%. He played it safe by not polling Iowa, Nevada or Michigan, and got SC wrong by a 12% margin.


</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Guys, have you noticed that in almost every opinion poll Rasmussen finds reason to make Freepers happy? (Freepers=blog readers who frequent the right-wing website Freerepublic.com. Terms often used to refer to Republicans in general).



In Gallup, for example, support for the stimulus is steady as it can be since January 11th, even before Obama took over:




This poll stands in sharp contrast with one conducted by Rasmussen less than a week ago, allegedly finding that "37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure."

But the discrepancy is present not only in the stimulus issue. I have seen it in many other issues as well. I don't know if this is due to the fact that Rasmussen is a partisan Republican hack who once worked for t he right-wing Worldnetdaily.com as a columnist.

Do you remember how Bush's approval by Rasmussen's count was usually around 38-40% while it stood in the low 30's in other polls?

Well, now Obama's approval is 59% there, compared to 65% in Gallup.

Coincidence?

You might say that he uses different wording or methodology, but how is it possible that this different approach ALWAYS gives an edge to the Republican party?

When it comes to election prediction, Rasmussen is accurate, apparently because he cannot distort poll numbers in this case because electoral results can be used as a measuring stick to determine whether or not he was right or wrong.

But in regard to opinion polls, there is no way to ultimately verify the accuracy of a poll. We cannot know for sure, for example, whether Gallup is right, or Rasmussen is right in telling us that support for the stimulus has crumbled as of late.

Rasmussen also tells us today that "Forty-eight percent (48%) of U.S. voters say that, generally speaking, increased government spending is bad for the economy.

Thirty-five percent (35%) believe more government spending will help the economy, and seven percent (7%) say it's likely to have no impact, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey."

But unless a referendum is conducted on the issue, we will never know whether Rasmussen was right, made this up, or utilized misleading wording in its questioning.

I think someone from the National Council on Polls should closely monitor Rasmussen's practices. His polls might be used by right-wing columnists to unfairly attack Progressive measures that attract broad support from the population.

I do not trust this fellow.






</div></div>

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/tal...a-misleadin.php (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/truthseeker77/2009/02/is-scott-rasmussen-a-misleadin.php)



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Public option debate is over. Liberals have won.
By Brent Budowsky - 10/20/09 11:50 AM ET
The Washington Post/ABC poll today is the latest proof. In the Post/ABC poll, 57 percent of voters support the strong public option; in the recent Quinnipiac poll the number is 65 percent. Countless polls reveal similar results.

The debate is over. The liberals have won. Democrats and independents support the public option by large numbers and the nation as a whole supports the public option by a substantial margin.

Peggy Noonan in last Saturday's Wall Street Journal wrote there is no new frontier because the public does not support government programs. I would pay for Ms. Noonan to take a mathematics or political science course. She seems to be unaware of the large support for the public option, not surprising since there is huge support for Medicare, another government program.

There is among some on the right a delusional unwillingness to accept facts. They go from denying global warming to denying results of poll after poll on the public option. Facts are nasty things for the flat-earth society, but facts are facts.

It is a free country, and people can believe what they want, but the fact is that liberals have won the public option debate and neither delusion nor dishonesty can deny this fact.



Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/he...berals-have-won (http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/63865-public-option-debate-is-over-liberals-have-won)
The contents of this site are © 2009 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsisiary of News Communications, Inc.
</div></div>

The following link should cynch it for anyone who doubts that Rasmussen Polls consistantly lean right.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Kerbouchard
10-23-2009, 04:45 PM
I get it already...any source that does not overwhelmingly approve and fawn over our dearest leader will be discredited.

Jeez you guys are desperate.

LWW
10-24-2009, 12:34 AM
Thanks Gayle ... what you have done is prove the polls you love all have a left tilt.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no way to measure if opinion polls are accurate however. Is Gallup right or Rasmussen right about support for the Health Reform Package? There is no actual result to compare to.</div></div>

BTW ... that quote from your article is laughably a lie. The way you check the accuracy of pollsters is you see what they predict ... and then see what happens&lt; like this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The following list ranks the 23 organizations by the accuracy of their final, national pre-
election polls (as reported on pollster.com).

1. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
1. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
2. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
3. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
4. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*
5. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
5. ARG (10/25-27)*
6. CNN (10/30-11/1)
6. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
7. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
8. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
9. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
10. FOX (11/1-2)
11. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
12. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
13. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
14. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
15. Marist College (11/3)
16. CBS (10/31-11/2)
17. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
18. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
19. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
20. Newsweek (10/22-23)</div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/poll%20accuracy%20in%20the%202008%20presidential%2 0election.pdf)

LWW

Sev
10-24-2009, 07:17 AM
Another example of, if they dont conform to liberal thinking they must be in the tank for the opposition.

Bobbyrx
10-26-2009, 02:04 PM
“Conservatives” Are Single-Largest Ideological Group
Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx#)

LWW
10-26-2009, 03:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Another example of, if they dont conform to liberal thinking they must be in the tank for the opposition. </div></div>

Keep in mind that Gayle believes CNN and the New York Times are right wing sources.

LWW

LWW
10-26-2009, 03:25 PM
It seems they were the most accurate poll in election 2004 also ... peging both candidates within 0.5%!

OH DEAR! (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2004/state_by_state_actual_results_vs_rasmussen_reports _polls)
OH MY! (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/how_did_we_do)

LWW

LWW
10-26-2009, 03:29 PM
I just had an epiphany!

When Gayle claimed they had a "RIGHT" slant she meant they were more leaning to being correct than such jokes as DailyKos and PuffingtonHost polls.

LWW

pooltchr
10-26-2009, 03:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Keep in mind that Gayle believes CNN and the New York Times are right wing sources.

LWW </div></div>

Reletive to her viewpoint, they probably are!!!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Steve

Gayle in MD
10-27-2009, 01:29 PM
My oh my, you are so uninformed, it is stunning!

The word, Conservative, does not mean, Republican.

Your imagined "Point" is false.

I consider myself conservative.

I believe that war should be a lost resort, for example, unlike RW NEOCONS, who "Think" they are conservative, but are actually far from conservative.

I believe that all Americans have a right to privacy, Unlike Republicans, who THINK they are conservative, and who want to invade other people's bedrooms, family medical decisions, homelands, privacy, etc, you see, nothing "consevative' in the tru meaning of the word, about that.

I believe that our Presidents should not lie us into wars, with fake intelligence, and well, we know where the right stood on that, after they voted twice for Bush, nothing conservative about that.

I believe that people who reveal the identiy of our secret agents, should be hung, well, we know where you righties stood on that one, too, and nothing conservative about that, either.

I believe the Government shouldn't spy on Americans, torture prisoners of war, secretly seel arms to drug dealers, plant fake reporsters in the press room, pay journalists to lie for them, or have it's own propaganda channel, and well, we know which party is all for all of that, and there is surely nothing at all, conservative, about any of it.

Hence, we must begin the discussion with the acknowledgment that the RW Radical Republican neocons, have completely badtardized the meaning of the word "conservative" and hence, the traditional "Conservative" Reactions of horror from all Americans, who witnessed eight years of the Bush/Cheney Neocon dictatorship, describes many more of us than just Republicans.

Now, if you want to look at the word, Progressives, we can easily see, that Republicans do not fit that mold, either, since their nuckels are draggin on the ground with every step.

Hence, the best description of the Right wing utcases, would have to be, knuckle dragging Neanderthals, which must be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the next century.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

pooltchr
10-27-2009, 03:27 PM
What a bunch of crap! Don't you have a blog to work on to keep you busy??????


Steve

sack316
10-27-2009, 03:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Now, if you want to look at the word, Progressives, we can easily see, that Republicans do not fit that mold, either, since their nuckels are draggin on the ground with every step.

Hence, the best description of the Right wing utcases, would have to be, knuckle dragging Neanderthals, which must be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the next century.

</div></div>

Looking at the state of somewhere such as, let's say Detroit, under progressive leadership for what? Around half a century now? I think I'd take a knuckle dragging description over that any day! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

Gayle in MD
10-27-2009, 04:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Now, if you want to look at the word, Progressives, we can easily see, that Republicans do not fit that mold, either, since their nuckels are draggin on the ground with every step.

Hence, the best description of the Right wing utcases, would have to be, knuckle dragging Neanderthals, which must be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the next century.

</div></div>

Looking at the state of somewhere such as, let's say Detroit, under progressive leadership for what? Around half a century now? I think I'd take a knuckle dragging description over that any day! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack </div></div>


<span style="color: #000066">LMAO! Thanks for proving my point. Just take the car industry entirely out of the picture, and blame it all on Democratics.

Typical RW BS. </span>

pooltchr
10-27-2009, 04:49 PM
The more difficult it becomes for you to defend your political viewpoints, the more likely you are to resort to name calling and insults.

You must REALLY be in trouble these days!

Steve

sack316
10-27-2009, 05:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Now, if you want to look at the word, Progressives, we can easily see, that Republicans do not fit that mold, either, since their nuckels are draggin on the ground with every step.

Hence, the best description of the Right wing utcases, would have to be, knuckle dragging Neanderthals, which must be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the next century.

</div></div>

Looking at the state of somewhere such as, let's say Detroit, under progressive leadership for what? Around half a century now? I think I'd take a knuckle dragging description over that any day! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack </div></div>


<span style="color: #000066">LMAO! Thanks for proving my point. Just take the car industry entirely out of the picture, and blame it all on Democratics.

Typical RW BS. </span> </div></div>

Who has run Detroit for the last half-century?

Sack

Gayle in MD
10-27-2009, 05:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Now, if you want to look at the word, Progressives, we can easily see, that Republicans do not fit that mold, either, since their nuckels are draggin on the ground with every step.

Hence, the best description of the Right wing utcases, would have to be, knuckle dragging Neanderthals, which must be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the next century.

</div></div>

Looking at the state of somewhere such as, let's say Detroit, under progressive leadership for what? Around half a century now? I think I'd take a knuckle dragging description over that any day! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack </div></div>


<span style="color: #000066">LMAO! Thanks for proving my point. Just take the car industry entirely out of the picture, and blame it all on Democratics.

Typical RW BS. </span> </div></div>

Who has run Detroit for the last half-century?

Sack </div></div>


<span style="color: #000066">The Oil and Automobile Industries, silly. Who did you think was running it?

Who has been running the country since the end of the Vietnam War, with only eight really great years, which were under a Democratic Administration.

Who inherited a surplus, and turned it into a financial tsunami?

Who has been running the southern states since the sixties?

I'm sure we can rely on the South to fix the economy.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

</span>

sack316
10-27-2009, 05:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Oil and Automobile Industries, silly. Who did you think was running it?</div></div>

You say that, some will say the unions and progressives.

Sack

LWW
10-28-2009, 08:27 AM
Gayle will say whatever the party tells her to say.

Wolfie will say whatever Gayle tells him to say.

LWW