PDA

View Full Version : Rasmussen shows VP bounce: +5% OBAMA!?!?!



Soflasnapper
08-17-2012, 09:57 AM
From a d-kos diarist, but a checkable factoid nonetheless:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 08:45 AM PDT
Rasmussen Tracking Poll Shocker

by griffin459

I try to keep up with the polls on a daily basis. I look over the latest polls and the Daily Presidential Tracking Polls. Even though Rasmussen is slanted 4-5 points to the right , I look at them also. In the past few days, Rasmussen has had Obama down by four points. BUT, in the last two days, OBAMA has been surging, thanks to RYAN!

Rasmussent [sic] Tracking Poll NOW has Obama UP by one point. I know it is not much, but that is a gain of 5 points in just a couple days. Usually, according to Nate Silver, the Nominee gets a four point bounce afte [sic] naming a VP nominee. Wow!!!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/...

specific page (as of today) here (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)
</div></div>

Wow, indeed! Nice job, and GO! Romney/Ryan!!

More of this kind of excellent work, please!

LWW
08-17-2012, 10:51 AM
So today you love Rasmussen?

Imagine that.

Soflasnapper
08-17-2012, 11:02 AM
Even though Rasmussen is slanted 4-5 points to the right

which makes the admission against interest and self-selected bias interesting and noteworthy.

We've been through this many times. You still don't get it?

Or more likely, out of tricks and playing the same hole card over and over again despite getting it all too well?

LWW
08-18-2012, 03:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Even though Rasmussen is slanted 4-5 points to the right

which makes the admission against interest and self-selected bias interesting and noteworthy.

We've been through this many times. You still don't get it?

Or more likely, out of tricks and playing the same hole card over and over again despite getting it all too well? </div></div>

Then how do you explain that GALLUP has Romney +2?

Qtec
08-18-2012, 04:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So today you love Rasmussen?

Imagine that. </div></div>

So today you hate them.

Q...LOL

Soflasnapper
08-18-2012, 11:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Even though Rasmussen is slanted 4-5 points to the right

which makes the admission against interest and self-selected bias interesting and noteworthy.

We've been through this many times. You still don't get it?

Or more likely, out of tricks and playing the same hole card over and over again despite getting it all too well? </div></div>

Then how do you explain that GALLUP has Romney +2? </div></div>

The massive difference that Gallup has Romney up 2, and Rasmussen has Obama up 1, is not a difference at all considering the MOE, which is larger than either lead and means they are about tied.

The ABSOLUTE level of the relative polling was not the question in any case. The question or topic was the relative CHANGE in the poll results after the Ryan vp announcement. This is known as 'the vp bounce,' as you may see in the title above.

Now this part is a little tricky. You may want to print it out so you can really study it.

Obama's numbers could have been improved 5% in the Gallup poll, and STILL show him down 2%. Just as Rasmussen had him down by 4%, then when he rose 5%, ahead by 1%. It just depends upon what the numbers were before the vp announcement, and in what direction they changed.

Individual polls are exciting, but to see the trends and ranges of the numbers, RCP provides an excellent summary. Here's the latest from them:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Polling Data
Poll Date Sample MoE Obama (D) Romney (R) Spread
RCP Average 8/5 - 8/17 -- -- 48.0 44.6 Obama +3.4
Rasmussen Tracking 8/15 - 8/17 1500 LV 3.0 46 44 Obama +2
Gallup Tracking 8/11 - 8/17 3050 RV 2.0 45 47 Romney +2
CNN/Opinion Research 8/7 - 8/8 911 RV 3.5 52 45 Obama +7
Politico/GWU/Battleground 8/5 - 8/9 1000 LV 3.1 48 47 Obama +1
FOX News 8/5 - 8/7 930 RV 3.0 49 40 Obama +9

See All General Election: Romney vs. Obama Polling Data

Race 4 Years Ago vs. Today, 2012 vs. 2008 | Race 8 Years Ago vs. Today, 2012 vs. 2004
Intrade Market Prices for General Election: Romney vs. Obama
Obama Romney
Intrade Real Time Quotes Obama 57 Romney 42 (See More Data)</div></div>

Here (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html)

LWW
08-22-2012, 08:34 AM
Actually Rasmussen has Romney Hood ahead by two ... but still within the margin of fraud.

Soflasnapper
08-22-2012, 08:52 AM
Rasmussen Tracking 8/15 - 8/17 1500 LV 3.0 46 44 Obama +2

I cited it accurately at the time I posted.

There is no 'actually,' but simply a different, new result.

I mention it despite everyone else on this board seeing that obvious truth, because I suspect you cannot grasp this without help.

LWW
08-22-2012, 12:21 PM
And this new report shows Romney ahead ...so I assume you no longer find Rasmussen credible?

Soflasnapper
08-22-2012, 12:49 PM
Rasmussen is a house pollster for the GOP who averages giving them a 5% boost by systemic bias.

He's not credible, unless he's VERY close to election day (when he tightens up his stupid and secret party affiliation weighting) so as to get the 'he's SO ACCURATE!!!' kudos, or unless, despite his biased and proprietary (won't discuss or disclose it) party weighting, he STILL shows a Dem in the lead. When HE shows a Dem in the lead, and it isn't in the home stretch of the race, they most definitely ARE in the lead (although by more than he'd be saying).

LWW
08-22-2012, 01:18 PM
Then why did you think he was credible on the seventeenth?

Soflasnapper
08-22-2012, 01:56 PM
Let's break it down a bit.

If the Heat announcing team, who are somewhat homers, say the Heat will beat another team, it is relatively meaningless, as they generally say that.

If that announcer team instead expresses doubt that the Heat can beat some super team (Dwight Howard, Steve Nash, Kobe et al.), or goes all the way, and says they don't see how the Heat can beat them, it has significant meaning, and is far more likely to be realistic.

Because they are biased, and nonetheless, express something contrary to their known and constantly displayed biases.

So when Rasmussen says such a thing, with his secretive model that always claims there are more Republicans in the electorate than anyone else thinks, and still gets a result that favors a Democrat, that means something significant.

Similarly, if a different pollster (all of whom reveal their sample's party breakout) got a sample with a party affiliation breakout closer to Rasmussen's, and still found an advantage for Democrats, THAT would also carry a greater significance and be more likely correct.

Your incredulity act grows tiresome.

LWW
08-23-2012, 05:47 PM
Today:

RASMUSSEN has Romney +2
GALLOPVhas Romney +2
FOX has Romney +1

so your point is exactly what?

Soflasnapper
08-23-2012, 07:13 PM
News flash for LWW: polls go up and down. Points made about a given poll are related to the time frame in which it was released. Future results are not guaranteed by prior results.

These are obvious points, and I only mention them because your absurd question makes it seem you don't know them.

The point is that when a 'homer' pollster for one side says the other side, not his own side, has a lead, it is significant, whereas when a 'homer' pollster says his own side is leading, it is not so significant.

Since the original point was about the vp bounce, please show the internals of any of these polls that show these CHANGES in what happened in the immediate aftermath of the Ryan pick (my topic) are now DUE TO that pick, or in any way related to that pick, as opposed to, oh, I don't know, $100 million in negative ad buys from anti-Obama sources of all stripes.

I know you have a big problem distinguishing correlation from causation, which you've shown repeatedly, but polls do have such internal questions that can be found.

Soflasnapper
08-24-2012, 10:15 AM
To show it as it was in real time, from Rasmussen's tracking poll numbers:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Et tu, Rasmussen?

Date Obama Romney Margin
8/8-10 44 46 R+2
8/9-11 44 46 R+2
8/10-12 44 47 R+3
8/11-13 44 47 R+3
8/12-14 43 47 R+4
8/13-15 44 45 R+1
8/14-16 46 45 O+1


The Paul Ryan decision was made on the 11th. The GOP's favorite pollster, Rasmussen, saw a meager two-point bump in its daily tracking poll following the Ryan pick (the 12-14 sample, which was the first one to fully cover post-announcement days).

But before the week was up, that two-point bump was quickly followed by a five-point swing toward Obama. Some honeymoon.

Of course this is Rasmussen. Tomorrow's results could be Romney 57, Obama 40 and no one would blink. But when the GOP's own propaganda pollster can't pretend that Ryan has given his ticket a sustained bounce, and in fact shows the opposite, it merely reinforces just how awful Mitt Romney's vice-presidential pick truly was. </div></div>

You seem to think a VP 'bounce' occurs 2 weeks after the pick? No, it's what happens immediately in the aftermath.

Gayle in MD
08-24-2012, 10:17 AM
Even conservative Republicans and pundits have admitted the VP bounce never happened.

G.

LWW
08-24-2012, 03:03 PM
I made no comment about the bounce ... other than your bounce on Rasmussen.

Soflasnapper
08-24-2012, 03:10 PM
Running from your own remarks is cowardly.

You pretend not to understand a technique you yourself use, all the time?

What are you saying when you call some liberal outlet 'a REICHWING outlet,' in satire?

You are mentioning the equivalent formulation 'that EVEN THE x SOURCE SAYS,' meaning that even a left-leaning source (by reputation, if not so much in fact) is damning a Dem or Obama (so it's more credible).

Friendly fire, so to speak, is more damaging, coming as it does from erstwhile allies.