Can you name a polling group that doesn't have a political bent, in one direction of the other?
::michael On 12/13/2010 3:02 PM, Leland Jackson wrote: > On 12/13/2010 04:25 PM, Michael Madigan wrote: >> Talking out your ass again. 60% support repeal of the Obamacare bill. >> >> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law >> >> >> > > Rasmussen Reports is a conservative-leaning polling group that is about > as biased as Fox. Scott Rasmussen was a paid consultant for the 2004 > George W. Bush campaign, which tells me everything I need to know about > Scott Rasmussen. LOL > > #-------------------------------- > > > Criticism > > TIME has described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling > group".[21] The Center For Public Integrity has pointed out that Scott > Rasmussen was a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush > campaign.[22] According to Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight.com, while > there are no apparent records of Scott Rasmussen or Rasmussen Reports > making contributions to political candidates in recent years and its > public election polls are generally regarded as reliable, "some > observers have questioned its issue-based polling, which frequently > tends to elicit responses that are more conservative than those found on > other national surveys."[23] > > Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo commented on their reliability in a > February 2009 article:[24][25] > > The toplines tend to be a bit toward the Republican side of the > spectrum, compared to the average of other polls. But if you factor that > in they're pretty reliable. And the frequency that Rasmussen is able to > turn them around – because they're based on robocalls – gives them added > value in terms of teasing out trends. But the qualitative questions, in > terms of their phrasing and so forth, are frequently skewed to give > answers friendly toward GOP or conservative viewpoints. All of which is > to say that his numbers are valuable. But they need to be read with that > bias in mind. > > Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com observed that at the end of the 2010 > general election cycle, Rasmussen Polls consistently were biased against > Democrats by 3 to 4 points. [26] > > I did a quick check on the accuracy of polls from the firm Rasmussen > Reports, which came under heavy criticism this year — including from > FiveThirtyEight — because its polls showed a strong lean toward > Republican candidates. Indeed, Rasmussen polls quite consistently turned > out to overstate the standing of Republicans tonight. Of the roughly 100 > polls released by Rasmussen or its subsidiary Pulse Opinion Research in > the final 21 days of the campaign, roughly 70 to 75 percent > overestimated the performance of Republican candidates, and on average > they were biased against Democrats by 3 to 4 points. ....it appears as > though the worst poll of the political cycle will be the Rasmussen > Reports survey of Hawaii, which had the incumbent Daniel Inoyue > defeating Cam Cavasso by just 13 points. Mr. Inouye is ahead by 55 > points right now. If Mr. Inouye’s margin holds, the 42-point error would > be by far the worst general election poll in FiveThirtyEight’s database, > which includes all polls since 1998; the previous record was 29 points. > > Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its > polls.[27][unreliable source?] Examples of Rasmussen's questions with > wording issues include: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports > > #----------------------------------- > > Regards, > > LelandJ > > > > > > >> >> >> --- On Mon, 12/13/10, Ed Leafe<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> From: Ed Leafe<[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [OT] Federal Judge finds Obamacare UNCONSTITUTIONAL! >>> To: "ProFox Email List"<[email protected]> >>> Date: Monday, December 13, 2010, 5:19 PM >>> On Dec 13, 2010, at 5:12 PM, geoff >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Excuse me, but you aren't going to somehow tell me >>> that this healthcare bill >>>> has met with acceptance are you? Yes, this judge's >>> ruling is worthless, but >>>> the debate it has engendered - yet again - is not. >>> Frankly, it is time for a >>>> fe of you to stand up and be counted! >>> >>> We did. Back in 2008, Obama said that he >>> wanted to pass health care reform, and McCain said he >>> opposed it. Health care was one of the main reasons people >>> voted for Obama; they wanted that "change" that he was >>> promising. >>> >>> There is no "debate"; it is the usual >>> minority of voices who like to shout the loudest to keep up >>> the appearance that most people oppose this law. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Ed Leafe >>> >>> >>> >>> [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
