Posted on 07/17/2012 9:44:58 AM PDT by MrChips
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows Mitt Romney attracting 47% of the vote, while President Obama earns 44%. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) more are undecided.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
The ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’ has been replaced in an electoral scenario by the ‘Rasmussen Dilemma’ i.e. most (all?) of us believe Rasmussen has the most credibility among all these polls but are we believing his polls because of Romney’s lead or are his polls in fact the most accurate?
I take all polls with a grain of salt, sometimes two or three grains. With Rasmussen, I accept his methodology but add a point or two in the other direction. Today, that would still put Mitt on top.
All the rant, raves, spin and adoration by the mianstream media and the Obamabots, including Obama himself had gained Obama nothing, no traction!!!
And.....that glorious, idiot, DNC chariman, Debbie Wasserman Shulz got booed big time at a Jewish meeting this weekend, for telling fellow Jews that Obama was a strong supporter of Israel. Fact is: Obama hates the Jews, period. He can’t even spell Israel correctly. Any American Jew that votes for Obama is not hitting on all eight cylinders, IMHO!!!
All Romney has to do is stay even until the convention when he can start to use the general election money. Then he can unleash the dogs of war and I have little doubt he will. We saw what he did to Newt.
No sense using the heavy artillery now unless Obama starts to pull ahead.
They have the focus group data and I bet what they’re seeing is that the Bain attacks are falling on deaf ears so there’s no need to over react to them.
Obama has spent $100 million to demonize Romney and it’s had NO EFFECT!!!!
There must be absolute panic in the Obama camp. Look for more people to drop dead, like the young man in Chicago.
Rasmussen has proven to one of the most reliable polls out there. They did a good job predicting what happened in 2010.
he is desperately trying to rally his base....
******************************************************
Exactly.
These percentages are stupid. Obama probably piles up a huge number of votes in California, New York, CT, RI, and MA. Let me know how he is doing in Ohio, PA, MO, FL, NM, MN and Iowa, and I will tell you who is going to win, and by how much. 47-44 is a blowout in the electoral college.
Actually I don't think Rasmussen did that well in 2010, over-predicting Republican gains but it was excellent in 2008.
The metric to gauge how accurate they are is whether the results fall within the margin of error, not who won or lost the race.
I agree and in 2010 Rasmussen did very poorly in that regard too. I suspect he will adjust his methodology and be better this year. All pollsters make assumptions and massage the numbers based on those assumptions.
Source?
Do a google on rating the pollsters - 2010. There are plenty of sources. I’m not going to get into an argument about it over sources. I guess only Rasmussen gives himself good marks. If you remember back then there was plenty of grumbling about it here. I know I was dissapointed.
Presidential
2000
Progressive Review conducted a review of polling accuracy in the 2000 presidential primaries. The review ranked Rasmussen Research number one in accuracy. Rasmussen’s prediction for the 2000 presidential election was off by 4.5%, compared to the average 1.1% margin of error most other national polls gave at the time.
2004
In the 2004 presidential election, “Rasmussen...beat most of their human competitors in the battleground states, often by large margins,” according to Slate magazine. Rasmussen projected the 2004 presidential results within one percentage point of the actual vote totals earned by both George W. Bush and John Kerry.
In 2004, Slate said they “publicly doubted and privately derided Rasmussen” polls because of the methodology. However, after the election, they concluded that Rasmussen’s polls were the most accurate.
2008
According to Politico, “Rasmussen’s final poll of the 2008 general election — showing Obama defeating Arizona Sen. John McCain 52 percent to 46 percent — closely mirrored the election’s outcome.”[39] In reference to the 2008 presidential election, a Talking Points Memo article said, “Rasmussen’s final polls had Obama ahead 52%-46%, which was nearly identical to Obama’s final margin of 53%-46%, and made him one of the most accurate pollsters out there.”
Congressional and gubernatorial
In the 2009 New Jersey gubernatorial race, Rasmussen Reports’ final poll predicted that Chris Christie would beat Jon Corzine by a margin of 3 points. Christie won the race with a spread of 4.3 points.
In December 2009, Alan Abramowitz wrote that if Rasmussen’s data was accurate, Republicans would gain 62 seats in the House during the 2010 midterm elections. In a column written the week before the 2010 midterm elections, Rasmussen stated his belief that Republicans would gain at least 55 seats in the House and end up with 48 or 49 Senate seats. Republicans ended up gaining 63 seats in the House, and coming away with 47 Senate seats.
In 2010, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show Republican Scott Brown had a chance to defeat Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate race. Just after Brown’s upset win, Ben Smith at Politico reported, “The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both parties until a Rasmussen poll showed the race in single digits in early January was that Martha Coakley was a lock. (It’s hard to recall a single poll changing the mood of a race quite that dramatically.)” A study by Boston University and the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism about how the Massachusetts Senate race was covered in the media concluded, “...Rasmussen Report’s poll that showed the overwhelming Republican underdog, Scott Brown, climbing to within single digits (nine points) of Martha Coakley. That poll, perhaps more than anything else, signaled that a possible upset was brewing and galvanized both the media and political worlds.”] The New York Times Magazine opened a March 14 cover story with a scene highlighting the impact of that poll in an internal White House meeting involving President Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.
LOL - source wiki IOW Rasmussen
You can't make such statements without real facts. They are readily available. Facts are facts. It is not a matter of conjecture or emotion. Objective truth exists.
I reiterate my contention that Rasmussen is one of the best, if not the best, when it comes to polling. The results bear that out. But then why should we confuse things with facts?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.