Rasmussen SUNDAY Poll

Rasmussen Reports ^

[bIlluminati]

Maybe, maybe not. Here's what may have happened.

First, a lot of us have cell phones, screening, etc. and never answer the phone. However, while this may vary by party over time, it doesn't week by week. And the people who answer the phone are a different demographic from actual likely voters - the target demographic. Plus, in an automated poll, Junior, Sis, or the repairman can answer the phone, and anyone can lie - like the guy on FR four years ago who said he was a Hispanic Democrat for Bush in 2000 in Pennsylvania. A few like him cause Bush (or Kerry) to mis-allocate their campaign fund and face time.

On to the main point. People who answer the phone and take the poll are, on average, more likely to be weak-minded than are likely voters. Thus, they heard about the convention on TV, and answered the poll that they are voting for Bush. Next week, the Partisan Media Shills (aka PMS) will sway many of these telephone-answerers to say they'll vote for Kerry. Since Nader, Badnarik, etc. don't get as much airtime, they get fewer votes in these polls than at the ballot box. Yes, I know that Wallace in 1968 got 20% in the polls and only 14% in the official vote count. He was also well ahead of Robert Kennedy in Michigan polling in 1968, but lost 20% to 19% in the official count in the DemonRatic primary that year. Some, but not all of the difference can be attributed to voters voting for number 1 or number 2.

IOW, the official numbers are as much suspect as the polls. More so, once you consider that there's much more at stake in the official poll.

[POA2]

Oh, BTW, speaking of ignoring the obvious, do you really think that Newsweek pollsters, even with all their lackluster intellectual merit and bias, are too stupid to see the problem you identified by comparing the face value of two numbers?

Last time - Go look at the history of NewsWeek polls! - Their History is awful - Period.

Newsweek does not poll for ACCURACY - they poll for spin and to create news stories - (this is their history) -

And no there is no reason to OVER Sample Republicans and UNder-sampel Dem's (or vise versa) if the goal is to predict an accurate representation of what the outcome of the election would be if held on that day! -

And that is what the "horse-race" numbers are for - To see who would win at that moment -

Now if their goal is to spin news a certain way - they sure....you under-sample and over-sample all the way to the bank - And this is exactly what NewsWeek does -

[Illinois Rep]

Figuring out where Democrats stand in a race is easy if you look at what they do rather than what they say.

They may say things are all rosey posey but their actions may point entirely to the opposite direction. The Democrats are in a world of hurt.

Don't you think some of the HEAVY weight Democrats would have run in this election if they thought they had a remote chance of winning? Al Gore? Hillary Clinton?? Tom Daschle?? Come on these people may be as WRONG as they come but they are not all stupid. They all knew this would be incredibly difficult to win. The Electoral College edge starts off with Advantage Bush. Then you have the war on terrorism STILL going on that Americans are very much behind Bush.

Kerry is fighting the inevitable. The real power and might of the Democrat party is playing for 08. They may be trying to save Congressional seats and win some but they know Kerry (and any of the other 8 or 9 dwarfs) is a big fat loser who will fall to Bush big time. After all if Hillary, Al and Puff Daddy couldn't defeat Bush in their own minds how in the world could Herman Munster?

[CyberAnt]

It's the libs standard trick .. weekend polls .. notariously when repubs are at church. These polls are ALWAYS LOWER than other polls.

Let them have their stinking polls .. it will be even more devasting on 11/3 when they realize they have been swamped by AMERICANS.

[js1138]

Rasmussen's numbers cannot change quickly because he averages the last three days of polling. This is a reasonable and cautious method. We shall see if it is more accurate.

My gut feeling is the Time and Newsweak polls are designed to show a rapid shift away from Bush.

[No Dems 2004]

You must remember that Scott Rasmussen has a serious credibility problem. His way of dealing with it, it seems, is to show the race constantly tied, regardless of what the other polls are saying. I just have trouble believing him fully.

That said, it is worthwile watching some of his stuff.

[ableChair]

And no there is no reason to OVER Sample Republicans and UNder-sampel Dem's (or vise versa) if the goal is to predict an accurate representation of what the outcome of the election would be if held on that day! -

Interesting semantics. No, but there might be a reason to call more Reps than Dems if other factors affect the results. Statisticians do this all the time. It's called normalization. Trust me, their statisticians are thoroughly familiar with how it is done and the need for it. This technique results in equal sampling, not over-under sampling. Yes, I'm sure they're biased but propagandists are far more sophisticated than you may naively think and I can assure you they would not be so stupid as to call more Reps for no reason, thus creating an error outside their own MOE and making it blatantly obvious they did so to people like yourself. They're smarter than that. They'll bias it in other, much more subtle ways. Given how obvious all this is, it's clear to me that you have an agenda to downplay Bush gains.

[LenS]

There does seem to be a diffence in his state results and his national results.

[LenS]

That makes sense. Why waste time on polling when people are on holiday (or taking shelter from a hurricane)? We probably won't see realistic numbers until Friday when they'll have three days post-Labor day.

[KQQL]

Survey of 608 Likely Voters

August 27-Sept 3, 2004

California 2004

Presidential Ballot

Bush 42%
Kerry 50%
Other 5%
Not Sure 3%
RasmussenReports.com

---

Survey of 400 Likely Voters

August 27-Sept 3, 2004

Minnesota 2004

Presidential Ballot

Bush 46%
Kerry 46%
Other 4%
Not Sure 4%
RasmussenReports.com

[white_wolf]

Agreed.

Rasmussen broke my heart in 2000 (The champagne went flat and EVERYTHING!). To be that wrong in this day and age suggests something fundementally wrong in his methodology.

He's strictly enteratinment value now as far as I'm concerned.

My greatest source of encouragement is that the Dems seems to be panicking, the surest sign that their internals are telling them that things aren't looking so hot...

[hershey]

The one monkey in the wrench would be another terrorist attack here. GW would undoubtedly get more support even from so called undecideds if that happened...that seems a given. But if Kerry had somehow positioned himself in the center in a believable fashion for five minutes, he could say, I'd have done a better job protecting us and here's why. Then list specifics.

But he's never listed specifics about anything. Running in MA all this time, he rarely had an opponent, and if you wrote him a blistering letter complaining about whatever stance he'd taken on some bill or other, you'd get back a letter agreeing with you. Then write a letter with the opposite point of view, and you'd receive a similar letter. He operated like this for more than twenty years, flip flopping on every issue and got away with it. A con man.

Clearly the RATs have been ambivalent about this election. Beating a wartime president is difficult at best, but they thought they had the country 'divided' about Bush, the anybody but Bush crowd, you'd have thought they'd groom somebody sensible. The RAT field was off the wall, other than Gephardt. No one had a real record of achievement. Still, you'd have thought somebody in RATland would have asked Kerry why his military records were sealed, esp. since he was running on being a big hero.

They really wanted Hill, of course, and she was smart enough to know she'd have a rough time of it in the primaries and though she'd win the nomination, she'd lose to GW. But if she could jump in now, even with having to register in all fifty states, she'd give them at least a fighting chance. Kerry can't possibly think a Bush bashing episode on 60 minutes with some old RAT duffer whining about getting GW into the Texas National Guard will be boffo tv. Frances and the Russian tragedy has sucked all the air out of tv viewing this weekend. They'll have to bank on the upcoming Kitty Kelly book. So far, their anti-Bush books haven't done well.

[POA2]

This technique results in equal sampling, not over-under sampling. Yes, I'm sure they're biased but propagandists are far more sophisticated than you may naively think and I can assure you they would not be so stupid as to call more Reps for no reason, thus creating an error outside their own MOE and making it blatantly obvious they did so to people like yourself.

Ok, the last time here - If you are suggesting I am down-playing GWB gains - That is simply being a paranoid weirdo (for lack of a better term) -

And like I said before - NewsWeeks polls speak for themselves! - They are junk polls - period. They are not used for accuracy they are used to spin news stories -

Do you believe NewsWeeks poll from several weeks ago that showed Kerry up by 8pts....and that Kerry was winning on the issue of who do Americans support on the WOT?? - (The Newsweek showed Kerry above GWB on the WOT?) -

DO you believe CBS polls? - (They are junk as well....regardless if they show GWB up at some time) -

Lastly, they aren't calling anyone to adjust - They are simply adjusting their weighting formula - (making the responses from Dem's at 31% and Responses from Rep's at 38%) -

And Lastly - If you think GWB is up by 11pts - Well, lets see if you are proven right - This up coming week both IBD and Gallup will have polls out - If they show GWB up by 10pts....so be it, I'll be glad -

But I'll bet you a dime....he's lead is closer to 5pts - (which will further prove my point that NewsWeek polls are junk) -

[rb22982]

In a derivative, you can say with certain probability that 95% of all circumstances will be within 2 deviations (+-3/4 % is the deviation). An Outlier is one of the 5%.

[Murph]

I guess we'll have to wait for Gallup to settle it.

Instead let's keep working our butts off and settle it at the ballot box. We can think of Gallup (or the 11-pt lead) as a mid-point source of encouragement, but only a fuzzy glimpse of the glorious finish line.

[POA2]

Go here for a full break-down - Which supports what I have been saying - A fellow-freeper has done excellent work!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1207803/posts

[stands2reason]

Not all poll are weighted.

[NYC Republican]

He didn't just change names... After that fiasco, his web-site received thousands of outraged e-mails- to his credit, he posted many of them... The web-site (portraitofamerica.com) closed shop soon thereafter.

[NYC Republican]

I think it's a different Scott Rasmussen... Scott's got to be in his 50s right now...

[NYC Republican]

If you adjust the Newsweek Poll to reflect the same percentages as the 2000 election (38D/35R/27I), using the raw data, Bush would be at 50%, Skerry at 43%... So, it's a 7 point gap, not an 11 point gap... Still solid, especially since most of it came before Bush's speech.

One item to note, though... If Ras is right, then a good number of people were turned off by Bush's speech... There wasn't a whole lot that was new, and Mon-Wed, we were exposed to GOP stars... It's just possible that people saw Bush again, and thought back to everything they've heard about him the past year (various 527s, Kennedy, Dem candidates) and many of those lies have stuck...

Unlikely, but possible.