How Accurate Was Rasmussen in 2008?

[houghtam]

Couldn't sleep last night. Got bored, decided to do some research.

Let's take a closer look at the performance of everyone's favorite conservative-leaning poll in some of the swing states, shall we? For reference, I just chose one of the several liberal-leaning polls who always use faulty polling methods and basically have no clue what they're doing. Let's take Quinnipiac/CBS...three polls for the states in question were unavailable from Quinnipiac/CBS.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...obama-225.html

Michigan - Ras D+10 - Actual D+16.4 - Quin D+16 Ras off by 6+, Quin awesome

Ohio - Ras Even - Actual D+4.6 - Quin D+7 Ras off by 4+, Quin off by <3

North Carolina - Ras R+1 - Actual D+0.3 - Quin UA Ras w/in MOE

Virginia - Ras D+4 - Actual D+6.3 - Quin UA Ras w/in MOE

Colorado - Ras D+4 - Actual D+9 - Quin D+9
Ras off by 5, Quin awesome
Pennsylvania - Ras D+6 - Actual D+10.3 - Quin D+10 Ras off by 4+, Quin awesome

Florida - Ras R+1 - Actual D+2.8 - Quin D+2 Ras off by 4, Quin awesome

Wisconsin - Ras D+7 - Actual D+13.9 - Quin D+17 Ras off by 7, Quin w/in MOE

Nevada - Ras D+4 - Actual D+12.5 - Quin UA Ras

Inaccurate polling methods? Sorry folks. Ras eats dixncox.

[DBruleU]

http://electoralmap.net/2012/2008_election.php

So...Rasmussen is pretty accurate, huh?

Bottom line is this. Either Rasmussen, or all his critics are gonna owe someone a big apology after election day. One of them will be right, and the other wrong. I'll look at history and say Rasmussen knows his stuff. Also, Rasmussen does more polling than anybody, and he nailed the party identification in 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2010. He's giving Obama a +3 in his polls at the moment with Romney polling better with Independents. All other polls are +7 and even some +11. To believe that, you have to believe Obama's increased his base. You're really saying that with a down economy, and a lackluster 3 1/2 years so far, Obama increased? Highly, highly doubtful. If Obama is up so bigt in all these stats, why does he spend so much time there? A state like IA for example. He's supposedly up big in that state according to some polls, yet he spends time there, in a state with 6 EV? Doesn't compute with reality.

In 2010 he predicted a huge R turnout, and the media and other polls turned on him. How did that turn out? Well, just the largest turnover since 1938.

Whether Rasmussen will be right or wrong remains to be seen. But based on past elections and his accuracy, he demands respect.

[Requiem]

"Obama is up in the polls, so why would he still spend time in those states?"

Ahahaha.

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by Requiem

"Obama is up in the polls, so why would he still spend time in those states?"

Ahahaha.

When you're supposedly as far ahead as 7 points in a small EV sate as IA, why would you?

Rep bomb me, please.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

When you're supposedly as far ahead as 7 points in a small EV sate as IA, why would you?

Every electoral vote matters.

Because it is quite possible that Obama's internal polling shows that Iowa is closer than 7 percent. 7 percent is probably a statistical outlier. Most polls I've seen for Iowa have it within the margin of error (~3%) or a little higher. Obama is going to be making the rounds through all the battle ground states over the next 40 days. Leave no stone unturned.

Obama's electoral map strategy is quite simple. If he wins Florida, Mitt needs all of OH, VA, IA, NH, NC, CO, NV and NM to win. That is pretty much all the swing states. Chance of that happening? Slim and none. It's all about electorate dynamics. The more states he can win now, the harder it will be for the Republicans to take the Electoral College in 2016.

Simply put, Obama can't get too comfortable. That is what the Democrats are most worried about -- that the Obama campaign will take the polling numbers that are showing well from other sources and be lax on the campaign trail. They don't need to tout these numbers either, because it might actually lower turn out in key states if people think he already has it in the bag.

Obama's victory over McCain was one of the biggest in the history of Presidential elections. It's wishful thinking (even with Obama's misshandling of several things while in office) to think that a weak candidate (which is what Romney is) who has ran a horrendous campaign is going to swing a ~7% national vote deficit and reclaim a majority of states that Obama won in 2008.

Mittens is in trouble.

[Paladin]

Simple. Turnout.

Open eyes. Engage brain.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Simple. Turnout.

Open eyes. Engage brain.

A month or so ago, DBruleU was going with the line that Obama was having trouble in Chicago, so nationally, he must be in trouble.

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Every electoral vote matters.

Because it is quite possible that Obama's internal polling shows that Iowa is closer than 7 percent. 7 percent is probably a statistical outlier. Most polls I've seen for Iowa have it within the margin of error (~3%) or a little higher. Obama is going to be making the rounds through all the battle ground states over the next 40 days. Leave no stone unturned.

Obama's electoral map strategy is quite simple. If he wins Florida, Mitt needs all of OH, VA, IA, NH, NC, CO, NV and NM to win. That is pretty much all the swing states. Chance of that happening? Slim and none. It's all about electorate dynamics. The more states he can win now, the harder it will be for the Republicans to take the Electoral College in 2016.

Simply put, Obama can't get too comfortable. That is what the Democrats are most worried about -- that the Obama campaign will take the polling numbers that are showing well from other sources and be lax on the campaign trail. They don't need to tout these numbers either, because it might actually lower turn out in key states if people think he already has it in the bag.

Obama's victory over McCain was one of the biggest in the history of Presidential elections. It's wishful thinking (even with Obama's misshandling of several things while in office) to think that a weak candidate (which is what Romney is) who has ran a horrendous campaign is going to swing a ~7% national vote deficit and reclaim a majority of states that Obama won in 2008.

Mittens is in trouble.

That's the entire point. We are inundated with poll after poll showing Obama up big in these states. Both campaigns know that their own polls show the race much closer.

This thread was created in order to discredit a pollster who historically has been very accurate. A pollster who is showing Romney doing much better than all the other polls show. Going by Rasmussen's poll, Romney isn't in as bad a shape as we are led to believe. Romney doesn't have to swing 7% of the vote. That 7% was not the norm, and this election will return to the norm that we are used to seeing. If that happens, and Romney wins more of the I vote, which polling shows he is, than he has a good chance swinging some of these close states.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by Requiem

A month or so ago, DBruleU was going with the line that Obama was having trouble in Chicago, so nationally, he must be in trouble.

Who was the righty saying several months ago that Obama wouldn't win the Dem nomination? Was that DBruleU as well? It was one of these ding dongs, just don't remember which one...

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Who was the righty saying several months ago that Obama wouldn't win the Dem nomination? Was that DBruleU as well? It was one of these ding dongs, just don't remember which one...

I don't remember anything of the sort. But don't let facts get in the way of a personal attack.

[barryr]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

I don't remember anything of the sort. But don't let facts get in the way of a personal attack.

This is the liberal way. They claim to want debate and discussion, but must believe personal remarks about posters is apart of "discussing." Rare to find a liberal making a thread or even a post without that kind of stuff going on, then deny they do that as they call people stupid and idiots. What the liberals around here want is a circle jerk of agreeing with each other how great Obama is doing and keep living in some fantasy world. It's only been the liberals around here who have resorted to contacting employers, threaten violence, the rep bomb nonsense, and follow posters around to different threads for the sole purpose to make personal remarks about them.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

I don't remember anything of the sort. But don't let facts get in the way of a personal attack.

Since I specifically mentioned that fact that I don't remember for sure who it was I don't know how it was "personal". I'll take your word for it that it wasn't you. But somebody made this argument multiple times in multiple threads. I will try to find an example.

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Since I specifically mentioned that fact that I don't remember for sure who it was I don't know how it was "personal". I'll take your word for it that it wasn't you. But somebody made this argument multiple times in multiple threads. I will try to find an example.

Should have tried to do that before you lumped me into that statement. "Ding Dong" makes it personal. Why can't you guys debate without acting like children on a playground?

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

Should have tried to do that before you lumped me into that statement.

I think it was UltimateHobo. Apologies.

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by TonyR

I think it was UltimateHobo. Apologies.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

That's the entire point. We are inundated with poll after poll showing Obama up big in these states. Both campaigns know that their own polls show the race much closer.

This thread was created in order to discredit a pollster who historically has been very accurate. A pollster who is showing Romney doing much better than all the other polls show. Going by Rasmussen's poll, Romney isn't in as bad a shape as we are led to believe. Romney doesn't have to swing 7% of the vote. That 7% was not the norm, and this election will return to the norm that we are used to seeing. If that happens, and Romney wins more of the I vote, which polling shows he is, than he has a good chance swinging some of these close states.

Rassmussen was right on voter turnout in 2010, but he was way off on the percentages in the races by an average of 3 to 4 points. Houghtam also illustrated how off he was in the battle ground states. His national numbers were good, as were most places. He has done a poor job analyzing states with shifting electorates. I know you guys hate Obama big time, but I don't see how you can try an attempt to discredit most polls out there who by in large, have Obama leading in almost all battleground states.

I also don't think you understand how hard the electoral map will be for Mitt if he doesn't win Florida. That means he has to get states like CO, NV, NM, NH and IA to even = the electoral count that he would not receive if Obama lost Florida. And it's still not enough.

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Rassmussen was right on voter turnout in 2010, but he was way off on the percentages in the races by an average of 3 to 4 points. Houghtam also illustrated how off he was in the battle ground states. His national numbers were good, as were most places. He has done a poor job analyzing states with shifting electorates. I know you guys hate Obama big time, but I don't see how you can try an attempt to discredit most polls out there who by in large, have Obama leading in almost all battleground states.

I also don't think you understand how hard the electoral map will be for Mitt if he doesn't win Florida. That means he has to get states like CO, NV, NM, NH and IA to even = the electoral count that he would not receive if Obama lost Florida. And it's still not enough.

I agree. He needs to win those states.

[Requiem]

He's not gonna win them all. I'd honestly be surprised if he got 2.

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by Requiem

He's not gonna win them all. I'd honestly be surprised if he got 2.

All of them? Course not...but he is close enough in FL, OH. According to Rasmussen (Remember the pollster who is historically the most accurate) he is leading in CO, NH, IA, and closing in WI, and VA.

[Requiem]

If he wins any of them it will be NH. He will not win CO, IA, WI, VA or OH. I doubt he even wins Florida. He has to run the table if he loses Florida. Not gonna happen. Mittens is toast. Like I said he would be toast during the primaries if he was the nominee. Dude is a lost cause.

[Requiem]

Nate Silver did better than Rasmussen last year.

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

That's the entire point. We are inundated with poll after poll showing Obama up big in these states. Both campaigns know that their own polls show the race much closer.

This thread was created in order to discredit a pollster who historically has been very accurate. A pollster who is showing Romney doing much better than all the other polls show. Going by Rasmussen's poll, Romney isn't in as bad a shape as we are led to believe. Romney doesn't have to swing 7% of the vote. That 7% was not the norm, and this election will return to the norm that we are used to seeing. If that happens, and Romney wins more of the I vote, which polling shows he is, than he has a good chance swinging some of these close states.

you are debating with morons and you will never win the debate for that reason they are morons..

let them keep their heads in the sand and let it be a surprise come nov..

While I applaud you for knowing what you talk about your beating your head against the wall....

I stopped trying to prove point in here months ago and frankly sleep better at night because of it..

Put the morons on Iggy let them be dumb fat and happy by themselves..

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Requiem

If he wins any of them it will be NH. He will not win CO, IA, WI, VA or OH. I doubt he even wins Florida. He has to run the table if he loses Florida. Not gonna happen. Mittens is toast. Like I said he would be toast during the primaries if he was the nominee. Dude is a lost cause.

Yep.

As Clinton noted in his DNC speech, right-wingers have trouble with simple arithmetic.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by lonestar

you are debating with morons and you will never win the debate for that reason they are morons..

let them keep their heads in the sand and let it be a surprise come nov..

While I applaud you for knowing what you talk about your beating your head against the wall....

I stopped trying to prove point in here months ago and frankly sleep better at night because of it..

Put the morons on Iggy let them be dumb fat and happy by themselves..

Here in the real world, a "moron" is someone who stumbles into a thread and declares victory when he has clearly lost the debate.

[Jetland]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Here in the real world, a "moron" is someone who stumbles into a thread and declares victory when he has clearly lost the debate.

since he claims he has put all who disagree with him on ignore I wonder what this board looks like to him...must just be Repubs and people who hate Shannahan