The Republican presidential race appears to have shifted from debating the economy to discussing social issues - same-sex marriage, abortion and, amazingly enough, birth control. The year is 2012 and ...
Mitt Romney believes that his best line of attack is making the claim that he has not spent a moment as a D.C. politician while his two main opponents, Newt ...
No two ways about it, Rick Santorum had a good night. Not only did he sweep Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri but he also got off the best line of the ...
Few would argue the fact that Citizens United has been a major player in the Republican primary...and many if not most would concede that none of it has been healthy ...
As if you needed another reason to not vote Romney.
Celebrity business magnate Donald Trump endorsed Mitt Romney for president Thursday, telling reporters he will not mount an independent campaign if ...
In a perfect world, the Republican contest to find a nominee to face Barack Obama would go on forever...or at least until August. You cannot attach a number to the ...
I suspect there are a ton of conservatives secretly agreeing with Begala and while it's too early in the game for Dems to get cocky, it's difficult to not smile ...
Quotes don't get much better than this one by Bob Dole.
"Why do people take such an instant dislike to me?" asked a perplexed Gingrich, to whom Dole bluntly ...
After the beating Gingrich took last night, it's hard to imagine under what scenario he can make a comeback. Florida is going to Romney and for Gingrich to regain the ...
There's a lot out there on the President's SOTU, so I'll keep my thoughts short and sweet.
The speech did what it had to do which was target liberals and independents ...
The highlights from last night's debate.
- Newt Gingrich can't wait to become president so he can revisit the early 60s and overthrow Castro in Cuba. War, baby, war.
- Santorum, who ...
It appears that the South Carolina verdict is forcing Romney to start taking Gingrich seriously.
“We’re not choosing a talk show host, we’re choosing a leader,” Romney said, saying that their ...
Mike Huckabee offers advice to Mitt Romney concerning his unreleased tax returns.
Let him [Romney] make this challenge: "I'll release my tax returns when Barack Obama releases his college transcripts and ...
Via Political Humor...
"Mitt Romney is coming under fire because even though he is a multimillionaire, he only paid 15 percent in taxes. That's not a tax, that's barely a tip." ...
Good line.
My guess is that after Romney fails to beat Obama in the general, Huntsman will be back in 2016. The most electable guy in the field and he could ...
I found this pretty funny...and accurate. It comes from a reader over at Balloon Juice.
So, let’s review. The contenders for the GOP nomination are
A vulture capitalist who believes that any ...
Lively little debate going on at one of last week's posts with Libertarianism put under the microscope.
ocLiberal:
I know I am in sketchy territory here, (start the indignant shouting now) but ...
In the contest to determine the winner of the Far-Right Politics gold medal, rack up a few more points for Newt Gingrich.
“I think an intelligent conservative wants the right federal ...
Via Political Humor...
"Congratulations to Mitt Romney. He won the New Hampshire primary last night. See, this is proof that even the multimillionaire son of a multimillionaire can beat the odds ...
Rasmussen (the “Republican polling outfit” as Andrew Sullivan refers to them), put out another of their twisted polls which allowed them to make the following claim:
“Sixty percent (60%) of voters nationwide favor repeal of the recently passed health care law, including 49% who Strongly Favor repeal.”
In fact, this is what the poll of polls looks like when all polls by the key polling firms (including Rasmussen) are combined.
.
.
Of course your typical poorly misinformed conservative joe will only hear about the Rasmussen poll and have no idea that it is the work of a fraudulent conservative stooge. He’ll walk around thinking he’s got the lowdown on public sentiment regarding the health care plan. He’ll tell his coworkers, family and friends while others will spend time on the blogs spewing out their nonsense. They’ll get positive reinforcement from Fox, Republican politicians and all the regular suspects who will repeat the lie and within no time, the lie will be fact within conservative circles.
As unscrupulous as it all is, it works for them.
___ .
To receive new posts directly on your Facebook page, become a member of MarioPiperniDotCom’s page. Click here .
I have a (partially) contradictory note on Rasmussen here. They are a pretty good outfit, with a slip in predictive power over the last few cycles do largely because of their polling filter. They poll “likely voters”, a category that does not generally include the demos (largely young voters and minorities) that propelled the Democrats in 2006 and 2008.
This is not do to the bias (and yes, Scott Rasmussen is a Republican), but rather a past historical fact. The critical element for progressive politicians and voters to consider this cycle, is that a lack of turnout among those voters that drove the Obama victory in 2008, will mean that Rasmussen’s polls will be dead accurate.
The firm does manipulate question order, and refused to poll below the top-line on health care reform (you never saw them poll the public option separate from overall health care reform approval). but there methods are beyond reproach. How their data is manipulated by GOP operatives is critical. Nate Silver at http://www.fivethirtyeight.com has done pollster ratings (about one month ago), and is as good as it gets at getting to the bottom of and explaining the art and science of polling.
I understand what you are saying Michael.. but I don’t agree.
This is Rasmussen’s game – during elections.. do polls that can be tracked and shown to be accurate.
During the off season – use polls to manipulate public sentiment… afterall, a poll on health care is difficult to determine to be fraudulent or inflated towards one side or the other – because there’s no ‘election’ afterward to compare the poll to.
They are the FOX of polling. In the election season they make themselves as accurate as possible to give themselves credibility, then in the off season they manipulate the polling to influence opinion and claim they are the most accurate pollster because they were so dead on during the elections.
I kind of repeated myself there – but just trying to get the point home. I don’t buy the ‘likely voter’ influence you speak of at all.. their polls are always off in the area of 5-10% towards the GOP – and they stand alone.. in stark contrast to every single other poll that exists. They are frauds – manipulators – and that is all.
Dave, the “likely voter” influence isn’t something one “buys”, it is the polling model the firm uses. Let’s try and avoid going “Fox” and impeaching facts because we don’t like them. Fox News and the Republicans don’t need Rasmussen for opinion manipulation, they have their own firms for that…reference these pollster ratings http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/pollster-ratings-v40-results.html.
As I referenced in my comment, Rasmussen’s question order and choice of questions are manipulated; you will find the same manipulation in Democratic-leaning pollsters. To believe different is to be naive. It is the media reports that we should focus on; the ones who don’t pay attention to or report the full polls (the liberal media) that are the concern, see http://therationalmiddle.com/2010/07/02/poll-position/
If progressives push turnout by sticking to the facts, then all of this will go back to being academic.
Michael, how do you account (as Dave points out) that Rasmussen is continually way off the mark in just about every poll in comparison to other polling firms? Is it coincidence that every Rasmussen poll leans toward Republicans?
Michael, while you do make a relevant point, Nate did write the following about Rasmussen.
”they have a knack for issuing polls at times which tend to dovetail with conservative media narratives”
and…
“I’m not saying that Rasmussen’s question wording is always biased. It isn’t. And I’m sure you could find a couple of cases where the wording tend to portray the liberal argument more favorably. But cases like these happen consistently enough with Rasmussen that I’d say it’s a concern. And when they do use unorthodox question wording, nine times out of ten it favors the conservative argument.”
My point, as I hoped it would be read, was that Rasmussen has not been fraudulent in the mode of Fox News. The preponderance of data refutes that notion. I acknowledged bias as a factor in question order and composition, but pointed out that such bias exists in the other direction (as a rule rather than an exception).
Mario, I agree that their pattern since 2008 is concerning, and I would say that their wording, when bias is present, ALWAYS favors the conservative angle. But it is difficult to base a logical argument on the difference between Rasmussen and other pollsters this cycle, because there has been no substantive test this cycle.
The Pennsylvania special is a great example, as it was the turnout (to participate in a contested Democratic Senate primary) that swung the balance in the race for Murtha’s seat. But, as I said in my first sentence, my contradiction was only a partial one.
For the record, and so there is no confusion, I concede Mario and Dave’s points relative to Rasmussen’s bias in the current cycle, and the real concern that attaches to that bias in action. My greater concern, however, (and please forgive the promotion Mario) is the lack of mainstream media coverage of the full result of polling. I linked to an article on my site for the full description of my argument, but suffice it to say that Rasmussen’s bias would mean little if news organizations that choose to cover polls would do so in a thorough manner.
Benny, in answer to your fair question, I linked to several articles by Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com that explain pollster tendencies in general and Rasmussen in particular. In general, polling in an inexact science, and is ALWAYS rooted in the subjective workings of the pollsters mind.
I would recommend 538 as a site to follow with regularity (after you have read Mario’s posts, of course).
I have a (partially) contradictory note on Rasmussen here. They are a pretty good outfit, with a slip in predictive power over the last few cycles do largely because of their polling filter. They poll “likely voters”, a category that does not generally include the demos (largely young voters and minorities) that propelled the Democrats in 2006 and 2008.
This is not do to the bias (and yes, Scott Rasmussen is a Republican), but rather a past historical fact. The critical element for progressive politicians and voters to consider this cycle, is that a lack of turnout among those voters that drove the Obama victory in 2008, will mean that Rasmussen’s polls will be dead accurate.
The firm does manipulate question order, and refused to poll below the top-line on health care reform (you never saw them poll the public option separate from overall health care reform approval). but there methods are beyond reproach. How their data is manipulated by GOP operatives is critical. Nate Silver at http://www.fivethirtyeight.com has done pollster ratings (about one month ago), and is as good as it gets at getting to the bottom of and explaining the art and science of polling.
I understand what you are saying Michael.. but I don’t agree.
This is Rasmussen’s game – during elections.. do polls that can be tracked and shown to be accurate.
During the off season – use polls to manipulate public sentiment… afterall, a poll on health care is difficult to determine to be fraudulent or inflated towards one side or the other – because there’s no ‘election’ afterward to compare the poll to.
They are the FOX of polling. In the election season they make themselves as accurate as possible to give themselves credibility, then in the off season they manipulate the polling to influence opinion and claim they are the most accurate pollster because they were so dead on during the elections.
I kind of repeated myself there – but just trying to get the point home. I don’t buy the ‘likely voter’ influence you speak of at all.. their polls are always off in the area of 5-10% towards the GOP – and they stand alone.. in stark contrast to every single other poll that exists. They are frauds – manipulators – and that is all.
Dave, the “likely voter” influence isn’t something one “buys”, it is the polling model the firm uses. Let’s try and avoid going “Fox” and impeaching facts because we don’t like them. Fox News and the Republicans don’t need Rasmussen for opinion manipulation, they have their own firms for that…reference these pollster ratings http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/pollster-ratings-v40-results.html.
I know that Kos seems to believe that Rasmussen is manipulating the polls, and he cites Nate Silver in his article http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/4/20/858729/-Likely-voter-screen-doesnt-explain-Rasmussen-house-effect?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos%29; but Silver himself does not reach the conclusion that Rasmussen is fraudulent http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/use-of-likely-voter-model-does-not.html, and he has been fearless, immediate, and crisp in calling out bad polling.
As I referenced in my comment, Rasmussen’s question order and choice of questions are manipulated; you will find the same manipulation in Democratic-leaning pollsters. To believe different is to be naive. It is the media reports that we should focus on; the ones who don’t pay attention to or report the full polls (the liberal media) that are the concern, see http://therationalmiddle.com/2010/07/02/poll-position/
If progressives push turnout by sticking to the facts, then all of this will go back to being academic.
Michael, how do you account (as Dave points out) that Rasmussen is continually way off the mark in just about every poll in comparison to other polling firms? Is it coincidence that every Rasmussen poll leans toward Republicans?
Michael, while you do make a relevant point, Nate did write the following about Rasmussen.
”they have a knack for issuing polls at times which tend to dovetail with conservative media narratives”
and…
“I’m not saying that Rasmussen’s question wording is always biased. It isn’t. And I’m sure you could find a couple of cases where the wording tend to portray the liberal argument more favorably. But cases like these happen consistently enough with Rasmussen that I’d say it’s a concern. And when they do use unorthodox question wording, nine times out of ten it favors the conservative argument.”
Mostly I would say UNLCE!! LOL
My point, as I hoped it would be read, was that Rasmussen has not been fraudulent in the mode of Fox News. The preponderance of data refutes that notion. I acknowledged bias as a factor in question order and composition, but pointed out that such bias exists in the other direction (as a rule rather than an exception).
Mario, I agree that their pattern since 2008 is concerning, and I would say that their wording, when bias is present, ALWAYS favors the conservative angle. But it is difficult to base a logical argument on the difference between Rasmussen and other pollsters this cycle, because there has been no substantive test this cycle.
The Pennsylvania special is a great example, as it was the turnout (to participate in a contested Democratic Senate primary) that swung the balance in the race for Murtha’s seat. But, as I said in my first sentence, my contradiction was only a partial one.
For the record, and so there is no confusion, I concede Mario and Dave’s points relative to Rasmussen’s bias in the current cycle, and the real concern that attaches to that bias in action. My greater concern, however, (and please forgive the promotion Mario) is the lack of mainstream media coverage of the full result of polling. I linked to an article on my site for the full description of my argument, but suffice it to say that Rasmussen’s bias would mean little if news organizations that choose to cover polls would do so in a thorough manner.
Benny, in answer to your fair question, I linked to several articles by Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com that explain pollster tendencies in general and Rasmussen in particular. In general, polling in an inexact science, and is ALWAYS rooted in the subjective workings of the pollsters mind.
I would recommend 538 as a site to follow with regularity (after you have read Mario’s posts, of course).