Why is this guy still in business?
Sheriff Joe Arpaio's volunteer investigation into documents pertaining to President Barack Obama's place of birth and citizenship now includes the services of a taxpayer-funded ...
The lies roll off the man's lips like music off Yo-Yo Ma's cello. Both are virtuosos - one a cellist, the other a liar.
A partial list.
Bush had nothing to do ...
Happy Friday.
The best from Political Humor‘s collection of the week’s late night political humor.
"Barack Obama supports same-sex marriage. Mitt Romney doesn't even support same-sex car pools." –David Letterman
"The head of ...
Republican Rep. Mike Coffman at a Saturday afternoon fundraiser in Colorado.
I don't know whether Barack Obama was born in the United States of America. I don't know that. But I ...
Rand Paul:
Call me cynical, but I didn’t think his [Obama's] views on marriage could get any gayer.
We won't call Rand cynical. Ignorant, bigoted asshole is more fitting. An adult using ...
Happy Friday.
The best from Political Humor‘s collection of the week’s late night political humor.
"President Obama came out with approval of same-sex marriage. He said that over the years, he has ...
I've never understood Log Cabin Republicans - gay conservatives who give their support to a homophobic political party that derides their sexuality and refuses to grant them equal rights under ...
Finally.
“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own ...
Election roundup:
Indiana.
As polls forecast, the Tea Party's efforts to cleanse the GOP of any impure conservatives has Dick Lugar out and teabagger Richard Mourdock in. Mourdock is the new Republican ...
There are lies...and then there are lies.
My own view, by the way, was that the auto companies needed to go through bankruptcy before government help. And frankly, that’s finally what ...
From the papers captured last year at Osama bin Laden's Pakistani hideout comes this.
Like any public figures, bin Laden and his advisers were mindful of the media. Adam Gadahn, one ...
The best from Political Humor‘s collection of the week’s late night political humor. Happy Friday.
"Today Mitt Romney visited a firehouse here in New York City. Of course, he was disappointed ...
It happened to Kerry. Can it happen to Obama? Nope says Margaret Carlson.
Obama’s belief system -- in that hopey-changey business and the post-partisanship thing -- has been altered by reality. ...
Sullivan:
What do Republicans call a gay man with neoconservative passion, a committed relationship and personal courage?
A faggot.
Exactly right, but then could one expect anything different from a political party that ...
And they claim that atheists are immoral?
The ugly side of religion shows its face once again. The words below were spoken at a Sunday sermon by Sean Harris, a pastor ...
It's been fun watching conservatives and Romney twist themselves into pretzels trying to undo Mitt's past words on GM and bin Laden.
Romney, April 2007:
It’s not worth moving heaven and earth ...
In an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, a couple of scholars from liberal and conservative think tanks, discuss the state of American politics.
We have been studying Washington politics and ...
Romney's VP-in-waiting, Marco Rubio, is perfecting the conservative sleaze play.
He has proposed his version of the Dream Act in which people who entered the country illegally as children will be ...
Beyond the rhetoric, the political BS, the lies - that is, the concerted effort by the right-wing noise machine to distort and misinform at every opportunity - is the very ...
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).