Althouse: "Attacking the pollsters is seldom a good sign."

January 3, 2010

"Attacking the pollsters is seldom a good sign."

Yes, but the outrage:

Bad, bad Rasmussen!

24 comments:

lonetown said...: Looks like Rasmussen does not know how to hide the decline!; 1/3/10, 6:19 AM
Humperdink said...: The Dems new game plan ....."skewer the messenger".

Apparently "Bush did it" is no longer fashionable or the statute of limitations ran out.; 1/3/10, 6:22 AM
The Scythian said...: Whenever there's political nerd rage about biased polling it usually means that the polling is right on target.

Damn.

Here's a song to cheer up the disillusioned! (And here's the original, for the purists.); 1/3/10, 6:29 AM
Unknown said...: Rasmussen polls only likely voters and his distribution is less weighted toward Demos. The Gray Lady's, "How dast thou?", is, of course, to be expected.; 1/3/10, 7:12 AM
Unknown said...: Meant to say DNC in that comment.; 1/3/10, 7:14 AM
rhhardin said...: opponents on the left insist he is the hand that feeds conservative talkers a daily trove of negative numbers that provides grist for attacks on Obama and the Democratic Party.

The left thinks in cliches.

“He polls less favorably for Democrats, and that’s why he’s become a lightning rod,” said Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political scientist who studies polling.

Cliches rule.; 1/3/10, 7:17 AM
traditionalguy said...: Just wait until the Democtats offer a Ben Nelson/Mary Landreau deal to all poll responders for their votes...Oh yeah, that is their new Health Care Reform deal in action.; 1/3/10, 7:49 AM
Der Hahn said...: The Instant-man also has another of those oddly unflattering photos of Obama from the White House Flickr page.

Begging to be deconstructed. Just sayin'. :); 1/3/10, 8:12 AM
Wince said...: another of those oddly unflattering photos of Obama from the White House Flickr page.

So that's what is meant by the idiom "looking down your nose" at someone.; 1/3/10, 8:51 AM
Ritmo Re-Animated said...: More bullshit. Apparently the Insta-Ally never heard the part where Rasmussen consistently messes up that whole "randomization" thing by including more right wing voters and skewing every other poll in the composites to the right.; 1/3/10, 9:11 AM
KCFleming said...: Well, if it's actually bullshit, Ritmo, why do you care?; 1/3/10, 9:33 AM
Roger J. said...: As I recall, Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster for the 2008 election--but polls are like assholes, everyone has them--basic question at least to me is are the polls surveying likely voters or all people. Might want to google most accurate pollster in 2008 to find the results of a pol sci prof from NYU--; 1/3/10, 9:38 AM
Fred4Pres said...: Sullivan has been attacking Rassmussen for a while. But time and time again Rassmussen turns out to be fairly on the money, within a few points.

So this is shooting the messenger.; 1/3/10, 9:57 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Rasmussen polls only likely voters and his distribution is less weighted toward Demos. The Gray Lady's, "How dast thou?", is, of course, to be expected.

Rassmusen is producing polls that are accurate in the ultimate outcome. By polling people who are likely to vote and who actually DO vote, the results are much less like the fantasy polls that the NY Times would like to see.

Mirror mirror on the wall and all that. They want to look into a lying mirror/poll to see a reflection of this current administration that is not accurate. A reflection that goes along with their own personal biases. That would be...."Damn, we sure look good."

But...hey....if they want to wallow in their own delusions and be surprised in November and (hopefully) 2012, so be it.; 1/3/10, 11:06 AM
jaed said...: [from the second link] “How is Rasmussen selecting likely voters almost a year before the election? And why would you even screen for likely voters in measuring presidential approval?” said Abramowitz.

It fascinates me that a political scientist doesn't know - or is pretending not to know - how you screen for a "likely voters" sample. I mean, I know that, at least in general outline: you ask whether the person is registered, whether they plan to vote in the next Congressional election, whether they voted in the last off-year election, perhaps whether they vote in local-only elections, and similar questions.

And you screen for likely voters if you're interested in political consequences of presidential approval. "How do the voters feel about the president's policies?" is a very relevant question for a politician facing those selfsame voters who's deciding where to position himself, and this politician is not likely to care how non-voters feel.; 1/3/10, 11:24 AM
Chris Arabia said...: Roger J. is correct -- Rasmussen was the MOST accurate in predicting Obama's win in 2008. He predicted 52-46 and the result was 53-46.

See though? He shortchanged Obama by 1%! He's obviously a right-wing hack regardless of his accuracy.

Problem resolved, thank you.

Obama will bottom out in the 37-39 range when inflation hits. He will be at 42-44 ahead of the 2012 election, and will lose 52-47 unless the GOP pulls a McGovern (which is possible).; 1/3/10, 12:25 PM
Chris Arabia said...: However, I think the most accurate "poll" was the one in NJ in early November. An incumbent governor in one of the blewest states lost to a GOP fat guy.; 1/3/10, 12:27 PM
Jon said...: Sullivan has a recurring feature on his site, bizarrely entitled "Reality Check", in which he displays an altered version of the pollster.com Obama job approval chart, which has had Rasmussen removed from the average. It's hard to find a better example of liberal cocooning.; 1/3/10, 12:52 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: I do wonder why the NYT, etc. think that President Obama's popularity, or the popularity of his party, should be higher than Rasmussen is showing in his polling.

We live in a center-right country, and the Democrats have done pretty much everything wrong over the last year if their desire were to attract a majority of voters in the next election. They are spending money at a level that no one could even dream of 14 months ago. The deficit is exploding. The money is being used to pay off political allies. The U.S. is becoming the laughing stock of the world, due to Obama's and Hillary's foreign policy. And most lately, their running of TSA, etc. has been shown to be a joke. Plus, the passage, so far, of ObamaCare, giving control of the best health care system in the world to the government to be run like the DMV.

The Democrats and Congress are polling worse than President Obama, but for how long? He promised transparency, and we are getting votes on 2,000 page bills nationalizing 1/6 of the economy that haven't been printed out yet. And what is becoming apparently the most corrupt Administration of the last at least half century. The promise of no lobbyists? Or no taxes on the middle class? Similarly laughed out of existence by the Administration.

The issue really isn't why the American people don't trust the Democrats or the Administration after this last year, but rather, why the NYT thinks that they should.; 1/3/10, 3:44 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Uh oh, adding insult to injury, In December, the number of Americans identifying themselves as Democrats fell to the lowest level recorded in more than seven years of monthly tracking by Rasmussen Reports.; 1/3/10, 4:14 PM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: I guess a B+ just doesn't go as far as it used to. People must be grading on a different curve.; 1/3/10, 4:25 PM
Big Mike said...: The only polls that count will happen in early November in 2010 and 2012.

That said, I was startled at the various holiday parties I attended how very angry people were. These are people who are not overtly political the way I am. What's strange -- or perhaps not so strange -- is that this sentiment is anti-incumbent with a special level of disgust pointed at Democrats, but not any great love for Republicans. I suspect Frank Wolf is okay, and Jim Moron's Gerrymandered district (yes, I know how his name is spelled, but I think back in his boxing days he took a few too many blows to the head) is so incandescently blue he is still probably safe. But if I was Gerald Connolly I'd start looking for a new line of work.; 1/3/10, 5:41 PM
Chase said...: The U.S. is becoming the laughing stock of the world, due to Obama's and Hillary's foreign policy. And most lately, their running of TSA, etc. has been shown to be a joke.

Unlike the Democrats, I would prefer to be respected and hated rather then loved and disrespected, which is where America is today.

The third option is not possible anymore: Loved and Respected. Instead the rest of the world truly sees America today as it did when Jimmy Carter was President.

But there are are always those who want the Democrat Pussy Policy: they don't love us, boo hoo hoo.

With 56% of Americans now saying that the Iraq war was a success, where are the commenters that used to cry about it?; 1/3/10, 6:52 PM
Triangle Man said...: Hello, I am from the future. It turns out that Rasmussen polls in 2010 are, in fact, biased and wrong.; 11/5/10, 1:10 PM