Rasmussen SUNDAY Poll

Rasmussen Reports ^

[Turk82_1]

Sunday September 05, 2004--The Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll shows President George W. Bush with 48% of the vote and Senator John Kerry with 46%. The Tracking Poll is updated daily by noon Eastern. Two-thirds of the interview for today's report were completed after the President's speech on Thursday night.

Over the past nine days, Bush has been ahead eight times and the candidates have been tied once. Senator Kerry has not been ahead in the Tracking Poll since August 23.

[Illinois Rep]

Nope...Same Rasmussen

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/scott_w_rasmussen.htm

[NYC Republican]

So... that explains how he's funded for these polls... He's filthy rich! Thanks

[Illinois Rep]

Gotta hand it to him...funding ESPN with a cash advance on a credit card...pretty damn impressive.

Anyway...

I don't agree people were turned off by Bush's speech. In fact only 2/3 of the nights were after Bush's speech. The other 1/3 was Zell Miller's night where I think the party had it's worse night of the convention but not bad. It could have turned off some independent voters.

The fundamental question in this election comes down to one simple question--

Do you believe the war on terror is a real war, with serious consequences and one America needs to win regardless of cost, effort etc...OR

Do you believe the war on terror has been exaggerated...and should be fought using intelligence and take the terrorists to court etc...

The first group are the Bush voters and will vote Bush regardless of any other issue they may disagree with Bush on.

The second group are the Kerry voters and will vote Kerry regardless of their impression of Kerry or where they "think" he stands on the issues.

I think 54% (or more) of the voters are in the first group and 46% (or less) of the voters are in the second group. And it will also reflect in the electoral college/

[palofgeorge]

Rasmussen asks 5% more dems in all his polling.He states this on his web site.Its some sort of complicated system that is supposed to correct mistakes from 2000????

[Illinois Rep]

And this is really stupid reasoning on his part. For all he knows the Christian Right sat home in 2000 and won't this time.

Polling should be a random sample of the population as a whole. The random part loses integrity when you start "weighting" the survey sample. Basically Rasmussen thinks 5% more dems will show up at the polls. That's a pretty wild assumption. This becomes a "prediction" on his part and not a representative sample of the voters.

[MrChips]

Rasmussen weights his samples using a 39% Dem 35% Rep 26% Ind breakdown.

Isn't that a little arbitrary if used as a blanket nationally? I mean, different regions, and states, have different weights. Calling as many Republicans in New York as in Texas is a bit foolish.

[Ed_in_LA]

The 39% Dem 35% Rep 26% breakdown is for his national polls. I assume Rasmussen uses different party weightings for his state polls.

[MrChips]

I know! What I am sayingg is that a national poll seems rather meaningless if it isn't weighted by state.

[POA2]

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.

Agree - GWB looks to be up around 5 to 7 pts -

And I can't agree with the notion that people were turned off by the GWB speech - He was wonderful...and the more people see GWB.....the more they like him - (happens everytime he puts himself in front of the public) -

[ableChair]

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) -

I would agree if it weren't for the fact that liberal techniques weren't so weird and underhanded. That's what they do. They get on conservative forums all the time and do stuff like that. I've seen it too many times to discount it. As for the poll results, I'm not debating which way the polls are going to go I'm merely pointing out that with those three polls we don't have enough information yet to reach a conclusion. All I'm saying is that Newsweek, right or wrong, has a reason for calling more Reps than Dems, they didn't just decide to do that for the heck of it. If newsweek were trying to bias their poll in favor of Reps, they wouldn't have done it in such an obvious way. My point has been, and still is, if you're NOT trying to downplay GWB gains then WAIT for more information before erroneously micro-analyzing polls as you have done.

[ableChair]

Agree - GWB looks to be up around 5 to 7 pts -

Paranoid? There you go again. Repeating that sophistry. You have NO basis for that claim. You've already been soundly debunked but you think that if you repeat a lie enough people will believe it. Please STOP repeating those lies. There is simply no basis for that claim. WAIT for more polling data - in particular Gallups results.

[Rokke]

"If Ras is right, then a good number of people were turned off by Bush's speech... "

That would have been reflected in the numbers on Saturday as well. It wasn't. In fact, Friday's numbers show a significant gain for Bush.

[POA2]

Agree - GWB looks to be up around 5 to 7 pts

Paranoid? There you go again. Repeating that sophistry. You have NO basis for that claim. You've already been soundly debunked but you think that if you repeat a lie enough people will believe it. Please STOP repeating those lies. There is simply no basis for that claim. WAIT for more polling data - in particular Gallups results.

Debunked? - You live in a strange world - I have sent you to a number of theards now the 100% SUPPORT what I am saying it is you that has been debunked - You are making a fool of yourself - enough with you - (all freepers can read and judge for themselves.....and are...trust me...too funny) -

There is more then enough evidence to suggest that coming out of our convention GWB has a lead between 5 to 7pts - (however, there is little evidence to support the notion that GWB has a 11pt lead......it is that simple) - Facts matter -

[POA2]

For the last time....go here and read a full analysis of the subject - Stop ranting - and remember the words of Thomas Sowell - "nothing is more complex then avoiding the obvious" -

ANd it is clear you like to avoid "facts" and thus the obvious -

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

[ableChair]

For the last time....go here and read a full analysis of the subject - Stop ranting - and remember the words of Thomas Sowell - "nothing is more complex then avoiding the obvious" -

Obviously this won't be the "last time", since it is you that keeps posting replies in which you rant endlessly over already debunked subjects that you still refuse or are unable to challnege. The entire basis for your claim rests on the idea that calling more Reps than Dems automatically constitutes 'over-sampling' when my contention is that normalization can, depending on the circumstances, require it. You may find that humorous but it's just a fact. You and your ilk (a few notable posters at FR) curiously show up repeatedly on various conservative debates making specious arguments that attempt to minimize conservative positions on topics. Every time anything positive about GWB comes out you are the first to jump on it and claim that it's really not all that positive, just an illusion, nothing to see more, move on. That's not rant, just fact. As you say, I'll let the reader judge that themselves. It's obvious. Unless and until you can satisfactorily explain why normalization is an invalid mathematical technique for polling, it is you that is ranting. Repeating lies over and over doesn't make them true. I think it's high time that the moderators killed your account.

[POA2]

You are too funny - Go here - About every freeper agrees with me and NOT YOU - in fact I have not found one that agrees in any of their posts with what you are saying -

This link is where a whole discussion is going on about our given discussion and you are clearly WRONG -

And for the Record just so everyone doesn't have to read this whole thread ...(ablechair thinks the NewsWeek poll is accurate....and that if you suggest with simple intellect that Newsweek polls are junk...and that their sampling methods are a joke.....he thinks you are simply anti-GWB and should be banned.....Too funny.....How with your lack of reasoning are you even a Republican???) -

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

[POA2]

Every time anything positive about GWB comes out you are the first to jump on it and claim that it's really not all that positive, just an illusion, nothing to see more, move on. That's not rant, just fact.

And for the record - I have posted more positive comments about GWB on the freep then you ever have - I admire the hell out of GWB - For you to suggest otherwise shows exactly where you come from - A fact-less world -

Now it does take a little intellect to be able to decipher between not agreeing with how the reelection phase is being run....and still supporting and admiring GWB - Perhaps that is a little beyond your capabilities?? - Considering your inability to understand that NewsWeek polls are NOT meant for accuracy but are meant for News Stories....that wouldn't surprise me.

[ableChair]

Alas, the ranting continues. Somehow I knew you would reply without responding to the central argument. I just made some phone calls, got the run-around, but finally got in touch with the statisticians that actually worked on the polls. Surprise, they use normalization. In other words, simply looking at the number of people called tells you nothing, by itself. That you are wrong can't be more obvious. Calling people silly, fools and what-not won't change that. Nor will your empty responses.

[POA2]

I just made some phone calls, got the run-around, but finally got in touch with the statisticians that actually worked on the polls.

Come on Mod's - this has got to win an award!! - That is too F'ing funny -

Funny as it is - facts are you are still wrong - Newsweek polls are junk - They simply adjusted their weightings to get their latest results -

You can ignore the link which I provided in my last post which will take you to where the Newsweek poll has been discredited by fellow-freepers -

And you keep thinking it is "how many they called" - They weighted it for a turn-out model that isn't close to any REAL turnout model....What don't you get about that??

[ableChair]

Oh yea, by the way, now you imply that I'm stupid and don't understand anything. Who's ranting here? Address the facts.