Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rasmussen Polls vs. 2006: Final Senate Results
Rasmussen Reports ^ | 11/10/06 | Rasmussen Reports

Posted on 11/11/2006 8:24:50 AM PST by NYC Republican

Take a look at Ras' homepage... Look at the closest races, or if you prefer, all of the races they polled. Pretty darned accurate. http://rasmussenreports.com/


TOPICS: Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: final2006polls
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-104 next last
To: Yardstick

I learned one lesson from this and that is don't believe internals you get from some folks because they were painting too rosy a picture.

We had no message and were too laid back with getting out there with telling the American people when there was good news. Our leaders in D.C. sat back until it was too late to make a difference while the Democrats got conservative Dems (?) still not convinced they are that conservative and got the independent vote.

Also in close races, Acord may have come into play as they registered people from cemetaries and then cast absentee ballots for those dead people. Last count it was over 300,000 ballots they submitted that were suspect.

That is also a Republican problem of our Congress for not demanding along with the President that voter registration laws be changed to require proof of citizenship to vote and ID to vote in federal elections. They cannot tell a state what to do except when it is a federal election.

But the main reason we got beat is that our candidates had no clear message and grew government, the budget, and didn't pass a comprehensive immigration bill. We didn't give voters in close races a reason to vote Republican IMHO. We played prevent defense instead of offense and got burned just like they do in football games.

My two cents!


81 posted on 11/11/2006 1:05:32 PM PST by PhiKapMom ( Go Sooners! Thanks Aggies for your 12th Man!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Oh no, I got that. Thanks


82 posted on 11/11/2006 1:11:27 PM PST by NYC Republican (Dems' Worst Nightmare- - - An Informed Voter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican

the puzzle is why Rove acted like he had "68 polls" that disagreed with the "public polls" and then had no apparent strategy to cope with the shots below the water line ,like Foley.


83 posted on 11/11/2006 1:34:54 PM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yardstick

the most recent extensive experience prior to 11/7/06 was the '04 exit polling which was skewed, distorted and politicized. Skepticism was warranted.


84 posted on 11/11/2006 2:22:54 PM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Koblenz
First, in many cases when a Black is running against a white candidate, many people will lie about supporting the black candidate.

the Corker- Ford results (see post #9) vs the poll numbers say you're wrong, but I've heard many lefties make this point while making a case for crypto-racism.It's one of those lies everybody believes.

85 posted on 11/11/2006 2:35:47 PM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3

The GOP should have known something like that would come up, but didn't respond. What a disgrace


86 posted on 11/11/2006 2:42:46 PM PST by NYC Republican (Dems' Worst Nightmare- - - An Informed Voter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican

I don't think it's a case of take it or leave it. Each poll has to be examined carefully. The exit polls, for example, on election day oversampled Dems by 7 percent. That's why Fox News quit using them to declare races and started followin the tabulated returns. And don't forget the claims of gains of 40 and 50 seats the House by some very prominent pollsters. It was nowhere near there. And the Senate shifted on the vapors of a handful of votes.


87 posted on 11/11/2006 2:48:28 PM PST by WashingtonSource
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican

I wonder whether the Haggard thing had more effect than anyone could imagine in blunting the R recovery that Pew, et al, had picked up.


88 posted on 11/11/2006 2:56:03 PM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

{The GOP GOTV acually delivered extra votes to the rats}

How?!


89 posted on 11/11/2006 2:57:23 PM PST by Kuksool (I learned more about political science on FR than in college)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool

secret ballot


90 posted on 11/11/2006 3:00:25 PM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3

By itself, nope, but coupled with Foley, Abramson, etc, surely


91 posted on 11/11/2006 3:03:23 PM PST by NYC Republican (Dems' Worst Nightmare- - - An Informed Voter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: WashingtonSource

That's what so many otherwise-intelligent fellow FReepers fail to understand... Even if the pollsters over-sample Dems by 7%, that ONLY results in an additional 2% for their side!!! Not 7%...


92 posted on 11/11/2006 3:05:27 PM PST by NYC Republican (Dems' Worst Nightmare- - - An Informed Voter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool

How?

Not all of the voters contacted by the GOP GOTV efforts actually ended up voting for the GOP.


93 posted on 11/11/2006 3:34:12 PM PST by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican
You're absolutely right, and I said so on my "Losers and Winners." The pollsters were big, big winners. So until they show me they are off, I, like you, have to ditch the LS rule.

But we today have some final turnout numbers, and the numbers showed that unlike 2002 and 2004, the Dems turned out in higher percentages, and that in some states (including OH) our turnout was a little down.

That suggests that Rs, rather than voting for Ds, stayed home a little, and extra Ds came out over 2002. Given that, my model for predicting turnout, hence, poll error, was correct as far as it went. No one---certainly not pollsters---can anticipate "extra" turnout. Anyway, we were tracking turnout at 1:00 and it was really good, leading us to think that it would be a re-play of 2004. But all our people who were going to vote, voted early. So after 1:00, we got just 20% more of our voters, whereas in 2004, we got about 40% more.

94 posted on 11/11/2006 4:33:16 PM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
If you read my "Losers and Winners" column, I said that the big winners this year were the pollsters.

If you want to get technical, I'm still 2 for 3 (2002 and 2004). But next time I will take the polls much more seriously and assume they are accurate until proven differently.

95 posted on 11/11/2006 4:34:39 PM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: LWalk18
Why would the final poll be a worse indicator of the actual election results than polls 2-3 weeks prior to the election?

That's exactly my point, they shouldn't and, in fact, I'd expect them to be much closer. But the polls weeks and months ahead of time, which one would expect to be far less predictive, are what people spend months and weeks talking about.

96 posted on 11/11/2006 11:49:00 PM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican
The final poll can be proven right or wrong... Polls 2 weeks out can't

Of course they can, simply compare then to the final result.

You'd have to subscribe to a conspiracy theory, that ALL polling outfits are LYING about the numbers

No I wouldn't. I'd simply have to point out that a lot can happen, and did happen, in the last months and weeks of this election.

Now, for the record, I looked at the individual Ras Senate polls and they did cover a wide variety of times. My interpretation of "final" was faulty - they were the last polls but weren't necessarily recent. Five were in the week before the election, thirteen between one and four weeks before and six more than a month before. The oldest poll was three months before the election. I analyzed the data and the polls are not obviously unfair but there is a definite deterioration of predictiveness with age.

97 posted on 11/12/2006 12:13:51 AM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican; Checkers

Thank pal


98 posted on 11/12/2006 7:17:03 AM PST by lormand (0 to 10,000,000 people read my posts everyday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
Of course they can, simply compare then to the final result.

That's ridiculous. You know it's a snapshot in time. So much can change in two weeks, and so much did.

99 posted on 11/12/2006 12:03:40 PM PST by NYC Republican (Dems' Worst Nightmare- - - An Informed Voter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: LS
But next time I will take the polls much more seriously and assume they are accurate until proven differently.

Good strategy LS.

100 posted on 11/12/2006 12:04:51 PM PST by NYC Republican (Dems' Worst Nightmare- - - An Informed Voter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-104 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson