Who won the last debate? | |||
| President Barack Obama | 259 | 61.96% | |
| Governor MItt Romney | 115 | 27.51% | |
| Nobody/tie | 38 | 9.09% | |
| Total: | 412 | ||
chocoloco said:
Uhhhhhh... Most people know I am from Colorado because I constantly talk about it and support the Denver Broncos. Just look at my avatar. |
Most people know I'm from Colorado because I'm awesome. I said on an unreleated note, as in not directed at you.
Not really. Mitt does this a lot. He took very different positions earlier in the year and is now reversing himself on all of them because that is now more politically expedient.
Rasmussen was biased an innacurate in 2010:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/
Rasmussen was not the most accurate. They were mediocre:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/05/blast-from-rasmussen-past.html
They were also very innacurate in 2000, again biased towards Republicans.
| nuckles87 said: Not really. Mitt does this a lot. He took very different positions earlier in the year and is now reversing himself on all of them because that is now more politically expedient. Rasmussen was biased an innacurate in 2010: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/ Rasmussen was not the most accurate. They were mediocre: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/05/blast-from-rasmussen-past.html They were also very innacurate in 2000, again biased towards Republicans. |
Again... state polls... not remotely the same thing.
National polls they were number 1 for the last two presidential elections in a row.
Until proven wrong it's silly to claim otherwise when they were number 1 the last two elections in a row.
The 2000 mention is just silly, since it was Rasmussen's first year doing a national poll, and they were number 1, the next two presidential polls.
Anyone with any credibility who knows how polling works would consider that a stupid thing to bring up... what them being the best... the last two times.
They clearly adjusted their polling procedures. As tends to be what people do. Like how VGchartz is more accurate now then it was when it started.
And right now... nationally it doesn't get more accurate then Rasmussen. There is no argueing it with a straight face without a good level of cognitive dissonance, because all they need to say is... "Scoreboard."
I'm not sure which it is, but Romney did something tonight that was either very smart or very dumb ...
This election will likely be decided by a small percentage of voters in a small number of states, and I think Romney decided to target moderate and independent voters in the hope of winning these swing states. I could be wrong but I suspect the goal was to encourage voters who are unhappy with the current state of the economy to feel comfortable voting for Romney because he is safe and won't rock the boat too much; and the United States won't be heading for a new war under Romney.
Its a gamble because it depends on voters who believe Romney is stronger on economic issues but were afraid he would be to hawkish voting for Romney even though they now (probably) see him as being very similar to Obama on foreign relations; while, at the same time, not pushing people who disagree with Obama's foreign policy away from Romney.
Depending on how this impacts polls over the next week I think I will have my answer
Kasz216 said:
Again... state polls... not remotely the same thing. National polls they were number 1 for the last two presidential elections in a row. Until proven wrong it's silly to claim otherwise when they were number 1 the last two elections in a row. The 2000 mention is just silly, since it was Rasmussen's first year doing a national poll, and they were number 1, the next two presidential polls. Anyone with any credibility who knows how polling works would consider that a stupid thing to bring up... what them being the best... the last two times. They clearly adjusted their polling procedures. |
This reminds me of some of the VGchartz discussions of the past:
US does not equal the World
Shipped does not equal Sold
National Poll does not equal State Poll
Ssenkahdavic said:
This reminds me of some of the VGchartz discussions of the past: US does not equal the World Shipped does not equal Sold National Poll does not equal State Poll |
Pretty much.
There are a few factors that could be causing the issue.
One thing I'd be interested is their 2008 senate accuracy numbers. It could be that they just suck at isolating who won't come out for non-presidential election, or there representative sample could be oddly placed in various local ares, or many other factors.
Kasz216 said:
Yeah, in it's state samples for congressional races. Presidential election samples and state election samples are totally different formulas. Since we're on VGchartz... a good example is well... vgChartz. They have a different formula for each console, because the breakdown of sales isn't consistent. Toys R US sells a higher percentage of total wii's then it does PS3, Amazon sells a higher percentage of Sony based stuff. etc. Most likely Rasmussen's sampling group is great for simulating the federal but sucks on the local level. They probably have a great representative sample of the country that isn't geographically located like you would expect within the country.
Rasmussen also had the most accurate presidential polls in 2004. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2004/12/lets_go_to_the_audiotape.html
|
Even better because we have a electoral college. Which means national polls are nothing but corporate news hype train.
All I'm gonna add to this conversation is...bayonets, binders full of women, and horses!
spaceguy said:
|
Corporate news hype train is a bit much.
Though I do agree that national polls are somewhat useless. At least in the current era, when the electoral college benefits democrats, because the red states are REALLY red... meaning they waste a lot of votes on guranteed electoral votes.
Even so, Rasmussen has been the best two elections in a row now by quite a bit. That much is undisputable.
Even with a slight popular vote lead. Romney is far behind Obama in electoral votes and has to sweep the big three swing states AND when a couple others.
Honestly, the only thing i'd find funnier then an Obama win via electoral vote, but loss via electoral college would be the extremely rare but possible 269-269 split.
Seeing people react to that dumbfoundedly would be priceless.
I wonder what your reaction was in 2000...
| alastor@where said: All I'm gonna add to this conversation is...bayonets, binders full of women, and horses! |
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
