Rasmussen: Core oppostion to Edwards and Obama rising....core support for Hillary rising...

Edwards and Obama now have core opposition in the low to mid 40's...only slightly behind Hillary, while Hillary has significantly greater core support...

In net terms, Hillary highest core support

Hillary

Def For 35
Def Against 46
Net -11

Obama

Def For 25
Def Against 43
Net -18

Edwards

Def For 20
Def Against 43
Net -23

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/for_or_against_presidential_candidates

http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/rdillon/Cq3y

Go figure.

If he can't win the Democratic Primary...

However then, since you do put stock in that Rasmussen analysis (that you quoted)...I take it you don't dispute what I posted?

So if you believe Hillary's number in this poll are accurate, do you also believe Obama and Edwards is as well..?

C'mon you can give a straight answer

The poll is accurate...

Well can't say I'm surprised...

To hit out of the park.

Compared to GOP'whoever' vs. John Edwards.

No runs no hits but lots of errors for team HRC.

eom

Please pretty please tell me HOW progressive she is.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/usrepresentatives/Memb...

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/ussenators/Profiles_of...

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/formersenators/p/index...

(sorry for butting in)

Lifetime ACLU legislative ratings:

Dennis Kucinich 89% / Joe Biden 80% / Barack Obama 79% / Hillary Clinton 72% / Christopher Dodd 69% / John Edwards 50%

http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/John_Edwards_Civil_Rights.htm

In any event, HRC is backed by major job-outsourcers like Tata Consultancy. If you want to say 'ta-ta' to your job, you'll think twice before voting for HRC. Keep jobs here in the US rather than outsource them to India etc. Globalization sucks.

ACLU Rating: John Edwards has a 50% lifetime rating from the ACLU, the lowest of any top-tier Democratic presidential candidate.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/formersenators/p/john_edwards.htm

And neither does the electorate who are fed up with Clintons and Bushes. Time for a breath of fresh air.

Don't surrender your intellectual honesty so fast...It's all a fella really has in the end...

eom

the general.
(just clarifying. I think there are other, better reasons to vote for him.)

Kinda disingenuous to accept as accurate one poll and not the other from the same firm don't ya think?

gave in to the GOp and changed their results in 2004. So I do not trust any of it right now.

That the 10 or so pollsters that have consistently showed a wide lead for Hillary are allo GOP paid shills...

Or are rigging their results?

trustworthy they have to say how they are done, how randomness is guaranteed, and how many people participated. needs to be a large enough selection. I was a sociology major and worked with opinion sampling in college.
As I said, after 2004, I became disgusted with the pollsters.

if a poll is from a serious university, or done by the bbc, or someone else I know and trust, i'll believe it. Providing the sample is large enough ,and the randomness done correctly.
(A poll of 400 people tells me nothing.)

Edwards lost ground since then. Hillary is the only candidate gaining ground.

accurate Rasmussen is. If this doesn't show things are being rigged, I don't know is.:eyes:

So yes, I guess we do!

I think polls can turn out to be any way the pollsters want them to be. It's all in how the questions are asked, and who gets asked those questions.

They predicted a Bush victory.

http://www.pollingreport.com/2004.htm#Pollster

In one of life's ironies FoxNews had Kerry winning by 2.

Here's Rasmussen's final numbers which predicted a slim Bush victory

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/presidential_tracking_poll_bush_kerry

Rasmussen is a polling firm that conducts polls on dizens of different subjects including pre-election polling.

The reference you make is to accusations against exit pollsters based on leaked raw data. Feel free to visit DU's election reform forum for a ton of info.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=203

And they promised us more of the same for the future. Exit polls will be "adjusted' to reflect the vote counts, whihc makes them absolutely useless.

As for the rasmussen poll, I'm not even in the argument; I don't care one way or the other. I'm distrustful.

these were pre-election polls.

Exit polls are a very different animal, and Rasmussen did not conduct any.

But don't stop Just Making Shit Up (JMSU) - it's entertaining.

it would be hard to do... they published their polls prior to the election.

But then again, the Anti-Clinton Just Making Shit Up Brigade has no decency.

studies polls. I'm sure he has a website with the info and documentation. In 2004, all the exit polls were clear that Kerry won by a certain margin. Exit polls are extremely accurate because they show how real voters actually voted. They are filled out within minutes of voting, so the voter can not have forgotten, or changed their mind, and filled out in secret so there is no motive for the voter to lie. But in 2004, the pollsters actually changed their results to match the Bush win! And they promised to do the same in every election, so that there won't be any discrepancies between the actual votes and the polls. (A discrepancy is a symptom of rigged elections or inaccurate polling. Inaccurate polling was ruled out with research done by statisticians like Prof. Freeman.)

the question is not about exit polling in 2004 (or any other time) - it is about Rasmussen's method or whoever or whatever she thinks is rigging the current opinion polls.

But thanks for your info.

it would be a huge scandal if the MSM would speak about it!

Rasmussen is a fimr that conducted pre-election polling along with a dozen or so others.

Here's Rasmussen's final pre-elction poll in which he predicts a slim Bush victory.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/presidential_tracking_poll_bush_kerry

Here's other polling firms with similar margins

http://www.pollingreport.com/2004.htm#Pollster

include all the people who were kept from voting.

:shrug:

It has little predictive value.

Most of the primary polls are from 500 to 800 in their subgroup samples with the overall sample in 1000-1500 range.

What you look for are MOE at 3 or less in the subgroup samples. Those polls will be more accurate.

much. In great part because of 2004. (How absurd that exit pollsters changed their data!!!!!!)
partly because the samples are tiny. Sometimes they take a poll at one university campus and declare it as representative of how people are thinking.
And 2004. I was out in the streets in a swing state. There were hundreds of dems doing gotv, no republicans. Actually, I saw one group of 2 republicans during the entire time. We had access to the data at the polling sites, how many dems had voted, and how many repubs, but "the polls" were giving out opposite information, calling it for republicans.

Ergo:


As you can see, the raw exit poll results always overstate the Democratic vote, sometimes by as much as eight percentage points. So the fact that the raw results this year overstated Kerry's actual vote tally is hardly cause for alarm.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005178.php

They said "not as many Republicans answered the polls". the scientists went through each precinct and analyzed the data and refuted that.

http://www.tcf.org/publications/pow/nov17_2004.pdf


Ruy Teixeira is an American political scientist and commentator who has written several books on various topics in political science and political strategy. Most recently, he co-wrote with John Judis The Emerging Democratic Majority (2002), a book arguing that Democrats in the United States are demographically destined to become a majority party in the early 21st century. He writes and edits the weblog Donkey Rising.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruy_Teixeira

Secondly, he wrote this on 11/17, before most of the studies were done.
thirdly, he says" exit polls have always drawn samples that are off the real world results and have to be corrected....to reflect new turnout patterns and generally conform ot the election results."

Exit polls are done AFTER people vote, while the memory is still fresh. So they should not be corrected to reflect new turnout patterns. Whatever the turnout is is already reflected in the exit poll.

All in all, I simply disagree with this article. i don't think it's good enough to warrant dissecting and discussing. I have seen tons of evidence to the contrary.

So yes, you have one guy who thinks Bush won and the exit polls were wrong. And your writer parts from the premise that bush won and the exit polls are wrong, then states his argument. There is no scientific basis or research on his part. he didn't go searching for answers and find out what happened. He simply states his opinion.

All of these real world factors make it hard, not easy, for an exit poll to get a "statistically valid sample." That's why Warren Mitofsky, the NEP official who helped invent the exit poll, describes them as "blunt instruments" and why Joan Konner, dean of the Columbia School of Journalism concluded in a review last year for Public Opinion Quarterly that "exit polls do not always reflect the final margin" (Konner, 2000, p. 10).

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/11/the_freeman_pap.html

You are acting as if the dispute is settled when it isn't...

I'm waiting for your rebuttal so I can cite another authority in the field who disputes Professor Friedman's assertion...

First of all, he asks why Freeman uses the 11 "battleground states".
And he infers that if he were to analyze all states, or some other smaple, that his thesis wouldn't work.

The reason is obvious: that is where fraud tends to be.

Then he says exit polls aren't very exact, because people don't show up for work on elcitn day.
(YOu're kidding me! Do I need to reply to that?)

will read on.

and yet they called correctly.

Did you see fahrenheit 9-11? Do you not remember Gore winning the election, and the networks calling it for Bush?
You can say the networks were right if you wish, but I certainly wouldn't state that as fact.

kerry, and that deviance should be more random.

Not of there is election fraud, always in the same direction, for Bush. that would easily explain the un-randomness of the difference between the exit polls and the "results".

estimate, by not tkaing into account the fact that certain precincts were sampled and not others.

Your writer says that even so, the odds are 1 million to one that what happened could not happen.
i.e. he agrees with Freeman, but not the exact numbers or details. million to one odds are pretty convincing to me, how about you?

They (Freeman's guys) already answered that by analyzing republican precincts, and the all over respondents. It simply was not true. The data is in Freeman's book. I don't remember it, but I remember that mitovsky argument and its reply from 3 years ago.

so what.

says:
Lenski told me that such a probe is currently underway; there are many theories for why the polls might have skewed toward Kerry, Lenski said, but he's not ready to conclude anything just yet. At some point, though, he said we'll be able to find out what happened, and what the polls actually said.

in other words he admitts that the exit polls do not match the vote count, and that there has to be a reason, but he cannot, nor can the NEP, explain what the reason is.

Me, I'm guessing the reason had something to do with election fraud.

:rofl:

Before the last elections Rasmussen was giving big numbers to Bush, and the Republicans. Back then, the rasmussen polls were crap to most here on DU. But now they are touting HRC, and suddenly they are *correct*?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Of HRC supporters here trashing Rasmussen...

Don't bother searching my id...I never have...

Not bad for pre-election polls

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2006/election_polls_2006_october_november

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2006/election_2006_final_senate_results

Here's a dozen or so polls suggesting the same phenomenon:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

Any which are favorable are lies. Any which are unfavorable for anyone else are also lies.

:silly:

of Democrats vs. Republicans and how independents are leaning towards one party or the other.

I mean really.