(03-14-2010 04:05 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(03-14-2010 03:24 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(03-14-2010 03:06 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(03-14-2010 07:16 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(03-13-2010 11:08 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(03-13-2010 08:43 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(03-13-2010 08:14 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(03-13-2010 06:40 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  I have issued an open challenge to mach that he refuses to take, so how bout you take it. Look at the Rasmussen poll and point out to me its bias/flaws. I'm willing to keep an open mind.

What will I get?

Credibility.

Why do you think I would need that or that you could give it?

This guy and mach won't step up. I'd ask Robert but well...he's Robert.

Any intelligent liberal on here care to attempt what I asked?

Which pollster has the largest house effect, and does that house effect go towards Democrats or Republicans? Answer those two questions and you'll understand why I don't like Rasmussen. After house effects, we can discuss some more negatives for Rasmussen.

So to be clear, you don't argue Rasmussen is biased, you argue his polling methods simply skew republican, thus you don't like his polls.

Not quite sure how that's any different than claiming he's biased. Or are you simply arguing you don't like a poll that actually favors republicans over democrats?

Do you even understand what bias is? Of course I'm going to argue bias in Rasmussen polling. The house effects are the first step, but if you're not capable of grasping this easy first step, then the rest is useless. You're reply also implies that your claim of open-mindedness is a lie.

I see what you're doing, trying to confuse the issue and all. But it won't work.

Let's go back to your post on house effect. House effect doesn't equal bias. House effect simply deals with how a polling place conducts their polls. It deals with methodology, not motive. Do they poll adults or likely voters? Do they press for an answer or just take someone who says undecided at face value and move on? Do they use Strongly approve down to strongly disapprove or do they just use Approve/Disapprove. Any of those will effect how a poll comes out, but not because of bias.

However, you being ignorant as to what house effect truly is, tried to make an argument of bias, which house effect, in and of itself, does not support. See I'm clear on what both bias and house effect are. You, however, clearly aren't.

See you don't even know where to begin to try and back your assertion up. Let me help you. I'm a generous guy. To prove Rasmussen biased here are examples of what you must do.

1) Review the questions he asked and present why they are worded to solicit a biased response.
2) Argue his sampling is deliberately skewed republican, and provide back up
3) Argue why polling likely voters (Rassmussen) instead of just adults (Gallup), is biased.

I'm very open minded. I will consider any logical, well reasoned argument you make that is supported with evidence. I've laid the frame work for you to do that. I did half your work for you.

I'll be waiting anxiously for your synopsis.

RCP Average 2/17 - 3/13 -- 49.1 45.8 +3.3
Gallup 3/11 - 3/13 1547 A 49 44 +5
Rasmussen Reports 3/11 - 3/13 1500 LV 46 53 -7
Associated Press/GfK 3/3 - 3/8 1002 A 53 46 +7
Ipsos/McClatchy 2/26 - 2/28 1076 A 53 44 +9
FOX News 2/23 - 2/24 900 RV 47 45 +2
Democracy Corps (D) 2/20 - 2/24 1001 RV 49 46 +3
POS ® 2/17 - 2/18 900 RV 48 48 Tie
Newsweek 2/17 - 2/18 1009 A 48 40 +8

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...-1044.html

Why does Rasmussen have such a disparity? Rasmussen is the outlier here......... The closest (surprise surprise) is Fox news with a 9 point swing. Someone lacks credibility and it's not Gil. Here's my challenge to you. Explain to me why the other 7 pollsters have bias. Since Rasmussen is clearly the outlier it's not our burden to prove bias. Any honest person could clearly see that.

You're clearly fearful that I'm going to destroy your fringer fantasy that Rasmussen's polling is the gold-standard of pollsters. I stated that we would start with house effects, and you've runoff on stupid tangents rather than engaging in honest discussion. I again come to the conclusion that your claim of open-mindedness is a lie. So, did you ever come to an answer of which pollster has the largest house effect, and what direction does that effect lean?

There is much more bias in the wording of questions than in the selection of samples.

Regardless of the poll, there is a consistent declining trend in all of them. That should be the message, not quibbles over marginal differneces. Over the last year, Rasmussen has consistently been the lowest, and at whatever level Rasmussen was at the moment, the others got down to there at some later date. If this continues, and the others get down to where Rasmussen is now, Obma's presidency will be in severe trouble. He needs a game changer, and I don't think health care "reform" is going to be it.

(03-14-2010 04:55 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  You're clearly fearful that I'm going to destroy your fringer fantasy that Rasmussen's polling is the gold-standard of pollsters.

Find where I have ever said that. I haven't. The only thing I've ever done in respect to Rasmussen is 1) post the poll and 2) invite you, mach, or any other dem to prove he's biased.

I'm fearful you're going to destroy...? Wow, now that's hilarious. I'm so "fearful" of you that I continually beg you to do so and even provide you starting points. Brilliant!!!

Quote:I stated that we would start with house effects, and you've runoff on stupid tangents rather than engaging in honest discussion.

So just so we're clear. My going into in-depth review of what house effect is/means is a tangent away from you bringing up house effect? Interesting.

Quote:I again come to the conclusion that your claim of open-mindedness is a lie.

And I again come to the conclusion that you are incapable of backing up your claims of bias because this is your 7th post in this thread and you have yet to do so. If you could prove it you would. There is no reason not to. But you can't. We both know it. This charade you have going to divert from the question at hand is cute and all, but come on, we both know you can't. It's a waste of bandwidth for you to continue to act like you can. I mean..really.

Quote:So, did you ever come to an answer of which pollster has the largest house effect, and what direction does that effect lean?

Which house effect are you referring to? The largest positive for Obama or the largest negative for Obama? See, if you really understood house effect that is how you would have asked the question. But for your sake I'll just say Rassmussen has the largest negative house effect for Obama. At least if I grant you that you can move the hell on and, you know, get to making my greatest fear known.

(03-14-2010 05:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  There is much more bias in the wording of questions than in the selection of samples.

Regardless of the poll, there is a consistent declining trend in all of them. That should be the message, not quibbles over marginal differneces. Over the last year, Rasmussen has consistently been the lowest, and at whatever level Rasmussen was at the moment, the others got down to there at some later date. If this continues, and the others get down to where Rasmussen is now, Obma's presidency will be in severe trouble. He needs a game changer, and I don't think health care "reform" is going to be it.

Thank you for making the same post for the 1,000th time. Feel free to chime in again when you have something new to offer.

(03-14-2010 05:12 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(03-14-2010 04:55 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  You're clearly fearful that I'm going to destroy your fringer fantasy that Rasmussen's polling is the gold-standard of pollsters.

Find where I have ever said that. I haven't. The only thing I've ever done in respect to Rasmussen is 1) post the poll and 2) invite you, mach, or any other dem to prove he's biased.

I'm fearful you're going to destroy...? Wow, now that's hilarious. I'm so "fearful" of you that I continually beg you to do so and even provide you starting points. Brilliant!!!

Quote:I stated that we would start with house effects, and you've runoff on stupid tangents rather than engaging in honest discussion.

So just so we're clear. My going into in-depth review of what house effect is/means is a tangent away from you bringing up house effect? Interesting.

Quote:I again come to the conclusion that your claim of open-mindedness is a lie.

And I again come to the conclusion that you are incapable of backing up your claims of bias because this is your 7th post in this thread and you have yet to do so. If you could prove it you would. There is no reason not to. But you can't. We both know it. This charade you have going to divert from the question at hand is cute and all, but come on, we both know you can't. It's a waste of bandwidth for you to continue to act like you can. I mean..really.

Quote:So, did you ever come to an answer of which pollster has the largest house effect, and what direction does that effect lean?

Which house effect are you referring to? The largest positive for Obama or the largest negative for Obama? See, if you really understood house effect that is how you would have asked the question. But for your sake I'll just say Rassmussen has the largest negative house effect for Obama. At least if I grant you that you can move the hell on and, you know, get to making my greatest fear known.

Obviously you don't understand the house effect issue. I don't care whether it is a Democratic-leaning or Republican-leaning effect. I simply asked who has the largest absolute effect. Come on, it's an easy answer.

(03-14-2010 05:46 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  Obviously you don't understand the house effect issue.

Then explain it.

I've stated at length what house effect is. I've pointed out that in and of itself it's not an indicator of bias. So why don't you get right to bringing my "fear" out and ruining my night.

Quote:I simply asked who has the largest absolute effect. Come on, it's an easy answer.

Interesting. "Absolute effect". Never heard that used in reference to house effect. Given that I'd never seen that term used before I decided to google it. You want to know the first place I found it? Shock of shocks....The dailykos. And what do you know, it's in a story about "irregularities" in Rasmussen polling.

Dude, next time just post your link to Dailykos and ask me to read it. Don't engage in this charade that you actually know what you're talking about. You didn't even plagerize the point correctly. The "absolute" in that article is talking about the value between Rasmussen's House Effect vs. "Closeness of race."

Classic.

I never heard of house effects. Here's an article describing them I highlighted the 1st couple of paragraphs. I can't tell if Rasmussen has the highest house effect or the lowest. I would suspect it's the former.



Who does the poll affects the results. Some. These are called "house effects" because they are systematic effects due to survey "house" or polling organization. It is perhaps easy to think of these effects as "bias" but that is misleading. The differences are due to a variety of factors that represent reasonable differences in practice from one organization to another.

For example, how you phrase a question can affect the results, and an organization usually asks the question the same way in all their surveys. This creates a house effect. Another source is how the organization treats "don't know" or "undecided" responses. Some push hard for a position even if the respondent is reluctant to give one. Other pollsters take "undecided" at face value and don't push. The latter get higher rates of undecided, but more important they get lower levels of support for both candidates as a result of not pushing for how respondents lean. And organizations differ in whether they typically interview adults, registered voters or likely voters. The differences across those three groups produce differences in results. Which is right? It depends on what you are trying to estimate-- opinion of the population, of people who can easily vote if the choose to do so or of the probable electorate. Not to mention the vagaries of identifying who is really likely to vote. Finally, survey mode may matter. Is the survey conducted by random digit dialing (RDD) with live interviewers, by RDD with recorded interviews ("interactive voice response" or IVR), or by internet using panels of volunteers who are statistically adjusted in some way to make inferences about the population.

Given all these and many other possible sources of house effects, it is perhaps surprising the net effects are as small as they are. They are often statistically significant, but rarely are they notably large.

The chart above shows the house effect for each polling organization that has conducted at least five national polls on the Obama-McCain match-up since 2007. The dots are the estimated house effects and the blue lines extend out to a 95% confidence interval around the effects.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/how_pollst...l_resu.php

For those with open minds, Rasmussen explains gaps between his results and others

AFter reading that Owl 69 is dead nuts on. The best way to look at this is the trends in all of the polls. Rassmussen constantly polls the lowest for D's. Republican's will use his numbers constantly because they show D's in the least favorable light. I get it. I won't use bias anymore I'll use House Effect. Rasmussen has the highest house effect. Whateve.......................

(03-14-2010 06:10 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(03-14-2010 05:46 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  Obviously you don't understand the house effect issue.

Then explain it.

I've stated at length what house effect is. I've pointed out that in and of itself it's not an indicator of bias. So why don't you get right to bringing my "fear" out and ruining my night.

Quote:I simply asked who has the largest absolute effect. Come on, it's an easy answer.

Interesting. "Absolute effect". Never heard that used in reference to house effect. Given that I'd never seen that term used before I decided to google it. You want to know the first place I found it? Shock of shocks....The dailykos. And what do you know, it's in a story about "irregularities" in Rasmussen polling.

Dude, next time just post your link to Dailykos and ask me to read it. Don't engage in this charade that you actually know what you're talking about. You didn't even plagerize the point correctly. The "absolute" in that article is talking about the value between Rasmussen's House Effect vs. "Closeness of race."

Classic.

The guy has been recognized as a liar from day one by most here. His fraud is not surprising.

The Daily Kos article Niner posted also shows the net effect or house effect is different at different times of the calendar year. Surprise surprise his house effect goes down to zero the week of the election. Now why is this? Could it be advantageous to show no "house effect" the week of elections so later on you could say he's the most accurate pollster? Chew on that nugget boys.

(03-14-2010 06:51 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The Daily Kos article Niner posted also shows the net effect or house effect is different at different times of the calendar year. Surprise surprise his house effect goes down to zero the week of the election. Now why is this? Could it be advantageous to show no "house effect" the week of elections so later on you could say he's the most accurate pollster? Chew on that nugget boys.

The Kos report shows a statistical trend yet provides no explanation for it. It simply calls it irregular.

You look at a trend, which you have absolutely no understanding of, and extrapolate why, something they don't even do. So the Kos report, in fact, supports none of your beliefs as statistics in and of themselves prove nothing.

Ever think it gets closer to zero because, oh, I don't know, as election day gets closer people pay more attention? As it gets closer they settle on their candidate?

Chew on that you ignorant tool.

Why do you have to go the ignorant tool route? Here is the spin room AUP.

Ad hominem attacks, insults and flames are not acceptable. Posts which consist largely or entirely of such comments will be deleted. Otherwise substantive posts which contain some ad hominems or flames will be edited to remove the inappropriate material while retaining the substance of the post.

Calling a fellow poster a liar, deceitful, or a similar accusation, is not acceptable, even if you believe that your fellow poster really is a liar or deceitful. This kind of accusation never furthers the debate. The only acceptable response on P.D. to what appears to be a lie from a fellow poster is to present evidence or argument to contradict what your fellow poster has said.

If you can't follow this simple rule. Cease to post. You lower the decorum of the spin room.

Now if you would like to continue.
The "pay closer attention" could be an explanation for it. I think there is another motive. Being able to say you're the most accurate would be mine. He's the outlier. The one who has the greatest "House Effect".

Post 32 and post 34 have been reported to the proper authority. Violation of spin room decorum and habitual violation of the spin room AUP.

Would like to copy this before it's edited out.

Chew on that you ignorant tool.


posted by Niner on Mar. 14th 7.48 e.s.t. Edited at 7:51.

(03-14-2010 07:09 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Why do you have to go the ignorant tool route? Here is the spin room AUP.

Ad hominem attacks, insults and flames are not acceptable. Posts which consist largely or entirely of such comments will be deleted. Otherwise substantive posts which contain some ad hominems or flames will be edited to remove the inappropriate material while retaining the substance of the post.

Calling a fellow poster a liar, deceitful, or a similar accusation, is not acceptable, even if you believe that your fellow poster really is a liar or deceitful. This kind of accusation never furthers the debate. The only acceptable response on P.D. to what appears to be a lie from a fellow poster is to present evidence or argument to contradict what your fellow poster has said.

If you can't follow this simple rule. Cease to post. You lower the decorum of the spin room.

I guess we are do for your quarterly righteous indignation about how the spin room is run. Don't forget to demand you be made a mod.

Quote:I think there is another motive. Being able to say you're the most accurate would be mine.

Of course. Why shouldn't your explanation involve an opinion you have absolutely no evidence to support. All your others are.

Quote:He's the outlier. The one who has the greatest "House Effect".

Until you understand what house effect is you need to stop using it. The above comment makes no sense.

(03-14-2010 07:11 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Post 32 and post 34 have been reported to the proper authority. Violation of spin room decorum and habitual violation of the spin room AUP.

I've read it a couple of times. I don't fully understand it. If I am wrong please enlighten me. There's the graph that shows Rassmussen at the bottom farthest to the left in the house effect link I posted. This shows him the farthest in one extreme. I would suspect that it would be in his support of R's. His polls show the most slant or show Republican positions the most favorably in comparisons to the other pollsters. It would be a mistake according to the article to call it bias. I'm not sure why but I won't call it bias anymore. Rasmussen exhibits the greatest "house effect" toward Republican postions. How am I wrong? or am I wrong? or better yet? could you take the time to explain your position on how I am interprting the article wrong.