Evidence for that in Rasmussen’s case is lacking.
Pollsters want to get paid. Building a mutually-beneficial relationship with a patron of pollsters is one way.
Far from being an expert on polling, I still would want to see some actual proof that as Sean Hannity says, there has been intentional manipulation of polling data by the pollsters themselves, thereby giving the mainstream media ammunition in their never-ending goal to get Obama re-elected.
Huh. The current 538 site, at least on my browser, shows Obama with a 373.0% chance of winning. However, Romney has a 227.0% chance of winning, too. This is what I see. It’s a liberal conspiracy!
Fox and Friends went full-on with it this morning. They failed to mention that their own polling shows Obama with a big lead. You’d think that they wouldn’t hire a polling firm that secretly wants the Dems to win.
And - can you imagine this? - for some reason, willingness of voters to identify as Republicans has been dropping like a rock this year, from 30% back in April, to 25.8% now, according to the running average of polls that ask for party ID.
So Rasmussen’s controlling to a moving target - in this case, all but controlling to his desired outcome. Of course his numbers are going to be more Republican than everyone else’s.
I hope he continues to control to party ID all the way through Election Day so everyone can see just how wrong Rasmussen calls it.
Linking to a 20-page document isn’t much help. Can you be more specific?
This is getting into Humpty-Dumpty territory.
*‘Turnout’ refers to the percentage of the population (or some subgroup) that shows up to vote. *It does NOT refer to the size of the population or subgroup, or whether that size is increasing or decreasing, just the proportion of the group that votes, regardless of its size on Election Day.
Don’t you love it when wingnuts expose their own conspiracies?
That only would work in the short term. Pollsters live and die by their accuracy. When polling companies miss the mark their reputations tank. That’s not a good business plan.
Romney leads among independents in Florida and Ohio:
Sorry, but it’s really hard to see Romney winning the independent vote but losing the election. The polls will converge as the election gets closer, and I think they are more likely to converge to what Rasmussen thinks.
In Ohio, absentee ballot requests among Republicans are slightly up. Among Democrats, they’ve decreased by nearly half over 2008.
http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/27/tracking-ohios-absentee-ballot-requests/
This does not look like increased Democratic enthusiasm or a decrease in those identifying as Republican.
So that’s it, then? Is this an official assertion that Mitt Romney is in the lead, or only enough behind that it’s not significant, and that the polls and Nate Silver and everyone else is wrong?
Fox polling is also in Obama’s pocket apparently.
Dude, the primaries (where ballot requests can be separated out by party) were months ago. We’re now in the general election (where there’s just the one type of ballot for everybody).
Indeed. Is there some specific claim being made, or is this an exercise in JAQing off?
OK; so there’s a specific assertion. My assertion is that, based on past performance, Rasmussen numbers deserve the same consideration as the output of a Magic 8-Ball.
Adaher? Breitbart? Red State? Cite? Which of these things doesn’t belong?
Adaher, very seriously, what happened here? You went in a very short transition from someone apparently seriously trying to parse this out, to someone desperately hanging on to whatever bit of Rightward spin attempt you can scrape up. I am not sure if it is more sad or funny.
Now it is down to Rasmussen alone who, by virtue of operating with the revealed truth of what the voter ID spread IS a priori and adjusting the collected data to fit that prior assumption, who tell the real story. Not to worry. Everyone else will come around.
I’m not a polling expert but even Fox News has Obama up 5 points in their latest poll. Being privy to the knowledge that the other polls over sample democrats since they have on-air personalities saying as much…why would they do the same??
I don’t believe Gallup has any special interest or desire in re-electing Obama by discouraging Republican turnout.
It just seems off to me that this many polling organizations with experts who do this for a living could be so wrong and that Romney is actually winning as conservatives have suggested.
It also strikes me as a very risky strategy - there would have to be a very fine line between
A) Wow - Obama’s winning, there’s no point voting and
B) Holy Shit - Romney’s losing, I’d better make sure I go and vote
That depends on how you define “near tie”, of course. Popular vote? Perhaps. But as an example, Nate Silver gave Obama 300.2 electoral college votes vs. Romney’s 237.8, back on Aug 7, and the spread has been similar since. Based on his polling and other from the time, I don’t know what near tie Romney has to “go back to”, as the popular vote is irrelevant.
ETA: comment about the spread.
That doesn’t seem to be what the column is claiming. They’re claiming that requests for ballots for the general election are following this trend.