Trump poll rebounds on CNN poll

[StLucieBengal]

(03-30-2018, 03:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: How do you know this? Do you personally know for sure what the approval rating is of POTUS?

Their daily tracking has been lauded as the most accurate.

[GMDino]

(03-30-2018, 03:26 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Rasmussen has proven to be the most accurate on the daily presidential approval poll.  

Everything else not so much but they do a nice job on this one.

(03-30-2018, 03:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: How do you know this? Do you personally know for sure what the approval rating is of POTUS?

(03-30-2018, 11:25 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Their daily  tracking has been lauded as the most accurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports

Quote:FiveThirtyEight blog[edit]


In 2010, Nate Silver of The New York Times’ blog FiveThirtyEight wrote the article "Is Rasmussen Reports biased?", in which he mostly defended Rasmussen from allegations of bias.[78] However, later in the year, Rasmussen's polling results diverged notably from other mainstream pollsters, which Silver labeled a "house effect."[79] He went on to explore other factors which may have explained the effect such as the use of a likely voter model,[80] and claimed that Rasmussen conducted its polls in a way that excluded the majority of the population from answering.[81]


After the 2010 midterm elections, Silver concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver's model.[70] Conservative polling analyst Neil Stevens wrote, "after the primaries [Silver] said Rasmussen was in his crosshairs for ducking out on a number of races by not polling primaries."[82] FiveThirtyEight currently rates Rasmussen Reports with a C+ grade and notes a simple average error of 5.3 percent across 657 polls analyzed.[83]


New Republic[edit]


New Republic called Rasmussen "the gold standard in the conservative world"[84] and suggested the polling company asks the questions specifically to show public support for the conservative position. They cited an example when Rasmussen asked "Should the government set limits on how much salt Americans can eat?" when the issue was whether to limit the amount of salt in pre-processed food. No one suggested the government should set limits on an individual's salt intake.[85]


Other[edit]


Time magazine has described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group."[86] The Washington Post called Rasmussen a "polarizing pollster."[87] John Zogby said that Scott Rasmussen has a "conservative constituency."[88] The Center for Public Integrity listed "Scott Rasmussen Inc" as a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign.[89] The Washington Post reported that the 2004 Bush re-election campaign had used a feature on the Rasmussen Reports website that allowed customers to program their own polls, and that Rasmussen asserted that he had not written any of the questions nor assisted Republicans.[71]


Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls.[90][91] Asking a polling question with different wording can affect the results of the poll;[92] the commentators in question allege that the questions Rasmussen ask in polls are skewed in order to favor a specific response. For instance, when Rasmussen polled whether Republican voters thought Rush Limbaugh was the leader of their party, the specific question they asked was: "Agree or Disagree: 'Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party—he says jump and they say how high.'"[91]


Talking Points Memo has questioned the methodology of Rasmussen's Presidential Approval Index, which takes into account only those who "strongly" approve or disapprove of the President's job performance. TPMnoted that this inherently skews negative, and reported that multiple polling experts were critical of the concept.[42] A New York Times article claims Ramussen Reports research has a "record of relying on dubious sampling and weighting techniques."[93]


A 2017 article by Chris Cillizza for CNN raised doubts about Rasmussen's accuracy, drawing attention specifically to potential sampling biases such as the exclusion of calls to cell-phones (which, Cillizza argued, tended to exclude younger voters), and also more generally to a lack of methodological disclosure. Cillizza did, however, note in the same piece that Rasmussen was one of the more accurate polling organizations during the 2016 United States presidential election.[94]



Founder Scott Rasmussen is the author of a conservative book,[95] and was a featured guest on a cruise by the conservative media outlet The National Review, along with other conservative luminaries.[96]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports#cite_note-96][/url]

[StLucieBengal]

(03-30-2018, 11:32 PM)GMDino Wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports


[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports#cite_note-96][/url]

Hmmm ok.

Quote:Cillizza did, however, note in the same piece that Rasmussen was one of the more accurate polling organizations during the 2016 United States presidential election.

[GMDino]

(03-30-2018, 11:37 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Hmmm ok.  

Oh...one line that says "one of".  I've seen this horse before.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-30-2018, 11:38 PM)GMDino Wrote: Oh...one line that says "one of".  I've seen this horse before.

You posted it.

[THE Bigzoman]

(03-27-2018, 12:28 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Been a lot of coverage of weirdo Pence lately.

When you see that freak staring adoringly at the back of Trumps head as he spews shit out the front... Pretty strange

I would explain the rise because people are starting to think maybe we should just ride it out so that dude stays in the back staring at Trump like a zombie dreaming of brains.

Weirdo? 

I'd leave my wife and kids with Pence before leaving them with anyone in Hollywood or Joe Biden.

[Belsnickel]

(03-30-2018, 11:42 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: You posted it.

Yes, he posted something that did not back up your claim. Polling for an election does not equate to the daily approval tracking. "One of" does not equate to "the".

[StLucieBengal]

(04-03-2018, 08:28 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yes, he posted something that did not back up your claim. Polling for an election does not equate to the daily approval tracking. "One of" does not equate to "the".

He also posted it from Wikipedia. Since we know you have a hard on for source links on here, I’m sure we can agree Wikipedia is among the weakest.

He might as well just posted a meme of Yosemite Sam. It would have the same weight.

[Belsnickel]

(04-03-2018, 03:15 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: He also posted it from Wikipedia. Since we know you have a hard on for source links on here, I’m sure we can agree Wikipedia is among the weakest.

He might as well just posted a meme of Yosemite Sam. It would have the same weight.

It holds more weight than you just saying it is so without anything to back it up. Of course, I also look at the citations in Wikipedia, which would have taken you to this for the quote: https://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/17/politics/trump-approval-rating-rasmussen/index.html

[GMDino]

(04-03-2018, 03:15 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: He also posted it from Wikipedia.  Since we know you have a hard on for source links on here, I’m sure we can agree Wikipedia is among the weakest.

He might as well just posted a meme of Yosemite Sam.  It would have the same weight.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jun/19/donald-trump/donald-trump-tweet-50-approval-cherry-picks-pollin/

Quote:Among pollsters, Rasmussen has consistently published higher approval ratings for Trump than its peers that track presidential job approval among Americans.


Its June 13-15 poll of 1,500 likely voters did show 50 percent job approval for Trump, with a sampling margin of error of 3 percent.
His numbers hadn’t hit the 50 percent-mark since late April, according to Rasmussen’s approval index history.

Rasmussen’s numbers are atypical of the polls that have surveyed Trump’s approval ratings. The next-closest results were still pretty far from 50 percent.

An Economist/YouGov poll of 1,500 registered voters from June 11-13 showed 42 percent approval. A June 9-15 Survey Monkey poll of adults showed 43 percent. Gallup, which polls all adults on a three-day rolling basis, most recently showed 39 percent approval.
When you look at polling more broadly, Rasmussen really sticks out.

The RealClearPolitics.com average of polls from May 30-June 17 shows 40 percent job approval -- a full 10 percentage points lower than the rate Trump touted in his tweet. FiveThirtyEight performs a similar comprehensive reflection of polling data, and it came in even lower -- 38.7 percent approval (and 55.4 percent disapproval) by Trump’s 150th day in office.

Obama ratings weren’t as low at this point in his presidency
What about Trump’s assertion that Obama fared more poorly? It’s not the case if you use the most apples-to-apples comparison: Rasmussen’s own polling at this stage of his presidency.

Rasmussen’s results for Obama during the same period in June 2009 do not show an approval rating below Trump’s 50 percent. Obama’s approval ratings were between 54 and 58 percent through June 9-16, 2009, and they did not dip below 50 percent until late July of that year.

Gallup’s tracking of Obama’s job performance showed a higher mark of 60 percent approval at that time.

Of course, Obama’s approval rating did dip below the high 50s later in his presidency. Obama’s ratings in the Rasmussen poll did consistently fall below 50 percent from the fall of 2009 to the summer of 2012, and again from the summer of 2013 to the spring of 2016.

However, experts caution that it’s most appropriate to compare presidents’ approval ratings at the same point in their presidency.
Historically, most presidents have tended to have higher approval ratings early in the "honeymoon" period of their tenure before they sink, as some voters begin to tire of their policies.

In addition, Obama periodically did reach 50 percent or more in Rasmussen polls even during his weaker periods, and when he didn’t, he was often within a point or two of that mark. This means it’s possible to do some reverse cherry-picking that makes Obama look better than Trump.

Trump’s overall polling right now is far below what all past presidents have polled at an equivalent point in their first term. (Here’s a comparison of Gallup approval ratings for Trump’s predecessors, going back to Harry Truman.)

What explains Rasmussen’s result?
One reason why Rasmussen has shown higher ratings for Trump stems from its methodology. For one, it polls likely voters.

Registered voters tend to offer higher job approval than surveys of adults more generally. And surveys of likely voters -- Rasmussen’s approach -- offer higher job approval ratings still.

"As we move from all Americans, to registered voters, to likely voters, and to actual voters, the sample becomes more educated, more wealthy, and more Republican," said Steven S. Smith, a political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis. "Statistical weighting can reduce the bias. Rasmussen weights, but we know little about Rasmussen’s weighting procedures. The details matter."

Meanwhile, polls that use live callers have been showing lower approval ratings than polls conducted by online or automated survey.
Rasmussen uses automated surveys.

"Automated polls only call landlines, which means they miss the roughly half (!!) of the American population that uses mobile phones only," FiveThirtyEight editor in chief Nate Silver wrote in February.

"This matters because cell-only individuals tend to be younger, lower income, and more urban, all of which bias landline-only surveys in a conservative direction," Smith said.

Each of these factors help explain the higher results for Rasmussen in Trump’s favor. We reached out to Rasmussen but did not hear back by deadline.

Was Rasmussen 'one of the most accurate' polls in 2016?
Finally, what to make of Trump’s implication that Rasmussen should be more trusted because it was more accurate than other pollsters about the 2016 election?

The strongest evidence comes from looking at the final pre-election national polls.

According to the rundown in RealClearPolitics, Rasmussen was the only pollster to get the popular vote result -- a two-point Hillary Clinton win -- correct in its final pre-election poll. Two pollsters (Monmouth University and NBC News/Survey Monkey) had Clinton winning by six points; four (ABC News/Washington Post, CBS News, Fox News, and Economist/YouGov) had Clinton winning by four, two (Bloomberg and Reuters/Ipsos) had Clinton winning by three, one (IBD/TIPP) had Trump winning by two, and one had Trump winning by five (Los Angeles Times/USC).

However, it’s worth taking this with a grain of salt. First, the polls that had Clinton winning by two or three points were all very close to the mark once margins of error are taken into account. And second, Rasmussen was lucky to have its two-point margin come during the final pre-election poll. During the last week before the election, its daily results were scattered -- Clinton by three, tie, tie, Trump by three, tie, and Clinton by two.

Overall, FiveThirtyEight’s comprehensive pollster ratings gives Rasmussen the mediocre grade of C-plus, and it found a two-point Republican bias in its polls. (This rating did not encompass the entire 2016 campaign, but it did go back earlier; it factored in 657 polls by Rasmussen.)

[StLucieBengal]

(04-03-2018, 03:29 PM)GMDino Wrote:  

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jun/19/donald-trump/donald-trump-tweet-50-approval-cherry-picks-pollin/

http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/

Might want to reconsider PolitiFact.

[StLucieBengal]

(04-03-2018, 03:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It holds more weight than you just saying it is so without anything to back it up. Of course, I also look at the citations in Wikipedia, which would have taken you to this for the quote: https://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/17/politics/trump-approval-rating-rasmussen/index.html

Lol cnn

Even they say Rasmussen got it right in 2016. Obviously they are Doing something right, you shouldn’t just dismiss it because they aren’t sharing the secret sauce. Heck if I had something that Was working and making me money I wouldn’t share with my competitors.

And is it that dusturbing for you to acknowledge that he is gaining traction with the American people? It is what it is, and I remember having to sit an accept it when I saw Obama gaining approval even though I knew he was a beta and a coward on multiple levels. You on the other hand thought he was just fine. You didn’t see me on here pissing and moaning about any poll showing he was gaining traction.

Relax, for every point he gains now he will lose them in a month or so then gain them back. It’s all part of the deal.

[Belsnickel]

(04-03-2018, 03:42 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Lol cnn

Even they say Rasmussen got it right in 2016. Obviously they are Doing something right, you shouldn’t just dismiss it because they aren’t sharing the secret sauce. Heck if I had something that Was working and making me money I wouldn’t share with my competitors.

And is it that dusturbing for you to acknowledge that he is gaining traction with the American people? It is what it is, and I remember having to sit an accept it when I saw Obama gaining approval even though I knew he was a beta and a coward on multiple levels. You on the other hand thought he was just fine. You didn’t see me on here pissing and moaning about any poll showing he was gaining traction.

Relax, for every point he gains now he will lose them in a month or so then gain them back. It’s all part of the deal.

Translation: "I was talking out of my ass and have nothing to back up my earlier claim, so I am trying to deflect as much as possible and make you forget that I am consistently full of crap."

[StLucieBengal]

(04-03-2018, 03:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Translation: "I was talking out of my ass and have nothing to back up my earlier claim, so I am trying to deflect as much as possible and make you forget that I am consistently full of crap."

Lol whatever you have to tell yourself. It’s a shame you just can’t utter the words agree to disagree. Sorry that Trumps popularity rising bothers you this much.

[GMDino]

(04-03-2018, 04:29 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Lol whatever you have to tell yourself.  It’s a shame you just can’t utter the words agree to disagree.  Sorry that Trumps popularity rising bothers you this much.

To be fair you have posted many things with nothing to back up (no source, no link, etc).  It's pretty easy to assume that means the things posted were just either opinion or completely made up.

No one can "agree to disagree" when the item they are disagreeing with isn't even real.

[StLucieBengal]

(04-03-2018, 04:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: To be fair you have posted many things with nothing to back up (no source, no link, etc).  It's pretty easy to assume that means the things posted were just either opinion or completely made up.

No one can "agree to disagree" when the item they are disagreeing with isn't even real.

Yet after it’s posted showing a track record of recent accuracy for Rasmussen it’s still nonstop grandstanding.

As opposed to saying .... oh ok well I don’t believe what they are saying so we can just agree to disagree.

Part of the problem around here is there is not enough of that, instead we have the. Mortal Lombardi mentality that everyone needs to be finished on every thread. The fact is we all toss out what we believe and aside from a few side issues we leave the thread practically believing the same way we. Entered.

Toss in the occasional discipline and that’s what we have in a nutshell.

[GMDino]

(04-03-2018, 04:48 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yet after it’s posted showing a track record of recent accuracy for Rasmussen it’s still nonstop grandstanding.  

As opposed to saying .... oh ok well I don’t believe what they are saying so we can just agree to disagree.  

Part of the problem around here is there is not enough of that, instead we have the. Mortal Lombardi mentality that everyone needs to be finished on every thread.   The fact is we all toss out what we believe and aside from a few side issues we leave the thread practically believing the same way we. Entered.  

Toss in the occasional discipline and that’s what we have in a nutshell.

Again, if someone makes a grandstanding statement and refuses or cannot support it it is not a matter of "agree to disagree" it is a matter of the statement being either wrong or simply an opinion.

If someone "believes" Bigfoot exists they should say that, rather than say that it has been "proven" that Bigfoot exists.

[Belsnickel]

(04-03-2018, 04:29 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Lol whatever you have to tell yourself. It’s a shame you just can’t utter the words agree to disagree. Sorry that Trumps popularity rising bothers you this much.

You made a baseless claim. I can agree to disagree on opinions, but when a statement of fact is made that is incorrect then there is no room to agree to disagree. You're just wrong.

It's a shame you can't utter those words.

[Dill]

(04-03-2018, 04:48 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Part of the problem around here is there is not enough of that, instead we have the. Mortal Lombardi mentality that everyone needs to be finished on every thread.   The fact is we all toss out what we believe and aside from a few side issues we leave the thread practically believing the same way we. Entered.  

Some of us do that. Yes.   And you sound comfortable with that. Not all of us are.

[Dill]

(03-30-2018, 11:32 PM)GMDino Wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports

I see room for compromise here .

Rasmussen IS the most lauded and most accurate poll--among conservatives.