« When a man goes to the dermatologist | Main | My old guy longboard land paddling is going great »

September 28, 2012

Comments

Hi Brian,

I have missed your partial view or reality calling itself whole!
Since you like reality. Where do the polls in question rank in accuracy in predicting the results in 2008? Please list each, and then list who they say is winning. Perhaps past reality has nothing to do with this reality but I think that you must agree it would be interesting.

Secondarily when someone cries foul an honest recognition of their complaint would seem to be the first place to start the understanding, healing and mutual respect that you so ardently stand for. So what was it that the detractors of the poles were saying? Or do you not want reality based conversation? Perhaps its easier to say that others are not interested in reality or are not capable of dealing with it than honestly understanding their reality and respectfully talking with them.

You cry foul about the bomb throwing conservatives. What in "reality" was your blog other than: they stupid me smart? I know you can do better. Looking forward to it.

Love and miss you Hans

Hans, did you read the New York Times piece that this blog post was about? It describes why the "conspiracy theory" of Fox News and other right-wing poll-deniers is off base. You also should follow, as I do, arguably the most sophisticated electoral analyst around, Five Thirty Eight. See:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

You'll see that Five Thirty Eight, which aggregates polls and combines them with other predictive data, currently gives Obama an 83% chance of winning the election (much higher, 98%, if the election were held today, which shows how strong the polls are for Obama and against Romney).

Yet Republicans are calling the polls flawed, because they don't like reality.

Re your question: in the most recent national election, 2010, Rasmussen polls were biased toward Republican candidates and inaccurate. Other pollsters were much better. See:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/

However, in 2008, Rasmussen did much better. See:
http://electoralmap.net/2012/2008_election.php#reportcard

This shows why it is important to look at aggregates of polls, because no pollster is most accurate all of the time. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don't.

So Republicans are making a mistake by denying the fact of Obama being decidedly ahead when polls are aggregated, as Five Thirty EIght shows. They're choosing to focus on one polling firm, Rasmussen, because they don't like the truth: so far, Romney is behind.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Strange Up Salem

Welcome to HinesSight

  • Salem Political Snark
    My local political rants are now made on this badass blog. Check it out. Dirty politics, outrageous actions, sleaze, backroom deals — we’re on it. 

  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • Church of the Churchless
    Visit my other weblog, Church of the Churchless, where the gospel of spiritual independence is preached.

  • Welcome to HinesSight. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...