Biased Rasmussen Polls - graphics junkies and cartoonists needed

[LVZ]

They say that a picture is worth a thousand words. Now that Scott Rasmussen has changed his business model into producing purely "GOP feel good" polling results to please his wealthy right-wing patrons, we need other ways to get this point across in the mass media.

Here's a small example, but I know some of you graphics artists and cartoonists can do a lot more with the subject.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11447809@N08/4689214974/

[lpbk2713]

1. Rasmussen is a frequent guest on Faux.

So much for his credibility ... if he ever had any.

[LVZ]

3. Faux and Rasmussen are both extensions of the GOP

[LVZ]

2. recently from RealClearPolitics.com ...

Three new polls - Generic Congressional Vote - June 7 and 8

GOP DEM Advantage Pollster

44 - 47 - +3 DEM --- ABC News
46 - 46 ---- tie ------ Gallup
44 - 35 - +9 GOP --- Rasmussen

http://dailyhurricane.com/2010/06/will-rasmussens-right-wing-bias-hurt-republicans-this-year.html

[LVZ]

4. with South Park character correction

A three frame animated gif image (6 second delays):

[hobbit709]

5. Near as I can tell, damn near ALL polls are biased one way or another

It's all in how the question is worded and what your choices for answers are.

I just had an online poll that suddenly went from 28% finished to 99% after answering one question with "I consider myself a "Strong" Democrat.

[LVZ]

6. Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight.com, April 17, 2010

Wikipedia:

By 2010, however, Silver's view of Rasmussen had changed. In an analysis posted at FiveThirtyEight.com on April 17, 2010, Silver concluded that since the end of the 2008 election cycle, Rasmussen's "house effect" was skewing its polling numbers and that "to believe that Rasmussen is getting it right: you also have to believe that almost everyone else is getting it wrong." Silver also disputed Rasmussen's suggestion that difference between his results and those of other polls can be explained by Rasmussen polling only "likely voters" rather than all adults.

Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight.com, April 17, 2010



The bottom line is this: the sample included in Rasmussen's polling is increasingly out of balance with that observed by almost all other pollsters. This appears to create a substantial house effect, irrespective of whether Rasmussen subsequently applies a likely voter screen.

It also appears to be a relatively new facet of their polling. If one looks at the partisan identification among all adults in polls conducted in September-November 2008, Rasmussen gave the Democrats at 6.5-point edge, versus an average of 8.7 points for the other pollsters; their house effect was marginal if there was one at all.

Techniques like weighting can correct for some of this response bias, but it can be an imperfect defense, particularly for pollsters like Rasmussen who have very low response rates (because of their "flash" one-night samples and their use of IVR technology).

If, on the other hand, this is a feature rather than a bug, it requires a more robust explanation from Rasmussen. It is not sufficient, after all, to believe that Rasmussen is getting it right: you also have to believe that almost everyone else is getting it wrong.

Their use of a likely voter model alone is not sufficient to explain the differences. Citing Rasmussen's success in calling past election outcomes, which is formidable, is also somewhat non-responsive, since their house effect was not so substantial in past election cycles.