Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

According to Rasmussen, "51% of voters say that if their vote next month determined which political party wins control of the Senate, they'd like that party to be the Republicans. ... The identical numbers hold true when voters are asked which party they would like to see controlling the House of Representatives if their vote was the determining factor: 51% say the Republicans; 42% say the Democrats.

Over 90% of GOP voters want to see their party regain control of the House and Senate, as do 12% of Democrats. ... Voters not affiliated with either party want to see Republicans in control of the Senate by a 50% to 35% margin and the House by a similar 52% to 36% margin."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... use_senate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Who is your favorite pollster, nativist?

I'm all for the GOP taking control of the House, but I'm really ambivalent regarding both Houses of Congress. One is enough to send the message that all ain't right in the world. I'd like to see what Obama is capable of once the Pelosi's and the Reid's don't hold the sway they did in the supermajority Congress. Losing the House will take care of Pelosi, and Reid is already marginalized anyway and will be even more so, even assuming he wins election. I don't think Obama handled his interactions with Congress well enough, or at least I'm hoping that was the problem. He's got 2 more years to rectify things.

Of course most Americans don't realize that a Republican Congress, instead of working on problems, would pull a 1997-98 Congress and spend all the time on an Obama Witch Hunt.


And they also don't realize that the new House Majority Leader is flying around the country promising voters that if they elected a Republican to their district, he has promised that Congressman a lucrative, pork-laded committee assignment.

dbackjon wrote:Of course most Americans don't realize that a Republican Congress, instead of working on problems, would pull a 1997-98 Congress and spend all the time on an Obama Witch Hunt.


And they also don't realize that the new House Majority Leader is flying around the country promising voters that if they elected a Republican to their district, he has promised that Congressman a lucrative, pork-laded committee assignment.

So what you're saying is that a GOP Congress in 2010 would be like the Dem Congress we got in 2006 (Bush/Cheyney/Rove witchhunts for two years, tons of pork barreling, bloated budgets, etc)?

I agree, it wouldn't be great to replicate that turn of events, but like with the Dem Congress in 2006, the Congress that came before them was so bad we just had to take a different direction, no matter the sad fact that we were probably just going in circles from one bad crew to the next. The GOP was terrible and deserved the rout they got in 2006. Same goes for the Dems here in 2010. Hopefully someone breaks the cycle and governs responsibly, but we don't have a lot of history to show that will happen.

GannonFan wrote:So what you're saying is that a GOP Congress in 2010 would be like the Dem Congress we got in 2006 (Bush/Cheyney/Rove witchhunts for two years, tons of pork barreling, bloated budgets, etc)?

I agree, it wouldn't be great to replicate that turn of events, but like with the Dem Congress in 2006, the Congress that came before them was so bad we just had to take a different direction, no matter the sad fact that we were probably just going in circles from one bad crew to the next. The GOP was terrible and deserved the rout they got in 2006. Same goes for the Dems here in 2010. Hopefully someone breaks the cycle and governs responsibly, but we don't have a lot of history to show that will happen.

+1

Skjellyfetti wrote:Who is your favorite pollster, nativist?

Rasmussen, because he tells him what he wants to hear.

GannonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Of course most Americans don't realize that a Republican Congress, instead of working on problems, would pull a 1997-98 Congress and spend all the time on an Obama Witch Hunt.


And they also don't realize that the new House Majority Leader is flying around the country promising voters that if they elected a Republican to their district, he has promised that Congressman a lucrative, pork-laded committee assignment.

So what you're saying is that a GOP Congress in 2010 would be like the Dem Congress we got in 2006 (Bush/Cheyney/Rove witchhunts for two years, tons of pork barreling, bloated budgets, etc)?

I agree, it wouldn't be great to replicate that turn of events, but like with the Dem Congress in 2006, the Congress that came before them was so bad we just had to take a different direction, no matter the sad fact that we were probably just going in circles from one bad crew to the next. The GOP was terrible and deserved the rout they got in 2006. Same goes for the Dems here in 2010. Hopefully someone breaks the cycle and governs responsibly, but we don't have a lot of history to show that will happen.

What witch hunts in 2007-8?

dbackjon wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
So what you're saying is that a GOP Congress in 2010 would be like the Dem Congress we got in 2006 (Bush/Cheyney/Rove witchhunts for two years, tons of pork barreling, bloated budgets, etc)?

I agree, it wouldn't be great to replicate that turn of events, but like with the Dem Congress in 2006, the Congress that came before them was so bad we just had to take a different direction, no matter the sad fact that we were probably just going in circles from one bad crew to the next. The GOP was terrible and deserved the rout they got in 2006. Same goes for the Dems here in 2010. Hopefully someone breaks the cycle and governs responsibly, but we don't have a lot of history to show that will happen.

What witch hunts in 2007-8?

C'mon dback, it's just like the liberals being responsible for the Great Recession. You've got to brush up on your recent history.

kalm wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

What witch hunts in 2007-8?

C'mon dback, it's just like the liberals being responsible for the Great Recession. You've got to brush up on your recent history.

I know. Even though Speaker Pelosi, over the howls of liberals, put investigations into Bush-Cheney's misdeeds OFF the table...

GannonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Of course most Americans don't realize that a Republican Congress, instead of working on problems, would pull a 1997-98 Congress and spend all the time on an Obama Witch Hunt.


And they also don't realize that the new House Majority Leader is flying around the country promising voters that if they elected a Republican to their district, he has promised that Congressman a lucrative, pork-laded committee assignment.

So what you're saying is that a GOP Congress in 2010 would be like the Dem Congress we got in 2006 (Bush/Cheyney/Rove witchhunts for two years, tons of pork barreling, bloated budgets, etc)?

I agree, it wouldn't be great to replicate that turn of events, but like with the Dem Congress in 2006, the Congress that came before them was so bad we just had to take a different direction, no matter the sad fact that we were probably just going in circles from one bad crew to the next. The GOP was terrible and deserved the rout they got in 2006. Same goes for the Dems here in 2010. Hopefully someone breaks the cycle and governs responsibly, but we don't have a lot of history to show that will happen.

Yes, because the farce that was Ken Star and the hypocrisy of Gingrich et al with Clinton was repeated in 06-08 (you see how Gingrich was fucking some girl on the side while railing against Clinton fucking some girl on the side?). Please. I was disappointed in the Democrats, but that's ridiculous. I agree with the rest of your post though. Republicans are getting the House, but I'd rather not see them get the Senate as well, just to keep it somewhat balanced.

How about a new poll option; who wants to see the moderates in charge instead of the crazies (on both sides)?

BlueHen86 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Who is your favorite pollster, nativist?

Rasmussen, because he tells him what he wants to hear.

Rasmussen, not because of how I feel (a liberal trait), but because has has proven to be by far the most accurate pollster when we measure actual election results (a conservative trait) and pre-election polls.

native wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Rasmussen, because he tells him what he wants to hear.

Rasmussen, not because of how I feel (a liberal trait), but because has has proven to be by far the most accurate pollster when we measure actual election results (a conservative trait) and pre-election polls.

They are actually the 15th most accurate pollster, according to Nate Silver's PIE rating system. They are also not, apparently, transparent in terms of how they weight their data to produce results.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/ ... sults.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chemhen wrote:

native wrote:
Rasmussen, not because of how I feel (a liberal trait), but because has has proven to be by far the most accurate pollster when we measure actual election results (a conservative trait) and pre-election polls.

They are actually the 15th most accurate pollster, according to Nate Silver's PIE rating system. They are also not, apparently, transparent in terms of how they weight their data to produce results.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/ ... sults.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks for the interesting link, chem!

The predictions on Nate's web site don't appear at first glance to differ much from Rasmussen's.

Silver's methodology might have been more transparent to me when I made my A's in engineering statistics and graduate business analysis classes fifteen years ago, but not so transparent these days. It wasn't a simple comparison of predictions versus results.

The 538 web site is worthy of further discussion and analysis, though. Maybe you can help us get through the methodology of his statistics.

Why don't we freeze a dozen sample polls from a few pollsters and do our own test this year?

native wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Rasmussen, because he tells him what he wants to hear.

Rasmussen, not because of how I feel (a liberal trait), but because has has proven to be by far the most accurate pollster when we measure actual election results (a conservative trait) and pre-election polls.

He used to be the most accurate poster, I'm not sure that is true anymore. He seems to lean Republican, much more so than he used to. If he is the most accurate pollster this election I will happily eat my words, but my guess is that things aren't as bad for the Dem's as he would have you believe.

BlueHen86 wrote:

native wrote:
Rasmussen, not because of how I feel (a liberal trait), but because has has proven to be by far the most accurate pollster when we measure actual election results (a conservative trait) and pre-election polls.

He used to be the most accurate poster, I'm not sure that is true anymore. He seems to lean Republican, much more so than he used to. If he is the most accurate pollster this election I will happily eat my words, but my guess is that things aren't as bad for the Dem's as he would have you believe.

Point well taken. I am willing to let the chips fall. It should be interesting.

But I have got to stand up for Rasmussen's polling accuracy. Last year, he was the first to predict the Massachussets senate race and the governor's races in Virginia and New Jersey, well ahead of the 21-day point used by Nate Silverman in his analysis. It should come as no surprise, as Silverman himself points out on his web site, that an early pollster with new data is often imitated by other pollsters. If Silverman had used a 30 day window or a 45 day window, Rasmussen may well have finished first in the 538 analysis of pollsters.

By the way, BlueHen86, Rasmussen is not the one saying that 90 to 100 House seats are in play, like Gallup, for instance. Yesterday he was still pretty circumspect and leaning towards fifty-something seat changes in his predictions for the House.

I think 538 is a great blog; it used to be independent, but the NYT bought him out. The guy used to be a statistician with Baseball Prospectus, and they forecast some sports stuff too (like who would get the most medals, gold medals at the Olympics). Hopefully they still do that now that they're owned by someone else. I think Rasmussen is very accurate; according to Silver they have a house edge towards Republicans, but that's less important because, if you believe it exists, you can correct for it and still be accurate and trust the data.

Native, if you took stats classes, even 15 years ago, you're multiple legs up on me. The only stat I can do is confidence intervals, and most of what Silver says flies over my head. I basically trust him though. I mean, if they NYT stand behind him, he must be right. He just had a long series of posts about polling and the problems in it, very enlightening.

This whole post is very off topic, and I sound like a shill. Oh well.

Chemhen wrote:I think 538 is a great blog; it used to be independent, but the NYT bought him out. The guy used to be a statistician with Baseball Prospectus, and they forecast some sports stuff too (like who would get the most medals, gold medals at the Olympics). Hopefully they still do that now that they're owned by someone else. I think Rasmussen is very accurate; according to Silver they have a house edge towards Republicans, but that's less important because, if you believe it exists, you can correct for it and still be accurate and trust the data.

Native, if you took stats classes, even 15 years ago, you're multiple legs up on me. The only stat I can do is confidence intervals, and most of what Silver says flies over my head. I basically trust him though. I mean, if they NYT stand behind him, he must be right. He just had a long series of posts about polling and the problems in it, very enlightening.

This whole post is very off topic, and I sound like a shill. Oh well.

Looks to be an interesting and informative polling and statistics site! Thanks again for turning us on to it.

I do not share your confidence in the honesty, accuracy and fairness of the NYT!

Not off topic at all, and not a shill! Thanks for chiming in!

He's been employed by the Republican Party and George Bush's campaign and written for World Net Daily. And, not coincidentally, you're constantly starting threads on every poll he releases.

Skjellyfetti wrote:He's been employed by the Republican Party and George Bush's campaign and written for World Net Daily. And, not coincidentally, you're constantly starting threads on every poll he releases.

Maybe Native is Rasmussen.

Skjellyfetti wrote:He's been employed by the Republican Party and George Bush's campaign and written for World Net Daily. And, not coincidentally, you're constantly starting threads on every poll he releases.

Skelly, yours is a fair criticism, and it should cause all consumers of Rasmussen polling information - or any other polling information - to remember, "Buyer Beware!"

But this is a separate issue from whether his polling is accurate. Democrat Doug Schoen, his partner, seems to think so.

Werner von Braun worked for the Nazis before he worked for the Americans. He was a brilliant rocket scientist regardless of who he worked for.

One of the issues with many polls, Gallup in particular, is the exclusive use of land lines for polling.

Thus, voters like Alex and I, who do not have a land line any more, are missed.

Voters in this demographic tend to more urban, young, and in 2008 data any indication, lean Democratic.

dbackjon wrote:One of the issues with many polls, Gallup in particular, is the exclusive use of land lines for polling.

Thus, voters like Alex and I, who do not have a land line any more, are missed.

Voters in this demographic tend to more urban, young, and in 2008 data any indication, lean Democratic.

And since a larger percentage of cell phone exclusive users are younger, mobile, and do not vote regularly...

...it balances out.

travelinman67 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:One of the issues with many polls, Gallup in particular, is the exclusive use of land lines for polling.

Thus, voters like Alex and I, who do not have a land line any more, are missed.

Voters in this demographic tend to more urban, young, and in 2008 data any indication, lean Democratic.

And since a larger percentage of cell phone exclusive users are younger, mobile, and do not vote regularly...

...it balances out.

You are right, but the cell phone phenomenon still makes a difference, t-man. I think Jon makes a valid point, one that makes the pollster's job that much harder.

native wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
And since a larger percentage of cell phone exclusive users are younger, mobile, and do not vote regularly...

...it balances out.

You are right, but the cell phone phenomenon still makes a difference, t-man. I think Jon makes a valid point, one that makes the pollster's job that much harder.

They may have a lower voting percentage, but there are questions to filter that out as well.

20% of US Households are Cell phone only (as of 2009). That is a LOT of missed voters.