Rasmussen admits failure!

LL, that question is more appropriate for Whirly. He is the one who said "Rassmussen performed better than most other polls." Originally Posted by bigtex

Really?

As for Whirly's assertion that Rasmussen "performed better than most other polls." If that were the case why did Rasmussen feel the need to "explain what went wrong?" "Simply getting the winner correct in 3 of 9 battleground states isn’t going to win over the many detractors who regularly dismiss the firm’s polls for their often overly rosy GOP predictions" Originally Posted by bigtex

Again, there you go again ...

... Rasmussen also was unable to predict the influence and/or arrival of Sandy.

... Rasmussen also was unable to predict the influence and/or arrival of Sandy. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Yet other pollsters were? How did they get it so wrong?

I will tell you how, because they made wrong assumptions, other pollesters did not.

Anybody with any objectivity could have seen that Romney got a huge bounce after the first debate but it leveled off behind the President and he never caught up. Yet you nuts seemed to think he was ahead, it was baffling to me.

Rasmussen was closer to the final vote count than Gallup, PPP, Quinnipiac and Marist.

And more accurate in the swing states.

The Obama defenders like to cite Nate Silver's election predictions; Silver isn't a poll, doesn't do polling. His analysis is a prediction. The polling firms do not do predictions !

The polling analysis by most firms was extremely accurate in this election cycle !

Don't compare apples to oranges.

Rasmussen was closer to the final vote count than Gallup, PPP, Quinnipiac and Marist.

And more accurate in the swing states.

. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

How did you think Romney was going to win then?

Yet other pollsters were? Originally Posted by WTF

I am assuming that you have links to show the "other pollsters" factored in Sandy.

If you don't, just say something smart-ass like:
I'm not going to do your research.

How did you think Romney was going to win then? Originally Posted by WTF

I think all of the polls were within the margin of error, and depending upon voter turnout and unforeseen events (Sandy-hurricane), and suppressing negative news stories by the pro-Obaminable media, there was an opportunity for Romney to win.

Being right on Monday morning doesn't mean you were right on Friday before. Did you predict Texans would win?

... by a touchdown?

"2012 NFL WEEK 10 FREE PICK: CHICAGO BEARS –1"

To win a candidate needs to get one vote over 50%. Obama squeaked by with 51.4%. Not a landslide. Not a mandate. Not a GOP beat down.

To win a candidate needs to get one vote over 50%. Obama squeaked by with 51.4%. Not a landslide. Not a mandate. Not a GOP beat down. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Proved all your "trending" predictions were wrong tho.

To win a candidate needs to get one vote over 50%. Obama squeaked by with 51.4%. Not a landslide. Not a mandate. Not a GOP beat down. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

to win a candidate needs 270 electoral votes, Obie hit the magic number shortly after 10pm .. before the west coast had time to tally the votes and without the votes in Florida ... maybe not a beat down, but a good ass whoopin nonetheless.

To win a candidate needs to get one vote over 50%. Obama squeaked by with 51.4%. Not a landslide. Not a mandate. Not a GOP beat down. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

He actually got less than 51% (62,000,000 to 59,000,000) but in the electoral college points, the method used to determine the winner of the election, Obama got more than 60% which is a gop beatdown.

Especially since, as you well know, the gop expected to win.

And it's going to only get worse for the gop