Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: Rasmussen TN, AL, MO


Alabama
Clinton 46, Obama 41... McCain 38, Huckabee 30, Romney 20

Tennessee
Clinton 49, Obama 35... McCain 32, Romney 29, Huckabee 23

Missouri
McCain 32, Huckabee 29, Romney 28... Clinton 47, Obama 38

 

Comments
Joshua D. Bradshaw:

can someone please tell me which polling organizations are repitable. and with these polls how accurate are they

____________________

Note: I am an uninformed opinionator. Take my advice with a grain of salt. (At least I openly identify myself for what I am.)

So,

All the public pollsters found at this site are reputable. Accuracy is harder to judge; just look at the error rate of *every* pollster for New Hampshire and South Carolina.

My recommendation is to pick the pollsters who conduct multiple, regular polling (Gallup, Rasmussen, Zogby, CNN, Pew, etc.) and look for the trends within each pollster separately. That way, whatever their bias or error, the trends will probably reflect a *real* trend. Conversely, beware of a pollster who conducts a single poll and reports results outside of the mainstream opinion.

____________________

joshua D. Bradshaw:

thanks for the help

____________________

Joshua D. Bradshaw:

Oh just thought i would mention that according to gallup hillary now has a 7 point lead in their rolling survey. this is up from the 3 point she had yesterday. can someone give me a better understanding of how these tracking period polls work

____________________

Andrew:

Some polls have a good track record in presidential and senatorial races, but primaries have a different dynamic.

Rasmussen may still be one of the best primary predictors, but this doesn't mean Rasmussen is good. You can be "better" than someone who is horrible, but this doesn't make you good. Rasmussen has not been anywhere close to the actual results.

In New Hampshire, for example, Rasmussen predicted an Obama win by 7%. He lost by 3%.

In Iowa Rasmussen apparently played it safe because he didn't even dare poll voters there.

Same with Nevada. No Rasmussen polls conducted there.

In SC, Rasmussen was off by 12% in the margin, predicting a 15% Obama win that turned out to be 27% in the actual vote.

As you can see, even the "best" primary pollster can be off by a significant margin.

That's the way I see things.

____________________

Henry:

Andrew, all

Admittedly nobody 100% accurately predicted Obama's 28 point margin of victory in SC, but you're exaggerating Rasmussen's margin of error by not taking into account the undecideds.

Their last SC poll of 1/21 (still five days before the vote) showed 43/28/17 (O/C/E).

If you weight the ~12% undecideds in line with the actual results, with a slight Obama bias as we saw obviously a trend of undecideds going more to Obama, that gives Obama about another 7, and 3 for Clinton and 2 for Edwards, making their effective numbers, 50/31/19.

This is quite close to the final results of 55/28/19. (Yes this comes to 101%, due to rounding up.)

Also note that this poll was taken 5 days before the actual vote, during which time Clinton lost some more votes to Obama. If you account for undecideds in a similar way for the last two polls released in the last couple days before the actual vote of Jan 26, the Reuters and PPP polls, you find they were almost exactly correct, particularly the PPP poll.

The PPP poll of 1/24 when you account for undecideds comes to about 53/27/20.

Also note that the previous PPP poll taken at the same time as this Rasmussen poll that you're criticizing, showed almost the same results as that Rasmussen poll.

We have to be careful to see differentiate between bad polls and bad reading/interpretation of the polls.

ARG for example, (and not Rasmussen) is blatantly guilty of the former. We might often be guilty of the latter.

The polls, if rather than just reading the gross numbers for one or another candidate at face value, but look deeper and take into account trends over time of that same pollster, and trends as a whole taking into account all intra-pollster trends, in accounting for the undecideds, can be quite informative, and accurate.

Peace
Henry

____________________

vh:

Get it thru ur thick skull u self serving Obama idiots. He has topped out in polls. he can't go any higher. He going to lose on Fe5.

____________________

Andrew:

That is true, Henry.
Sometimes we believe that pollsters must "guess" the actual election results, but we forget that the undecided could make elections unpredictable, and that the ideal poll would be conducted the day before the elections, since daily events sometimes significantly alter voting preferences.

____________________

Lead Dog:

In most cases I take the most recent polls and average them. If there are enough, I discard the highest and lowest and then average. What I am really looking for is margins.


What is helpful about this site is that you can compare both apples to oranges and apples to apples. Take California - where you can compare past Field Polls to the most recent Field Poll, or past Rasmussen to current Rasmussen. You can identify movement and potentially trends because these pollsters don't change their methodologies from poll to poll, and will likely treat leaners and undecideds the same.


Overall, not too much should be made of any poll numbers - just organize, baby.

____________________

Henry:

vh,
I'll assume your rude comment wasn't directed at me, but I'll respond to your point anyway.

Neither of them are going to lose on Tuesday.

By my current calculations, the delegate count after Tuesday is going to be around:
1072 Obama
1119 Clinton

Hardly a "win" or "loss" for either of them.

Your ignorant "[someone is] going to lose on [February 5]" post exemplifies the common media-encouraged misunderstanding about how the Democratic Party caucus and primary process works. It's not a winner take all for each state like most states are for the Republican Party.

Oh buy you probably already knew this. You just wanted an excuse to spew some useless anti-Obama ranting.

Peace
Henry

____________________

vh:

By lose I mean he is going to lose most of the states in terms of votes, which what matters in the real election and for voters perception.
It makes NO differce by how many delegates Clinton wins finally. Rest is all internal Democratic party crap that common people don't care.

____________________

RS:

vh:
Your later post makes way more sense than your first post.
Remember that even if Senator Clinton wins the Democratic nomination (as you appear to want), she still needs the votes of Obama-backers to win the general election.
Name-calling by either camp will only make people less than enthusiastic about supporting the other candidate. I can easily see (apparent) Clinton-backers like yourself pushing Obama supporters to Senator McCain IF Senator Clinton wins the nomination.
Let's try to keep this civil, shall we?

____________________

Rasmus:

Umm... I know how interesting that Obama-Clinton duel is, but is no one interested in analyzing that statistical tie in TN and MO?

Compared to these polls:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/missouri/missouri_republican_presidential_primary
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/179188,poll-mccain-leading-republicans-in-mo.html

in MO
and these ones

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Tennessee_Release_012908.pdf
http://www.wsmv.com/download/2008/0131/15189367.pdf

in TN

Romney seems to have gained a lot of ground an Huckabee lost votes in TN, McCain in MO AND in TN.

In AL the trend is smaller, but ROmney won a few points there, too.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR