Comments on: Rasmussen screwed up the swing states again in 2012

By: Dave Hicks

Dave Hicks — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 17:05:36 +0000

Re: VVArlock @ 11:40 am

VVArlock,

Primarily, I was hypothesizing that Rasmussen might have believed that dumping enough $$ into the rat hole would fill it and that that Rasmussen might not have believed that the true shakers and movers would knowingly pour good money after bad — hence a motive for Rasmussen to have ginned the data.

However, you could be right as to both sets of bad actors being of that persuasion.

By: Shrillary

Shrillary — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:44:45 +0000

We also shouldn’t forget the fiasco called Gallup polling. They were wrong, and never adjusted their model to include a higher percentage of Latino voters. They stuck to their old white men model, even underestimating the Democratic voter numbers. They should write a mea culpa to all those [not me] who kept citing their polling numbers as if they had come down from the “Mount”.

By: VVArlock

VVArlock — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:40:34 +0000

Dave Hicks –
You assume that they realize money can not actually buy elections. We have been told by both parties that money makes the difference…
Perhaps they really believed dumping enough $$ into the rat hole would fill it.

By: VVArlock

VVArlock — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:37:46 +0000

I lurk.
Last week of classes, getting ready for finals, lots of family last week, pretty busy around here. Mainly artificial, no one except me is going to care that I got a 3.4 instead of a 2.8. Once you aren’t in the top 2-5% employers don’t really care, but I put the pressure on to do better than that.

By: Kristen

Kristen — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:32:58 +0000

I was certainly hit up for money straight through to the end of the election. I realize I don’t represent major funding, but there are a lot of people like me out there who might make a choice on whether or not to give based on the polling data.
Certainly states portrayed as “battlegrounds” don’t represent much of an actual battle when they all fall to the same candidate, save NC.

By: Dave Hicks

Dave Hicks — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:23:28 +0000

Re: Dan Casey @ 10:00 am

FWIIW, I am neither expressing a personal opinion here nor do I have an opinion about Rasmussen intentionally ginning up the numbers to keep campaign money flowing,Vs. him being ginned up (Brit’s usage) or him having deluded himself, Vs. purely seriously flawed methodology.

That said, however, Kristen’s “…to keep campaign money flowing” could still be valid, notwithstanding the fact that money was committed before the first debate — IMHO.

Throughout this campaign and other earlier campaigns we have seen money that was committed be withheld following a campaign-killer-event. We have seen money shifted / contracts canceled / offices closed / campaign workers moved following a campaign-killer-event (or in the case of the Electoral College predictions, moved to a different State once a State was written off as being winnable).

Assuming arguendo that the GOP and the various super-PACs and dark-money (not under the direct control of Romney) had become aware/strongly suspected [counterfactual subjunctive mood, here] that the Electoral College results would be what they turned out to be, would not money in-hand have been redirected to Congressional campaigns to try to mitigate the impact of the foreseen lose? Had the Electoral College results been foreseen by the shakers and movers would not even “committed” money dried up? IMHO, shakers and movers don’t knowingly pour good money after bad. They don’t knowingly pour money down a rat-hole w/o expectation of a return to themselves. IMHO, had they known that the Electoral College was unwinnable, that would have stopped spending on it on that campaign, one way or another.

By: Dan Casey

Dan Casey — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:04:04 +0000

VVarlock, welcome back!

By: Dan Casey

Dan Casey — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:00:41 +0000

Kristin, you’re right that the RCP average was to a lesser extent skewed, partly because Rasmussen is the most prolific pollster out there. But there were other pollsters whose numbers were generally favorable to Obama, and who pretty much nailed the election (ABC/WashPost and Pew) whose numbers reflected similar shifts.

Almost all the money that was contributed came in, and was committed, before the first debate. There was no conspiracy among the media to keep dollars flowing — most of them were going to flow anyway.

By: VVArlock

VVArlock — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:57:28 +0000

The right was up in arms about Silver being a shill because he disagreed with their bubble-born desires. Well, it seems Silver is again the most accurate predictor and those who predicted mainly Republican wins… not so much.
Silver is the most accurate. Time and again. Rasmussen the most right leaning and inaccurate.

By: Kristen

Kristen — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:46:35 +0000

RCP generally includes Rasmussen in its aggregate, and this post makes me feel even more that the supposed “tie” the race went into after the first debate was nonsense jinned up to keep campaign money flowing.