Originally Posted by Taskiss
What, do you really think nobody reads your links?
From the link you posted:
I guess you only value accuracy when it agrees with your preconceptions?
No. It is your preconceptions that places greater value on one single polling company, which leans right in your direction.
Rasmussen has been a favorite of the right, as their polls are biased toward the right. That much we do know for sure as the link I posted clearly points out.
Democratic Party activists have pointed out that Scott Rasmussen was a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign. Rasmussen Reports have also performed paid work for Bush opponents. For example, the anti-war organization After Downing Street commissioned a Rasmussen poll on support for impeachment of President Bush. According to Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight.com, while there are no apparent records of Scott Rasmussen or Rasmussen Reports making contributions to political candidates and its public election polls are generally regarded as reliable, "some observers have questioned its issue-based polling, which frequently tends to elicit responses that are more conservative than those found on other national surveys."
John Marshal of Talking Points Memo has said, "The toplines tend to be a bit toward the Republican side of the spectrum, compared to the average of other polls. But if you factor that in they're pretty reliable.
So apparently you take their polls and shift them to agree with the others, which suggests that, as is, Rasmussen polling data is not as accurate, but is right biased, and the right bias must be removed.
Rasmussen is known for asking leading questions in their robocall polls. They also don't have full transparancy, as in releasing the entire questionaire of their polls. I've posted this in previous threads. Zogby, Gallup, and Harris are also known for these tactics. These polls are also not random samples, but graded to a preconceived curve (meaning they don't tell you how they massaged the raw data). Bottom line? They're all in it for the money and to generate various levels of shock value.
Full transparancy requires releasing the entire questionaire, the raw data, and any adjustments to the raw data that results in altering said raw data (e. g. their final numbers).
Finally, anyone who answers oral or verbal polling questions should be aware of what exactly they are getting into. I myself will only fill out a written questionaire, but only after I've read it fully through, and I am unable to decern any suspicious underlying theme, if so, then I walk away.