Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

SheenaR

(2,052 posts)
Tue May 3, 2016, 12:31 PM May 2016

I don't get why there is outrage over the Rasmussen poll....

Which is typically followed by a listing of polls in which Clinton is leading Drumpf.

Looking kind of like this:

Rasmussen Reports 4/27 - 4/28 1000 LV 3.0 39 41 Drumpf +2
IBD/TIPP 4/22 - 4/28 814 RV 3.5 47 40 Clinton +7
USA Today/Suffolk 4/20 - 4/24 1000 LV 3.0 50 39 Clinton +11
GWU/Battleground 4/17 - 4/20 1000 LV 3.1 46 43 Clinton +3
FOX News 4/11 - 4/13 1021 RV 3.0 48 41 Clinton +7
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 4/10 - 4/14 1000 RV 3.1 50 39 Clinton +11


Now help me out here... Because I am having trouble understanding... .When Sanders supporters note that similar polling shows him with commanding advantages over Republicans, they are told "GE polling is meaningless at this point"

So what gives? Why the fuss over Rasmussen? Or any of them?

I mean, they are all meaningless at this point.


EDIT: No no... It's not a conservative thing. It's a poll thing.. Why do polls matter suddenly?


EDIT 2: HELLO.... It's about POLLING. I know it's a conservative outlet. Answer the premise of the post if you would like, please do not state the obvious.

18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
1. In 2008 and 2012, Rasmussen had a well known and well reported bias towards Republicans.
Tue May 3, 2016, 12:32 PM
May 2016

Even people who like the results should take them with a large grain of salt.

nemo137

(3,297 posts)
2. For the same reason people would get cranky over a Brietbart link
Tue May 3, 2016, 12:32 PM
May 2016

Rasmussen has a barely-hidden allegiance to the Republican party, and feeds into the "our oppoents are not real DEMOCRATS" mood that takes over this place every primary cycle, aside form being dubious on its own.

SheenaR

(2,052 posts)
7. Oh they most certainly do
Tue May 3, 2016, 12:44 PM
May 2016

They are posted frequently here now that the presumptive nominee is matched against Trump. Perhaps you should not speak for all of your side's supporters.

But I agree... They are worthless

 

workinclasszero

(28,270 posts)
11. They don't really
Tue May 3, 2016, 01:27 PM
May 2016

I'm sure most Americans have no idea what a lowlife racist, misogynist scumball Trump is yet.

His numbers will be lower than whale **** at the bottom of the ocean when Hillary and the democratic party start opening their eyes in the general.

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
12. Polls generally mean more the closer we get to an event.
Tue May 3, 2016, 01:30 PM
May 2016

The landscape may change again when there are two nominees.

Sanders may have polled better against Trump because his views are more distinct from Herr Tinyhands'. If Clinton is the nominee with Sanders behind her, she will perform similarly, I believe. And I never bought the idea that Clinton might lise to Trump.

 

basselope

(2,565 posts)
13. Polls this far out don't matter as far as RESULT... BUT
Tue May 3, 2016, 01:58 PM
May 2016

They can show relative strength of one candidate vs another.

SheenaR

(2,052 posts)
14. I think they do
Tue May 3, 2016, 02:02 PM
May 2016

I just find it humorous that they matter to certain people in certain situations. I think they are a fairly strong indicator given how well the candidates are known by the public this year

SheenaR

(2,052 posts)
18. Every Rasmussen thread over the last two days
Tue May 3, 2016, 02:35 PM
May 2016

Go inside them. There you will see the attack dogs. Hope this helped.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
17. I don't pay much attention to hypothetical GE match-up polls at this point, regardless of source.
Tue May 3, 2016, 02:08 PM
May 2016

I suppose an argument can be made, though, that Clinton vs. so-and-so polls may start to be worthy of attention. For one thing, she's now the presumed nominee. For another thing, she's been thoroughly vetted and in the public eye for decades.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»I don't get why there is ...