Rasmussen Reliability & Wishful Thinking

My friend A.I. bad mouthed the Rasmussen poll in a recent comment, something I noticed because my friends at Badlands Blue and Madville Times recently did the same. Here is A.I.'s comment:

Does this mean you will stop quoting Rasmussen, create-a-positive-Republican-narrative, robo-call polls as though they are worth more than a pitcher of warm spit?

Here's Travis at BB:

Rasmussen's not credible for a couple of reasons. Most notably, he worked for George W. Bush and the Republican National Committee. He'll also be joining Karl Rove and other conservative big shots as a featured speaker for a National Review post-election cruise in November. So, it's not surprising that after a thorough analysis of a number of Rasmussen's polls, Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com finds that Rasmussen's "polls have tended to show substantially more favorable results for Republican candidates" than other surveys.

Here's how it works…In order to publish as many "polls" as possible that show Republicans in the lead, and therefore convince the electorate that the Democrat doesn't stand a chance (credit to the Daily Kos for that analysis), Rasmussen does them on the cheap.

That's an ad hominem, followed by an unsupported accusation involving a contradiction. Lots of professional and respected pollsters have party affiliations, and anyway you can't discredit a poll by telling us the pollster is biased. You have to show the poll was biased. And surely the Daily KOS is just as biased as Scott Rasmussen, so how can that site confirm Travis's accusation?

To be sure robopolls are controversial, but it isn't at all clear why they are unreliable. Are people less likely to answer recorded questions? Are they more or less likely to fudge when talking to a real human being?

Let's do what Travis did not, and take a look at recent elections and Rasmussen's record.

	Contest		Final Rasmussen Poll		Actual Results
Mass. Senate	Brown	Coakley	47%	49	52%	47
New Jersey Gov	Christie	Corzine	46	43	49%	45
Virginia Gov	McDonnell	Deeds	54	41	59	41
2008 Pres	McCain	Obama	46	52	46	53

 

In the Massachusetts special election, Rasmussen's last poll still showed a Coakley lead. However, the difference between that one and previous R polls clearly showed a strong surge for Brown. R underestimated the surge by bit with a week to go. In the case of the New Jersey Governor's race Rasmussen gets it about right (a three point win for Christie) while overestimating, perhaps, the third party candidate. Rasmussen's last poll in Virginia is a bit low on McDonnell's final tally, but right on Deeds' number.

In all three cases, Rasmussen's polls were about as accurate as good polls tend to be. Only Survey USA, I think, did consistently better. In none of these polls did Rasmussen exaggerate Republican support or the gap between the winning Republican and the losing Democrat. The same is true of the 2008 President election, which Rasmussen nailed.

In short, Rasmussen looks to be a very reliable poll in recent elections, and there is no evidence at all in these cases of a Republican bias. But I can see why A.I., Cory Heidelberger, and Travis Dahle all want to believe that the R polls are unbelievable. Rasmussen has Daugaard leading Heidepriem 52% to 36%. We won't know how accurate this polling is until we can compare the last R poll with November's result, but gentlemen: isn't this what South Dakota gubernatorial elections look like?

	2006	2002	1998	1994	1990	1986	1982	1978	1974
Rep	62	57	64	55	59	52	71	57	46
Dem	36	42	33	41	41	48	29	43	54

 

R's 52/36 fits comfortably into that series. If anything, Daugaard's advantage looks a bit low in comparison. South Dakota Democrats haven't won the state house since 1974. If I were a betting man, I wouldn't bet on it happening this year.

Finally, there is Rasmussen's post-primary polling showing Kristi Noem leading Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin 53% to 41%. That twelve point lead looks surprising to me, even as a post victory bounce. It is hardly outside the range of probability. We live in a largely Republican state. All the polls, even the "legitimate ones," Travis, are showing a strong advantage in enthusiasm among Republicans. I can't help but point out that, not too long ago, my friend Mr. Heidelberger was rooting for a Democratic challenge to H-S.

Moreover, other polls show a dramatic shift in support to the GOP, especially among independents. Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight, whom Travis cites approvingly, backs up the NPR poll.

A new poll from Public Opinion Strategies and GQR for NPR, which shows Democrats performing badly in vulnerable House seats, is making a lot of waves this morning. It certainly contains bad news for Democrats -- however -- it is the same bad news that was already implied by generic ballot polling.

So far as I can tell, Herseth-Sandlin's seat has been considered vulnerable by most analysts all year. And then there is the recent Gallup poll showing independent voters favoring Republican candidates by a good ten percent. Considered together with the enthusiasm gap and the Republican advantage in South Dakota, Rasmussen's last House Race poll was hardly unbelievable.

I am not making any predictions here. My only point is that Scott Rasmussen has a good record and his current polling in South Dakota is supported by a lot of additional evidence. I can understand why my friends on the other side of the aisle want desperately to believe otherwise.

Comments

[William]

This is a tough year to be a Democrat, particularly in South Dakota. Where Democrats have been able to hold and/or gain seats in recent years, most of them have campaigned "to the right" of the national party. With majorities in both the House and the Senate and Barack Obama in the White House, the national party has demonstrated itself to be far to the left of country as a whole. Simply put, voting for ANY Democrat in this year's elections perpetuates the current leadership and direction of Congress and the Senate.

[Gary Taylor]

Accidented on your blog. Impressive. Surprising. I'm one of those not-really-here but very much here as a national RV traveler who needs a home address, found SD a good fit, so are residents "here," more or less (via mail and residency service). Retired military and current author(ing). I kept checking to be sure you were really in SD and not a national syndicate. Therein is my prejudiced revealed, "intelligent, incisive, nicey articulated, and thoroughly researched"...in South Dakota? Am now feeling more comfortable behind catchy SD license plates(where else could I get FLY NVY and FLI NVY for both vehicles??) and in my Independent cum Republican skin. I have felt left out by no response from Sen Johnson in four calls and six emails and simple spin responses from SH-S (one honest live call with her SD staff).

Summary: thanks and kudos. I think I'll "favorite" your blog.

[KB]

William: I agree that voting Democrat means voting for the present mess. I only wish I believed that voting Republican means voting for a solution. I don't, yet. But at least it's voting against the problem.

Gary: Thanks and welcome aboard. I am indeed a real South Dakotan, for about the last twenty years. I am sitting on my cedar deck in Aberdeen as I write this. But RV people are welcome here. Please comment freely.

[Ka]

Ken:

I think Madville Times and Badlands Blue are echoing the sentament that will eventually lead to Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin's defeat. They like a lot of Dems around SD still don't accept that Noem is for real. I remember Curd's campaign didn't believe it (Curd's campaign manager actually rolled his eyes about Noem when I mentioned how intelligent she came across - he seemed to believe the no education bull like SHS). SHS will lose in November because her base has become complacent. They want to believe Stephanie is unbeatable, that Noem is Palin, that Noem is unqualified because she doesn't have a college degree, subsidies etc. This year is a wave and if the average dem in SD doesn't wake up we will have a new congresswoman in November. It's likely we will even if they do become engaged and concernded for Herseth.

In reality SHS should have her crew out screaming fire at Democratic party meetings to make sure people realize this challenger is real instead of downplaying the current situation.

Almost everyone I've ever talked to about Noem who has met her thinks she is incredibly articulate intelligent and knowledgable. SHS is in real trouble.

[Valerie]

that is still a big convention bocune by historical standards.Among RVs, from 7 down to 4 up is 11 points. Obama's bocune was 4 (from 3 up to 7 up.)To be sure, Gore had a similar bocune at his convention in 2000 (which followed the Bush bocune of about 6 or so that year).You may be right about the pool of respondents, and how likely voters may unerrepresent the voting public this year.I think AA votes will sigificantly increase this year. But I am not persuaded that the "youth vote" will be all that. Again. It never is.Don't count out the energized GOP base. This latest poll, btw, indicates that GOP voter ID has leapt substantially. Moreover, it indicates that the gap between voters who intend to vote D for Congress over those who intend to vote R has shrunk dramatically to just 3 points.All this stuff is just a snapshot. Voter intent and the makeup of the electorate is always dynamic.But you need to remind yourself that over time, for the past 30 years or so) the GOP candidate usually gains support from the conventions to Election Day. (Reagan in 80 and 84, Bush I in 88 and Bush II in 00 and 04)Plus, remember that only TWO Democrats since FDR were able to reach 50% of the vote in a general election. Just two. And only one (Carter... barely) since 1964.I think it is telling that Obama even after his supposedly successful convention could barely get to 50% in a couple of polls. Even Dukakis had around 55% I recall.I don't think the next 8 weeks are going to be kind to The One's prospects.The Dems keep nominating weak lawyerly left wing candidates. Adlai was the prognenitor of the breed. The Dems did OK with fighters like Truman, Southerners like LBJ and Carter and Clinton.But Boston Brahmin liberals (Dukakis, Kerry) and Chicago Hyde Park street agitators (Obama) are not the ticket.The fact is, and I don't mean this in a mean spirited way... I think this is really happening.....People are coming to the conclusion that Sarah Palin is more of a man, and would make a stronger President, than Barack Obama.

[MarieDri]

I was really buemmd for about 10 seconds, then I looked at the poll and found this:McCain leads Democrat Barack Obama by 50%-46% among registered voters, the Republican's biggest advantage since January and a turnaround from the USA TODAY poll taken just before the convention opened in St. Paul. Then, he lagged by 7 percentage points."Likely voter" screens for this election are going to be very difficult, as they tend to under-sample the young and minority voters, key Obama constituencies. This election is likely to be much closer to the "registered voter" polls than the "likely voter" polls.Good for McCain, I hope they start acting like they're 10 points ahead now. It will make it easier for us to surprise them in the end.