Rasmussen Tracking Poll [Obama vs McCain]

[muon2]

The only thing I would point out, muon2, is that I separately calculated the averages of the one-day samples using the internals of the separate one-day only polls used in:

1) Debate results (Saturday Prez sample)
2) Bailout numbers (Sunday Prez sample)

When Rasmussen gives these numbers, he also gives the internals of how they break down in GE w/leaners (McCain v. Obama).  

While not entirely accurate (he does not include the small number of undecideds), we can use these internals multiplied to the actual support of the other numbers to make an educated guess at the end number.  So, this adds a bit of a cross-check into the analysis.

For Saturday, I said Obama +7 to 8 (the formula has it at 7.70%)
For Sunday, I said McCain +2 (the formula has it at 3.22%).  Looking at the numbers again now, and doing the calculations, McCain +3 actually fits more accurately with the internals.

I'm not saying your estimate is wrong, I'm just saying that the variation is suspiciously large. I recognize I only have 6 points to deal with, so this set can be a statistical fluke. However, I think the occurrence of three points outside the 95% range, when I expect less than one gives me reason to raise a question.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'm not saying your estimate is wrong, I'm just saying that the variation is suspiciously large. I recognize I only have 6 points to deal with, so this set can be a statistical fluke. However, I think the occurrence of three points outside the 95% range, when I expect less than one gives me reason to raise a question.

but this is statistics, clustering is always a possibility.

[Sam Spade]

The only thing I would point out, muon2, is that I separately calculated the averages of the one-day samples using the internals of the separate one-day only polls used in:

1) Debate results (Saturday Prez sample)
2) Bailout numbers (Sunday Prez sample)

When Rasmussen gives these numbers, he also gives the internals of how they break down in GE w/leaners (McCain v. Obama).  

While not entirely accurate (he does not include the small number of undecideds), we can use these internals multiplied to the actual support of the other numbers to make an educated guess at the end number.  So, this adds a bit of a cross-check into the analysis.

For Saturday, I said Obama +7 to 8 (the formula has it at 7.70%)
For Sunday, I said McCain +2 (the formula has it at 3.22%).  Looking at the numbers again now, and doing the calculations, McCain +3 actually fits more accurately with the internals.

I'm not saying your estimate is wrong, I'm just saying that the variation is suspiciously large. I recognize I only have 6 points to deal with, so this set can be a statistical fluke. However, I think the occurrence of three points outside the 95% range, when I expect less than one gives me reason to raise a question.

Nah, I understand your point.  My main concern has to do with whether the beginning of the sequence is incorrect or not.  If it is, then the entire sequence would be wrong.  All we could do is tell, vis-a-vis the three-day average, that McCain's numbers improved 2.09% (roughly) in comparison to yesterday's numbers.  We couldn't tell the *starting off point*, which would allow us to determine how this movement compares to the sample that dropped off (which would then be able to give us the actual daily sample).

This is one of the reasons why I'm starting to do the internal one-day checks on Rasmussen's other questions that he asks that are released separately in the polling database.  I want to see how close my guesstimates come to the ladder sequence.  So, for the last two days, these have been my guesstimates (based on the internals):

Sat (debate sample):  O53-M45
Sun (bailout sample):  M50-O47

They might be a tad lower on both sides (more undecideds), but considering the fact that Friday's sample was most certainly a high undecided sample (both candidates moved downwards in raw internals, clearly), I have to believe that this is a reasonable guess.

[ucscgaldamez]

I agree with muon (about the swings). I am a subscriber and I get to see the internals and I don't see how it would put McCain +3 for last night. McCain only went up among independents without Obama's percentage moving at all. Not only that, Obama went up among Democrats (even a percentage more of support from the Dems than McCain from the GOP.

[muon2]

The only thing I would point out, muon2, is that I separately calculated the averages of the one-day samples using the internals of the separate one-day only polls used in:

1) Debate results (Saturday Prez sample)
2) Bailout numbers (Sunday Prez sample)

When Rasmussen gives these numbers, he also gives the internals of how they break down in GE w/leaners (McCain v. Obama).  

While not entirely accurate (he does not include the small number of undecideds), we can use these internals multiplied to the actual support of the other numbers to make an educated guess at the end number.  So, this adds a bit of a cross-check into the analysis.

For Saturday, I said Obama +7 to 8 (the formula has it at 7.70%)
For Sunday, I said McCain +2 (the formula has it at 3.22%).  Looking at the numbers again now, and doing the calculations, McCain +3 actually fits more accurately with the internals.

I'm not saying your estimate is wrong, I'm just saying that the variation is suspiciously large. I recognize I only have 6 points to deal with, so this set can be a statistical fluke. However, I think the occurrence of three points outside the 95% range, when I expect less than one gives me reason to raise a question.

Nah, I understand your point.  My main concern has to do with whether the beginning of the sequence is incorrect or not.  If it is, then the entire sequence would be wrong.  All we could do is tell, vis-a-vis the three-day average, that McCain's numbers improved 2.09% (roughly) in comparison to yesterday's numbers.  We couldn't tell the *starting off point*, which would allow us to determine how this movement compares to the sample that dropped off (which would then be able to give us the actual daily sample).

This is one of the reasons why I'm starting to do the internal one-day checks on Rasmussen's other questions that he asks that are released separately in the polling database.  I want to see how close my guesstimates come to the ladder sequence.  So, for the last two days, these have been my guesstimates (based on the internals):

Sat (debate sample):  O53-M45
Sun (bailout sample):  M50-O47

They might be a tad lower on both sides (more undecideds), but considering the fact that Friday's sample was most certainly a high undecided sample (both candidates moved downwards in raw internals, clearly), I have to believe that this is a reasonable guess.

The best test would be an extended time correlation analysis. If data over the last 3 weeks shows a strong three day cycle then the initial data is likely off. The good part of this type of analysis is that it can pick up cycles independent of an underlying long-term trend.

I'm not saying your estimate is wrong, I'm just saying that the variation is suspiciously large. I recognize I only have 6 points to deal with, so this set can be a statistical fluke. However, I think the occurrence of three points outside the 95% range, when I expect less than one gives me reason to raise a question.

but this is statistics, clustering is always a possibility.

Clustering is a statistical possibility, but a persistent three-day cycle would indicate a systematic bias in the process. This assumes that short term effects should be statistical, and there is no external environmental effect to provide voter shifts in a three-day pattern.

[Sam Spade]

The only thing I would point out, muon2, is that I separately calculated the averages of the one-day samples using the internals of the separate one-day only polls used in:

1) Debate results (Saturday Prez sample)
2) Bailout numbers (Sunday Prez sample)

When Rasmussen gives these numbers, he also gives the internals of how they break down in GE w/leaners (McCain v. Obama).  

While not entirely accurate (he does not include the small number of undecideds), we can use these internals multiplied to the actual support of the other numbers to make an educated guess at the end number.  So, this adds a bit of a cross-check into the analysis.

For Saturday, I said Obama +7 to 8 (the formula has it at 7.70%)
For Sunday, I said McCain +2 (the formula has it at 3.22%).  Looking at the numbers again now, and doing the calculations, McCain +3 actually fits more accurately with the internals.

I'm not saying your estimate is wrong, I'm just saying that the variation is suspiciously large. I recognize I only have 6 points to deal with, so this set can be a statistical fluke. However, I think the occurrence of three points outside the 95% range, when I expect less than one gives me reason to raise a question.

Nah, I understand your point.  My main concern has to do with whether the beginning of the sequence is incorrect or not.  If it is, then the entire sequence would be wrong.  All we could do is tell, vis-a-vis the three-day average, that McCain's numbers improved 2.09% (roughly) in comparison to yesterday's numbers.  We couldn't tell the *starting off point*, which would allow us to determine how this movement compares to the sample that dropped off (which would then be able to give us the actual daily sample).

This is one of the reasons why I'm starting to do the internal one-day checks on Rasmussen's other questions that he asks that are released separately in the polling database.  I want to see how close my guesstimates come to the ladder sequence.  So, for the last two days, these have been my guesstimates (based on the internals):

Sat (debate sample):  O53-M45
Sun (bailout sample):  M50-O47

They might be a tad lower on both sides (more undecideds), but considering the fact that Friday's sample was most certainly a high undecided sample (both candidates moved downwards in raw internals, clearly), I have to believe that this is a reasonable guess.

The best test would be an extended time correlation analysis. If data over the last 3 weeks shows a strong three day cycle then the initial data is likely off. The good part of this type of analysis is that it can pick up cycles independent of an underlying long-term trend.

I'm not saying your estimate is wrong, I'm just saying that the variation is suspiciously large. I recognize I only have 6 points to deal with, so this set can be a statistical fluke. However, I think the occurrence of three points outside the 95% range, when I expect less than one gives me reason to raise a question.

but this is statistics, clustering is always a possibility.

Clustering is a statistical possibility, but a persistent three-day cycle would indicate a systematic bias in the process. This assumes that short term effects should be statistical, and there is no external environmental effect to provide voter shifts in a three-day pattern.

I agree with your conclusion, muon.  I really don't have the time to implement it though.  So, this is the best I can do unless Rowan provides us proof for his sequence, which is the same third-party that provided us the secrets to begin with. 

[Rowan]

The only thing I would point out, muon2, is that I separately calculated the averages of the one-day samples using the internals of the separate one-day only polls used in:

1) Debate results (Saturday Prez sample)
2) Bailout numbers (Sunday Prez sample)

When Rasmussen gives these numbers, he also gives the internals of how they break down in GE w/leaners (McCain v. Obama).  

While not entirely accurate (he does not include the small number of undecideds), we can use these internals multiplied to the actual support of the other numbers to make an educated guess at the end number.  So, this adds a bit of a cross-check into the analysis.

For Saturday, I said Obama +7 to 8 (the formula has it at 7.70%)
For Sunday, I said McCain +2 (the formula has it at 3.22%).  Looking at the numbers again now, and doing the calculations, McCain +3 actually fits more accurately with the internals.

I'm not saying your estimate is wrong, I'm just saying that the variation is suspiciously large. I recognize I only have 6 points to deal with, so this set can be a statistical fluke. However, I think the occurrence of three points outside the 95% range, when I expect less than one gives me reason to raise a question.

Nah, I understand your point.  My main concern has to do with whether the beginning of the sequence is incorrect or not.  If it is, then the entire sequence would be wrong.  All we could do is tell, vis-a-vis the three-day average, that McCain's numbers improved 2.09% (roughly) in comparison to yesterday's numbers.  We couldn't tell the *starting off point*, which would allow us to determine how this movement compares to the sample that dropped off (which would then be able to give us the actual daily sample).

This is one of the reasons why I'm starting to do the internal one-day checks on Rasmussen's other questions that he asks that are released separately in the polling database.  I want to see how close my guesstimates come to the ladder sequence.  So, for the last two days, these have been my guesstimates (based on the internals):

Sat (debate sample):  O53-M45
Sun (bailout sample):  M50-O47

They might be a tad lower on both sides (more undecideds), but considering the fact that Friday's sample was most certainly a high undecided sample (both candidates moved downwards in raw internals, clearly), I have to believe that this is a reasonable guess.

The best test would be an extended time correlation analysis. If data over the last 3 weeks shows a strong three day cycle then the initial data is likely off. The good part of this type of analysis is that it can pick up cycles independent of an underlying long-term trend.

I'm not saying your estimate is wrong, I'm just saying that the variation is suspiciously large. I recognize I only have 6 points to deal with, so this set can be a statistical fluke. However, I think the occurrence of three points outside the 95% range, when I expect less than one gives me reason to raise a question.

but this is statistics, clustering is always a possibility.

Clustering is a statistical possibility, but a persistent three-day cycle would indicate a systematic bias in the process. This assumes that short term effects should be statistical, and there is no external environmental effect to provide voter shifts in a three-day pattern.

I agree with your conclusion, muon.  I really don't have the time to implement it though.  So, this is the best I can do unless Rowan provides us proof for his sequence, which is the same third-party that provided us the secrets to begin with. 

Yeah, all mine is from a third-party source, who without we wouldn't know the exact three day average. But I do not know how he determines the individual days, and I am not smart enough to figure it out.

[Democratic Hawk]

Obama Gets Post-Debate Boost in Voter Trust on All Issues (September 29, 2008)

Link

Environmental issues: Obama 54%; McCain 37% (Obama +17)
Education: Obama 53%; McCain 36% (Obama +17)
Healthcare: Obama 54%; McCain 38% (Obama +16)
Social Security: Obama 49%; McCain 41% (Obama +8)
Abortion: Obama 47%; McCain 42% (Obama +5)
Balance Federal Budget: Obama 47%; McCain 43% (Obama +4)
Negotiating Trade Agreements: Obama 47%; McCain 43% (Obama +4)
Taxes: Obama 48%; McCain 45% (Obama +3)
Immigration: Obama 43%; McCain 40% (Obama +3)
War on Iraq: Obama 46%; McCain 45% (Obama +1)

Dave

[Rowan]

Rasmussen now says 46% of people think Obama is too inexperienced, up from 41% two weeks ago.

[ChrisFromNJ]

Rasmussen now says 46% of people think Obama is too inexperienced, up from 41% two weeks ago.

Rasmussen needs to throw some red meat to his far right base as Obama's poll numbers continue to rise.

Obama: 51 (+1)
McCain: 45 (NC)

[Kalimantan]

"Obama is now viewed favorably by 58% of voters, McCain by 55%. However, 40% have a Very Favorable opinion of Obama while 26% have a Very Unfavorable view. The comparable numbers for McCain are 26% Very Favorable and 24% Very Unfavorable. "

40% Very Favorable - thats good...

[Josh/Devilman88]

It is starting to look like Obama is going to run away with this election.

[Aizen]

Landslide time baby

[Joe Republic]

Oh, the hubris.

[The Mikado]

So, Joe Republic...have you decided yet?  Or are you just going to sit on the sidelines while our future is at stake?  If the events of the past two weeks haven't convinced you, nothing will.

[Sam Spade]

For some reason Rasmussen is being lazy about posting the daily snapshot today so that I can tell you more, but IMO, the ladder Rowan's been posting has to be incorrect, examining the other internals for the inexperienced and old polls conducted today.

In sum, they really don't make any sense, especially considering the undecideds have to be so low, unless today's sample is roughly about Obama +4 to Obama +6, maybe Obama +7.

[Rowan]

For some reason Rasmussen is being lazy about posting the daily snapshot today so that I can tell you more, but IMO, the ladder Rowan's been posting has to be incorrect, examining the other internals for the inexperienced and old polls conducted today.

In sum, they really don't make any sense, especially considering the undecideds have to be so low, unless today's sample is roughly about Obama +4 to Obama +6, maybe Obama +7.

It probably could be wrong.

Looks like a lot of the movement today came from Independent men.

Obama stretched his lead among indies from +2 to +6, and cut MAC's lead among men to just two points.

[Sam Spade]

Chart:
                                         samp falls off tom      samp falls off today
Obama 50.85% (50.44%/50.43%          /           49.81%          /           49.95%)
McCain 44.89% (45.05%/44.35%          /           44.37%          /           45.16%)

As I said before, I now highly doubt Rowan's sequence that he provided, because one of the internal samples in the "inexperienced/old" questions made it abundantly clear that there was pretty much no way Obama's sample could be much over 51% today (definitely under 52%) for the number to work out internally.

Similarly, one of the other internals there make it highly unlikely that McCain's sample could be much under 45% (definitely over 44%).  And I really suspect 46% is the more likely answer.

I may review the past couple of days' polls and see if I can find a number in the past few days which I can use to isolate the result.  If so, we may have something.

[Joe Republic]

So, Joe Republic...have you decided yet?  Or are you just going to sit on the sidelines while our future is at stake?  If the events of the past two weeks haven't convinced you, nothing will.

I'm not on the sidelines at all.  I just prefer not to declare my preference to people who don't particularly care anyway.

[MODU]

So, Joe Republic...have you decided yet?  Or are you just going to sit on the sidelines while our future is at stake?  If the events of the past two weeks haven't convinced you, nothing will.

I'm not on the sidelines at all.  I just prefer not to declare my preference to people who don't particularly care anyway.

Just admit it.  You are supporting Steve Adams!

[minionofmidas]

Joe Democracy is one of the good guys aka Gravel fanboys. That's not a secret.

[Sam Spade]

Still trying to isolate the McCain number, but I'm still 99.9% sure the sequence is incorrect.

[Joe Republic]

Joe Democracy is one of the good guys aka Gravel fanboys. That's not a secret.

The intention to vote for him was there, but sadly he was already off the ballot by that point.  I had indicated that this decision was solely due to his apparent mental instability.

Anyway, enough attention-whoring from me.

[Kalimantan]

Still trying to isolate the McCain number, but I'm still 99.9% sure the sequence is incorrect.

Well, that has seemed likely for a while now. Why not check Alcon's thread. https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=84114.0

[Keystone Phil]

Oh, the hubris.

They will never give up, Joe.

I have faith that you are on the "right" side in this battle, my friend.