Tea Parties Have Good Favorables

[Rowan]

Rasmussen:

Fifty-one percent (51%) of Americans have a favorable view of the “tea parties” held nationwide last week, including 32% who say their view of the events is Very favorable.

Thirty-three percent (33%) hold an unfavorable opinion of the tea parties according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Fifteen percent (15%) are not sure.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics2/51_view_tea_parties_favorably_political_class_strongly_disagrees

[Rowan]

What was Obama's approval rating again?

Independents have a higher rating for the tea parties than they do for Obama, just FYI.

[Rowan]

What was Obama's approval rating again?

Independents have a higher rating for the tea parties than they do for Obama, just FYI.

 Doesn't mean that the public is turning on the current administration.

I didn't say that. Just pointing out that it might not be good for congressional Democrats to demagogue the events.

[Rowan]

I doubt anyone else is actually going to poll the question. It's already been 5 days since the event.

[Rowan]

Alright, I'm calling BS on this one unless I see some other polls backing it up.

What seems inconceivable as far as this poll goes is that one in four say that they knew someone who attended a tea party. Now considering estimates put total attendance, nationally, at 250,000 to 300,000, I'd say the probability of knowing someone, who attended, is lower than that

Dave

Actually, estimates are a lot higher than that. Try reading something other than Nate Silver.

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=tea-party

[Rowan]

Alright, I'm calling BS on this one unless I see some other polls backing it up.

What seems inconceivable as far as this poll goes is that one in four say that they knew someone who attended a tea party. Now considering estimates put total attendance, nationally, at 250,000 to 300,000, I'd say the probability of knowing someone, who attended, is lower than that

Dave

Actually, estimates are a lot higher than that. Try reading something other than Nate Silver.

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=tea-party

Pjtv? Really?

Aren't they the ones who sent Joe the Plumber at Gaza as a war correspondent?

Okay, then here are 4 estimates. Three are higher than the range he said, and guess the one that lowballed the turnout? You guessed it! Nappy Nate Silver!

http://northshorejournal.org/tea-party-turnout-nationwide

[Rowan]

This is the exact question:

Do you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable impression of the tea party protests?

How is that a push poll?

[Rowan]

This is the exact question:

Do you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable impression of the tea party protests?

How is that a push poll?

Not using the first question(how closely are you following the protests) as a filter for one. Any other pollster would have only asked of people who were at least somewhat following the movement. Most pollsters would only ask those respondents

No they wouldn't. They would have asked random adults.

[Rowan]

If even if they did, that wouldn't make any sense.

If a certain segment have never heard of them or know little, then that is something that should be reflected in the data.

If you take away that portion of the population, the poll becomes defunct from being unrepresentative.

It also becomes relatively meaningless if the majority of the people in your poll have no clue what the tea party movement is. Look at how SurveyUSA for instance did the debate polls last year, they only asked people who watched them. It might have been interesting to find out how people who didn't felt about them based on rumors they had heard, but it would not have been useful in the same manner.

Secondly, I have no clue how Rasmussen can claim to be doing a likely voter screen right now if he doesn't use such questions, because the manner he is doing it is resulting in results that are 10+ points off other people's polls.

You do realize 15% picked the "not sure" option, right? So your asinine conclusion that this goaded people into picking favorable is just that, an asinine conclusion.

[Rowan]

Rowan, just because you want to believe this poll does not mean that it is accurate in the face of conflicting evidence.

Conflicting evidence? Do share.

[Rowan]

First, I've pointed out on the other forum that Rasmussen's results skew Republican.

That's your opinion. He was one of the most accurate pollsters in 2008.

[quote]Second, Dan the Roman has been posting about structural flaws in the design of the poll.[quote/]

And I was pointing out that theres nothing wrong with this poll. Rasmussen didn't force people to give an opinion on the tea party. He included an option for those that were "not sure".

[quote]Third, Rasmussen's media strategy, including Scott's appearances on Fox News, has been to position themselves as a generator of numbers for Republican media messages.[quote/]

Again, that's your opinion.

[Rowan]

They were good in some states, but off in others, just like Rasmussen. Their national poll had Obama winning by 11 points if I'm not mistaken. Rasmussen had Obama winning by 6.

[Rowan]

First, I've pointed out on the other forum that Rasmussen's results skew Republican.

That's your opinion. He was one of the most accurate pollsters in 2008.

They had Democrats leading on the generic ballot by 6 points a couple of days before the election and 2 points immediately afterward with absurdly high undecideds. (Actual numbers were 47%-41%, 43%-41%.) The House vote on Election Day was 53%-44%.

Lying with undecideds is one of the hallmarks of partisan polls designed for campaigns.

What does the number after the election mean? It probably means that after voting in a lot of Democrats, they probably said to themselves, maybe we need a more divided government.

6 points isn't that far off from 9 points. There is a MOE on polls you know.

[Rowan]

6 points isn't that far off from 9 points. There is a MOE on polls you know.

That's not quite how MOE works. They had Democrats at 47% or 43%; the actual results were 53%, way off the MOE. They were much closer with Republicans, pegging them at 41% when they got 44%. By upping undecideds to an unreasonable number at the expense of Democrats, you get results reassuring to Republicans who you hope will buy your poll results in the future.

There were not 12% undecideds before election day or 16% afterward. If there were any undecideds, they were people who were not going to vote and probably couldn't find the ballot box with both hands.

Okay, let's look at all the pollsters generic ballot. This is courtesy of realclearpolitics:

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl   11/01 - 11/02   48   36   Democrats +12
Gallup   10/31 - 11/02   53   41   Democrats +12
Diageo/Hotline   10/31 - 11/02   44   39   Democrats +5
CBS News/NY Times   10/25 - 10/29   48   36   Democrats +12
GWU/Battleground   10/23 - 10/29   45   41   Democrats +4
Rasmussen Reports   10/20 - 10/26   47   40   Democrats +7

Out of all the pollsters, you can really only claim that Gallup did better.

[Rowan]

And if you don't vote, who the hell cares what your opinion is? If you don't exercise your right to vote then your opinion means absolutely nothing.