Scott Rasmussen and his polling firm have come under fire today for being absolutely terrible and nakedly partisan in their midterm polling, overestimating the performance of Republican candidates in about three-quarters of races. But that's okay! They have a
Yeah, he's a good kid at heart. I'm still working on getting him over the conspiracy theory stage. He thinks 9/11 might have been an inside job. (I was a little insufferable at 19 too) This is what I get for posting a comment after two margaritas, but the problem was less the correlation issue (which is obvious to most people encouraged to use logic) but that the questions were really poorly worded and the analysis was weird. I don't remember the details, but it was along the lines of a PETA survey that used a "yes" answer to "don't want conscious animals dissected" to mean that one was adamantly opposed to all animal research.
"One more question, please. What kind of a moron votes for a party he knows will disappoint him and will act against his economic interests?"
Regardless of the question and its wording, I am already disappointed with the Repubicans. As far as I know, Obamacare has not been repealed. Neither has the 14th Amendment. Or the 17th. Also, my sales tax is still 7%. Oh John, I had such high hopes for you.
Careful with that "suck moose" talk around the Palinstas. They take things pretty literally. Except the Constitution. Also except the facts. Except the dictionary too.
A student posted something from a Rasmussen poll on Facebook a while back and we had this exchange Me: I really question that result. Him: Because it supports a Republican? Me: No. The actual questions are stupid. Him: Because they made Republican look good? Me: No. I LOOKED AT THE POLL QUESTIONS. THEY ARE LINKED TO THE RESULTS. Apparently it had never occurred to the guy to actually check out the polling questions or the polling technique...
If you want every problem with a survey pointed out to you, ask a psychologist.
Yeah, he's a good kid at heart. I'm still working on getting him over the conspiracy theory stage. He thinks 9/11 might have been an inside job. (I was a little insufferable at 19 too) This is what I get for posting a comment after two margaritas, but the problem was less the correlation issue (which is obvious to most people encouraged to use logic) but that the questions were really poorly worded and the analysis was weird. I don't remember the details, but it was along the lines of a PETA survey that used a "yes" answer to "don't want conscious animals dissected" to mean that one was adamantly opposed to all animal research.
Why, all of them of course!
"One more question, please. What kind of a moron votes for a party he knows will disappoint him and will act against his economic interests?"
Mary Cary's running again?
Regardless of the question and its wording, I am already disappointed with the Repubicans. As far as I know, Obamacare has not been repealed. Neither has the 14th Amendment. Or the 17th. Also, my sales tax is still 7%. Oh John, I had such high hopes for you.
Careful with that "suck moose" talk around the Palinstas. They take things pretty literally. Except the Constitution. Also except the facts. Except the dictionary too.
A student posted something from a Rasmussen poll on Facebook a while back and we had this exchange Me: I really question that result. Him: Because it supports a Republican? Me: No. The actual questions are stupid. Him: Because they made Republican look good? Me: No. I LOOKED AT THE POLL QUESTIONS. THEY ARE LINKED TO THE RESULTS. Apparently it had never occurred to the guy to actually check out the polling questions or the polling technique...
If you want every problem with a survey pointed out to you, ask a psychologist.
But there will be prayer in schools next week, right?