What is it with Catholic Priests?

[giblets]

From where I sit, Gallup is required not to show Obama as over 50 percent disapproval. That sword cuts both ways.

It's not just Gallup that disagrees with you. Even Fox News polls consistently have Obama at less than 50% disapproval.

[OzzyKP]

Come on, Ben. There is NO transparency in fund usage to parishioners in Catholic churches. None. Go ahead, ask your pastor his annual income, and for a balance sheet with pie chart of how all the collections are spent. Give me a break, you pathetic troll.

Why don't you go back to studying Newsmax for instructions from Rupert Murdoch on your next opinion?

My parish publishes their information every year. So... give me a break you pathetic troll.

[Al B. Sure!]

See, this is why it's better to tax consumption than earnings [/kuci|KH]

[Al B. Sure!]

Rasmussen has had Obama underwater for at least a year now. This isn't a new trend.

So to you that strengthens the case of Rasmussen's legitimacy and not having a bias? Here on Earth, if a poll had Obama down consistently while every body else is mixed, the Human assumption would be that there is probably some bias going on at Rasmussen.

[Ben Kenobi]

So to you that strengthens the case of Rasmussen's legitimacy and not having a bias? Here on Earth, if a poll had Obama down consistently while every body else is mixed, the Human assumption would be that there is probably some bias going on at Rasmussen

The fact that Rasmussen polls likely voters explains the systematic difference between their polling method and other polls which rely on Adults only. It also, coincidentally, explains why I believe their polls are more reliable in assessing the support of Obama among voters.

Whudathunk? If you want to know what voters think, you should poll voters.

[Al B. Sure!]

The fact that Rasmussen polls likely voters explains the systematic difference between their polling method and other polls which rely on Adults only. It also, coincidentally, explains why I believe their polls are more reliable in assessing the support of Obama among voters.

Whudathunk? If you want to know what voters think, you should poll voters.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/use-of-likely-voter-model-does-not.html

The bottom line is this: the sample included in Rasmussen's polling is increasingly out of balance with that observed by almost all other pollsters. This appears to create a substantial house effect, irrespective of whether Rasmussen subsequently applies a likely voter screen.

[Elok]

Wow. I'm surprised you all let BK lure you away from an opportunity to rail against the RCC. I'm sure that'll change once Ming or Rah joins in, though.

[Hauldren Collider]

Yep, Rasmussen is skewed to the right.

Rasmussen has a likely voter model, and since republicans vote more consistently than democrats, it will pretty much always be skewed to the right of average public opinion, but people who are too lazy to vote don't matter.

[Hauldren Collider]

Way to miss the point. Rasmussen, as far as I can tell, thinks a person can only approve or disapprove, which is BS. They get roughly the same approval rating as the other polls, but assume everyone who doesn't approve must disapprove, while other pollsters allow people to go on the record as neutral. Rasmussen takes the neutral respondents and arbitrarily puts them into the disapproval category to make Obama look bad. I could be wrong though.

This is untrue. Rasmussen has a no opinion option, as well as strongly approve or strongly disapprove.

[Al B. Sure!]

Wow. I'm surprised you all let BK lure you away from an opportunity to rail against the RCC. I'm sure that'll change once Ming or Rah joins in, though.

[Hauldren Collider]

It's not just Gallup that disagrees with you. Even Fox News polls consistently have Obama at less than 50% disapproval.

But a plurality disapprove. More disapprove than approve, with a decent number undecided, from what I can tell.

[-Jrabbit]

I take back the "pathetic" as an adjective for "troll," as Ben has successfully jacked another thread. Amazing, since he was so obvious about it.

Let's get back to discussing the immorality of priests.

[KrazyHorse]

Rasmussen has a likely voter model, and since republicans vote more consistently than democrats, it will pretty much always be skewed to the right of average public opinion, but people who are too lazy to vote don't matter.

If the charts above are accurate then they demonstrate that both Rasmussen's registered voter model as well as their likely voter model are at the extreme end of the spectrum of major pollsters. Without further input it is, of course, impossible to decide whose model best fits reality, but that should be enough for people to keep an eye on Rasmussen's results as suspect.

[Hauldren Collider]

I take back the "pathetic" as an adjective for "troll," as Ben has successfully jacked another thread. Amazing, since he was so obvious about it.

it's because discussing political polls is ACTUALLY more interesting than another Asher RCC bashing thread, which is kind of old news now.

[Hauldren Collider]

If the charts above are accurate then they demonstrate that both Rasmussen's registered voter model as well as their likely voter model are at the extreme end of the spectrum of major pollsters. Without further input it is, of course, impossible to decide whose model best fits reality, but that should be enough for people to keep an eye on Rasmussen's results as suspect.

Yes obviously but what I was saying was that it probably is a function of their model and not because they're trying to convince everyone to vote republican with argumentum ad populam.