Jump to content


DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

NM11046

By NM11046,
in Politics & Religion

Recommended Posts

Guy Chamberlin Defensive Coordinator

Guy Chamberlin

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, RedNebraskan said:

Question for you guys:  What specific actions has Trump done that would be considered impeachable? 

 

In his first day as the most powerful man in America, Donald Trump ordered his press secretary to tell the world that the crowd at his inauguration was the biggest in history, a blatant lie easily disputed by photographic evidence. He also threw the National Park Service under the bus for making the correct crowd count (200,000 rather than 1.5 million)

 

In his second day as the most powerful man in America, Donald Trump made a speech in the Hall of Heroes at the CIA, a bizarre rambling performance where he held forth on his intelligence and greatness, called out the media as the enemies of the state, and tried to blame them for Trump's poor reputation with the CIA, whom he'd called out for Nazi tactics just days earlier. Trump brought 40 staff loyalists to the speech with him to cheer and applaud his money lines. The CIA director called the entire episode "despicable."

 

It went downhill from there. 

  • Plus1 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Fire 1
Link to comment

TGHusker Offensive Coordinator

TGHusker

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, RedNebraskan said:

Question for you guys:  What specific actions has Trump done that would be considered impeachable? 

Besides general incompetence & not displaying the maturity needed in the office he holds ,  besides what was mentioned already - Narcissistic Personality Disorder.  The guy has real mental issues.  Anyone who tweets like he does, talks like he does and reacts as he does  in the job he holds should be evaluated.     The guy is one slip of the tongue from a national disaster.  I think he should have been removed under Amend 25 rules but the vp and cabinet are too cowardly to do so.

  • Plus1 2
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Defensive Coordinator

Guy Chamberlin

Posted
Posted

While not technically inaccurate, any pollster could tell you how the phrasing of the question was designed to encourage a specific answer.

As for Rasmussen: 

FiveThirtyEight blog[edit]

In 2010, Nate Silver of The New York Times’ blog FiveThirtyEight wrote the article "Is Rasmussen Reports biased?", in which he mostly defended Rasmussen from allegations of bias.[76] However, later in the year, Rasmussen's polling results diverged notably from other mainstream pollsters, which Silver labeled a "house effect."[77] He went on to explore other factors which may have explained the effect such as the use of a likely voter model,[78] and claimed that Rasmussen conducted its polls in a way that excluded the majority of the population from answering.[79]

After the 2010 midterm elections, Silver concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver's model.[69] FiveThirtyEight currently rates Rasmussen Reports with a C+ grade and notes a simple average error of 5.3 percent across 657 polls analyzed.[80]

Jonathan Chait[edit]

Jonathan Chait of the New Republic said that Rasmussen is perceived in the "conservative world" as "the gold standard"[81] and suggested the polling company asks the questions specifically to show public support for the conservative position. They cited an example when Rasmussen asked "Should the government set limits on how much salt Americans can eat?" when the issue was whether to limit the amount of salt in pre-processed food.[82]

Other[edit]

The Center for Public Integrity listed "Scott Rasmussen Inc" as a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign.[83] The Washington Post reported that the 2004 Bush re-election campaign had used a feature on the Rasmussen Reports website that allowed customers to program their own polls, and that Rasmussen asserted that he had not written any of the questions nor assisted Republicans.[84]

In 2009 Time magazine described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group."[85] John Zogby said in 2010 that Scott Rasmussen had a "conservative constituency."[86] In 2012 The Washington Post called Rasmussen a "polarizing pollster."[87]

Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls.[88][89] Asking a polling question with different wording can affect the results of the poll;[90] the commentators in question allege that the questions Rasmussen ask in polls are skewed in order to favor a specific response. For instance, when Rasmussen polled whether Republican voters thought Rush Limbaugh was the leader of their party, the specific question they asked was: "Agree or Disagree: 'Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party—he says jump and they say how high.'"[89]

Talking Points Memo has questioned the methodology of Rasmussen's Presidential Approval Index, which takes into account only those who "strongly" approve or disapprove of the President's job performance. TPM noted that this inherently skews negative, and reported that multiple polling experts were critical of the concept.[43] A New York Times article claims Ramussen Reports research has a "record of relying on dubious sampling and weighting techniques."[91]

A 2017 article by Chris Cillizza for CNN raised doubts about Rasmussen's accuracy, drawing attention specifically to potential sampling biases such as the exclusion of calls to cell-phones (which, Cillizza argued, tended to exclude younger voters), and also more generally to a lack of methodological disclosure. Cillizza did, however, note in the same piece that Rasmussen was one of the more accurate polling organizations during the 2016 United States presidential election.[92]

A December 2018 article by political writer and analyst Harry Enten called Rasmussen the least accurate pollster in the 2018 midterm elections after stating Rasmussen had projected the Republicans to come ahead nationally by one point, while at the time Democrats were actually winning the national House vote by 8.6 points - an error of nearly 10 points.[93]

Founder Scott Rasmussen is the author of a book,[94] and was a featured guest on a cruise by the conservative media outlet National Review, along with other conservative luminaries.[95]

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

MNBigRedNorth Three-Star Recruit

MNBigRedNorth

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

While not technically inaccurate, any pollster could tell you how the phrasing of the question was designed to encourage a specific answer.

As for Rasmussen: 

FiveThirtyEight blog[edit]

In 2010, Nate Silver of The New York Times’ blog FiveThirtyEight wrote the article "Is Rasmussen Reports biased?", in which he mostly defended Rasmussen from allegations of bias.[76] However, later in the year, Rasmussen's polling results diverged notably from other mainstream pollsters, which Silver labeled a "house effect."[77] He went on to explore other factors which may have explained the effect such as the use of a likely voter model,[78] and claimed that Rasmussen conducted its polls in a way that excluded the majority of the population from answering.[79]

After the 2010 midterm elections, Silver concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver's model.[69] FiveThirtyEight currently rates Rasmussen Reports with a C+ grade and notes a simple average error of 5.3 percent across 657 polls analyzed.[80]

Jonathan Chait[edit]

Jonathan Chait of the New Republic said that Rasmussen is perceived in the "conservative world" as "the gold standard"[81] and suggested the polling company asks the questions specifically to show public support for the conservative position. They cited an example when Rasmussen asked "Should the government set limits on how much salt Americans can eat?" when the issue was whether to limit the amount of salt in pre-processed food.[82]

Other[edit]

The Center for Public Integrity listed "Scott Rasmussen Inc" as a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign.[83] The Washington Post reported that the 2004 Bush re-election campaign had used a feature on the Rasmussen Reports website that allowed customers to program their own polls, and that Rasmussen asserted that he had not written any of the questions nor assisted Republicans.[84]

In 2009 Time magazine described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group."[85] John Zogby said in 2010 that Scott Rasmussen had a "conservative constituency."[86] In 2012 The Washington Post called Rasmussen a "polarizing pollster."[87]

Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls.[88][89] Asking a polling question with different wording can affect the results of the poll;[90] the commentators in question allege that the questions Rasmussen ask in polls are skewed in order to favor a specific response. For instance, when Rasmussen polled whether Republican voters thought Rush Limbaugh was the leader of their party, the specific question they asked was: "Agree or Disagree: 'Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party—he says jump and they say how high.'"[89]

Talking Points Memo has questioned the methodology of Rasmussen's Presidential Approval Index, which takes into account only those who "strongly" approve or disapprove of the President's job performance. TPM noted that this inherently skews negative, and reported that multiple polling experts were critical of the concept.[43] A New York Times article claims Ramussen Reports research has a "record of relying on dubious sampling and weighting techniques."[91]

A 2017 article by Chris Cillizza for CNN raised doubts about Rasmussen's accuracy, drawing attention specifically to potential sampling biases such as the exclusion of calls to cell-phones (which, Cillizza argued, tended to exclude younger voters), and also more generally to a lack of methodological disclosure. Cillizza did, however, note in the same piece that Rasmussen was one of the more accurate polling organizations during the 2016 United States presidential election.[92]

A December 2018 article by political writer and analyst Harry Enten called Rasmussen the least accurate pollster in the 2018 midterm elections after stating Rasmussen had projected the Republicans to come ahead nationally by one point, while at the time Democrats were actually winning the national House vote by 8.6 points - an error of nearly 10 points.[93]  Sure after the ballot harvesting operation was completed in California several days after the election was over!

Founder Scott Rasmussen is the author of a book,[94] and was a featured guest on a cruise by the conservative media outlet National Review, along with other conservative luminaries.[95]

That's funny.  You compare to 358 which was a huge flop this last time.  Hey posters get lucky form time to to, but the 538 model is now outdated! Also you rely on liberal media to say Rasmussen as conservative leaning! Wow who would have though that!  For me I trust not one of your sources.  They are so old and over hill a and inaccurate it makes me laugh!  Hey I list the poll simply because it just came out and for your info I think most polls are a bunch of crap!  Money will buy anything.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
Danny Bateman Defensive Coordinator

Danny Bateman

Posted
Posted

Moreover, as long as I'm riffing on my problems with the president in particular...

 

I had a revelation not long after he was inaugurated and it would be clear that there wouldn't be any shift in his behavior from the campaign. I never expected one myself, but I know others expected him to "settle down" and "get more presidential" once he took office.

 

Alas, it was not to be. One of my favorite quotes I've heard about being president is that it "makes you more who you are." Whatever your true character is, when you become POTUS, it becomes amplified.

 

My revelation was that I could no longer trust what the President of the United States told me. There was no meaningful way to tell whether he being forthright (unlikely) or BSing you right to your face. The audience doesn't matter - he'll lie right to his supporters faces too, they're just more likely to believe him or not care.

 

The bolded was pretty jarring. And really, really bad. Honesty is going to be one of my principle considerations in 2020. Ironic, for politicians, isn't it?

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

NM11046 All-American

NM11046

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Interesting change of tune - Barr now saying the 4 page memo was not a summary, but just a taste of a redacted version he'll release in a few weeks.  Funny how it took 6 days of bad press for him (and likely the dbag in the Whitehouse) to figure out their little plan to message didn't work.  

 

And then there's this - something besides Schiff and Nadler pushed him to make the decision so public:

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...