Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (46954)	10/16/2000 12:50:59 AM
From: Thehammer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

<<Oops, my man. Just found out Portrait Of American is run by a conservative group and is discredited>> I think you must work for the DNC

To: American Spirit who wrote (46954)	10/16/2000 1:31:30 AM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

AS From your Free Republic link. Did you read the whole thing? It sounds like a fellow pollster is just interested in his trade. The Rasmussen Portrait of America tracking poll only provides 3-day moving averages, and several of us (Hugh Akston, John Logajan, and myself) have attempted to extract the single-day survey results from POA's data. However, a recent column by John Fund has called our calculations into question. Scott Rasmussen told John Fund that Bush had a lead over Gore of a little more than 5 percentage points on 8/22, whereas we were estimating the gap to be 10% for that day. I subsequently analyzed POA's survey data in light of that new information, and found great disparities. I concluded that it was either an innocent mistake, or Mr. Fund or Mr. Rasmussen was providing false information, or my own methodology was all screwed up. John Fund had no motive for lying, and the motive I ascribed to Mr. Rasmussen was weak at best. So I've been going over and over my calculations, trying to find some other explanation. I think I've finally found the explanation. And accordingly I will start by abjectly apologizing to Scott Rasmussen for even slightly questioning his integrity.