Loudell needs to fire Rasmussen once and for all
If WDEL’s Allan Loudell (who I like and respect) ever interviews Don Rasmussen again, he will knowingly be taking part in journalistic fraud.
“But the most entertaining fall-out will be the recriminations of pollsters and polling generally in the wake of Romney’s 330+ electoral vote win next Tuesday.” — Don Rasmussen
Real political polling is about dispassionate math and rigor. Rasmussen’s product is about trying to prop up a corrupt and corrosive political ideology. Allan, take the card out of the Rolodex . There are plenty of legitimate pollsters to interview.
Here’s the thing… either Rasmussen is so bad at what they do that Loudell shouldn’t rely on them, or Rasmussen lies about what they do which means Loudell shouldn’t rely on them.
Yep, all roads lead to Loudell firing Rasmussen.
According to Nate Silver, more pollsters err on the conservative side than on the liberal side.
“Which Polls Fared Best (and Worst) in the 2012 Presidential Race”
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/
Perhaps the tolerance for errors is different depending on the direction of the error??
Rasmussen had an average bias of 3.7 points. Next time you read a Rasmussen poll, just add 4 points to the Dem’s total. Other than that, the polls are somewhat OK.
Rasmussen just needs to let people know how to properly read his polls.
Oh… And it’s a tribute to Nate Silver and also the PEC that they could gauge the race so well in spite of widespread polling biases.
Louddell and the rest of the media use whatever polls feed into the horserace scenario. No race no suspense. No suspense and they might actually have to talk about issues and informing the listeners.
“they might actually have to talk about issues and informing the listeners.”
You know, radio stations are pretty cheap these days. Why don’t you buy one and put your money where your mouth is?
I don’t mean to unload on you, auntie, but I really get sick and tired of people pretending that all they care about is issues. It’s like car accidents on the highway. Most people claim that they don’t want to see them and don’t slow down, yet a gaper delay forms at every single accident scene.
If people wanted issues, that’s what stations would be giving them. The truth is that they SAY they want issues, but parade Paula Broadwell’s highly toned butt in front of them and they’ll all watch.
And yet the news media is less trusted than it has ever been.
It is cheaper to just turn off the media that isn’t suitable and find something that is rather than buying your own radio station. The good news is that there are plenty of options these days.
“It is cheaper to just turn off the media that isn’t suitable and find something that is rather than buying your own radio station.”
Indeed. If that’s your answer to hearing news you don’t like, what distinguishes you from a Fox/Limbaugh fan?
My point was the same one I make to people who don’t like the way you run your blog: If you don’t like this one, start your own. Except when it comes to professional media, you have to ante up some money to start your own.
Geezer,
apologies for the generalization. Not ALL the media. WDEL does broadcast information and issues in the mornings from 9-12. And people listen and interact with that program. It’s the best source for local politics.
But you have to admit that most media is obsessed with the horserace and he-said-she-said coverage regardless of reality. And, of course, sex sells. I recognize that this drives ratings and profits. But I’m allowed to wish for something better. As Cassandra says, hooray for the internet where you don’t have to ante up millions to report reality. If only rich people control the media — well we’ve seen where that leads.
If that’s your answer to hearing news you don’t like, what distinguishes you from a Fox/Limbaugh fan?
This is not about news that I don’t LIKE. It is about news that isn’t NEWS. Horserace reporting that persistently insists on a narrative that doesn’t even accurately call the race isn’t news and they clearly aren’t especially good at it. I am one of those people who wants news that tells you about decisions taken and policy implications and the kind of thing that help you understand what your government is doing. My bias is mainly in content delivered, not really in POV. What was responsive to auntie dem, who also seemed to be asking for improved content — not something she would LIKE.
There are plenty of legitimate pollsters to interview. Knowing what we know, if WDEL or any news outlet uses Rasmussen, it is logical to assume that they are either being duped or have a commercial interest in buying into a GOP version of reality.
Going forward from this election, it will be hard to argue that they were duped.
Surely Tom Jensen would be a better choice?
Or perhaps Frank Newport of Gallup?
Jason—
Relax. I haven’t interviewed Rasmussen in more than a year, if not two years. (Perhaps someone else I interviewed referenced Rasmussen, however.)
I HAVE talked periodically to Tom Jensen; Frank Newport; John Zogby; and particularly the Marquette / University of Wisconsin professor who co-founded Pollster.com – Dr. Charles Franklin – who evaluates ALL the polls. And Dr. Terry Madonna up the road at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, PA.
Since the election, I’ve discussed polling models and methodology with several guests, and how Rasmussen and other Republican pollsters miscalculated likely voters.
And to Auntie… anyone who has heard my interviews on international, scientific, and other stories – particularly over the Noon hour – knows that I cover subjects in-depth seldom discussed on local (or national) commercial radio.
But you know what? At WDEL, I don’t have a radio consultant over my head, telling me to “dumb down” and do more tabloid stories. That’s a wonderful freedom!
Regards,
Allan Loudell
News Anchor–Reporter–Interviewer–Blogger
1150 A.M.–WDEL Radio & Delaware 105.9 F.M. (WXDE)
Allan, Thanks for the feedback. I have to admit that with none of the statewide Democrats facing challengers, I didn’t tune in as much this time as last election season.
And by “feedback,” you of course mean “the complete evisceration of my argument with actual facts.”
That is the beauty of blogging. Nobody has a monopoly on the truth, but a community of informed individuals can get pretty close. I’m always happy to be corrected.
Whatever you do–don’t dumb down.
Come to think of it, ONLY a radio consultant could even make that possible.
@AL “Since the election, I’ve discussed polling models and methodology with several guests, and how Rasmussen and other Republican pollsters miscalculated likely voters.”
My problem isn’t with the “how”, it’s with the “why”.
We know how. What we don’t know is why. It seems that the miscalculation was deliberate. And THAT is an interesting story, if true.
When the same mistakes are made from one election to the next, it’s either deliberate or they are simply bad at fixing their polling biases. Which?
Maybe you should get Rasmussen on and ask him why it’s so hard to get it right…