voters think voters think that voters think

Terrible Pollster Rasmussen Writes Today’s Dumbest Sentence

Add to Flipboard Magazine.

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 new poll that tells us exactly what America is thinking, once you figure out what the hell this sentence says:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds, in fact, that 59% of Likely U.S. Voters think it is at least somewhat likely that most voters will be disappointed with Republicans in Congress before the next national elections.

Oh, we get it, they tried to design a poll that would say absolutely nothing. It worked! [Rasmussen]

About the author

Jack Stuef is your loyal editor and a freelance satirist or something like that. He is a contributing writer for The Onion. E-mail him or whatever.

View all articles by Jack Stuef


Hey there, Wonkeputians! Shypixel here to remind you to remember our Commenting Rules For Radicals, Enjoy!

  • CablinasianDem

    The other 41% voted "Boobs."

    • bagofmice

      Boobs get my vote.

    • JustPixelz

      Mary Cary's running again?

    • ShaveTheWhales


  • ttommyunger

    My only question is: what kind of loser-nitwit is going to take time to answer some stranger's questions over the phone? Who the fuck are these people and why don't they have some kind of life, however mundane? If they are that fucking needy I don't need to be paying attention to their opinion on ANYTHING.

    • V572625694

      It's us — the Olds. Or those Olds who have land lines.

      • ttommyunger

        Land lines-and lonely, I guess… Fuck that, I'm 70 and neither apply to this Old.

      • Fare la Volpe

        Smells like Bengay and lemon squares in this thread.

        • slagondrayer

          and Werther's original.

    • Redhead

      I used to get those calls when I worked from home (and had a workline there). Sometimes I'd fuck with them while I unloaded the dishwasher…

      • ttommyunger

        Good for you. When I had a land-line I would ask sales callers if I could call them back later; then ask for their home number. Never had patience for pollsters, though.

    • ShaveTheWhales

      Oh, ttommy, I'd answer their fucking stupid questions. For the lulz.

      Except the only time I've ever been polled was by the NRA, where I got to listen to a marginally insane recorded rant from Wayne LaPierre (that french pussy), and then when the live lady came on, she sounded like my elderly cousin, and I had to simply decline rather than telling her to stuff Wayne's head up her ass.

      I do think the NRA has decent computers. They have never called back.

      • ttommyunger

        I've been a Life Member since I was 15 (1956). Quit hunting in the 60's. I think they are a bunch of small-dick fearmongers, on the whole. Trust me, their computers aren't that good; I still get membership solicitations regularly. You must have fallen through a crack.

  • Katydid

    Now I see how Rasmussen skews his polls. This question was in a series of questions about Obama's "agenda:"

    "Is it true that every great idea in American history required government vision and government incentive? "

    Fuck him and the poll he rode in on.

    • Fare la Volpe

      Dear Sassy Molassy, he doesn't even try anymore, does he? Why does anyone take this guy seriously? I distinctly remember, day one of social research methods: "IF A QUESTION IS BIASED, IT WILL YIELD BIASED RESULTS."

    • danceswithpalin

      Fuck him with the pole he rode in on.

  • chascates

    "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?"

    • SayItWithWookies

      Wheeee, the people!

    • Amo_of_Bogio

      Why, all of them of course!

  • natoslug

    Final question: What do I have to say to get people to give me more money? I'll whore for anything . . .

  • PresBeeblebrox

    New Republican Congress…

    … I am disappoint.

  • harry_palmer

    If you answered yes to the above, explain why you voted Republican.

    a) I'm a dumb fuck.
    b) I'm a corrupt corporate hack
    c) I like Sarah Palin's tits.
    d) The nice man explained that this time things would be different/ the check was in the mail/ he wouldn't cum in my mouth.

    • Redhead

      This was an actual headline from a local TV station: "VOTE 2010: Voters to decide balance of power in NC, Congress"

      I'm guessing the people that answer yes to the above also think that the the Governor usually appoints members of Congress…

    • ReturnToMetal

      OR …

      e) What was that you said again, young man?

  • CapeClod

    37% of the respondents believe that since the Republicans have given no specifics about how they will fix things in Washington, they assume they will use 'magical powers.'

    • BarryOPotter

      They're just not ready to accept that Obami-Wan-Kenobi is wise in the way of the Force and, really, he IS their only hope.

  • Come here a minute

    Nailed it. Margin of error only 193 percent!

  • SexySmurf

    I'm not waiting until the next election to be disappointed with Republicans in Congress.

  • Troubledog

    Rasmussen does robo-polls which are skewed by definition to those who have landlines. The robopoll uses an IVR system to prompt for responses (press 1 for Khan, 2 for James T Kirk).

    So basically, everybody on their list is an oldster so lonely that they will interact with an IVR system that cold-called their landline-owning listed phone number asses.

    • SexySmurf

      I think you mean "press 1 for KKKKKAAAAAHHHHHHNNNNNNNN!"

    • emmelemm

      All I can say to that is: Oh. My. God.

      There are people around willing to do that?

      • MissTaken

        What else are they going to do while they wait for the batteries in their Hoveround to recharge?

  • SayItWithWookies

    I think Rasmussen's goal is to create so much existential confusion that nobody believes polls ever, including the more reliable non-Rasmussen ones. If their data looks like crap, their allies can argue that all data is crap and that nobody really knows anything. FOX News then pushes this conclusion along with the line that "since all news is crap, you may as well stay with us, since we'll tell you what you want to hear." The right may deplore cultural relativism, but they've sure got it down to a science.

  • revmod

    So, the opposite is also true: 41% of unlikely non-voters don't think it isn't at all unlikely that very few non-voters will be pleasantly surprised with Democrats in the Senate after the previous local referenda.

    Me love surveys in Bizzaro world!

    • Kitty_Sanchez

      Wow, you're fucking good at that! Are you somebody's press secretary?

      • obiwanacracker

        And if not, would you like to be? Because rumor has it there may be a position opening up.

  • neiltheblaze

    The election is the only poll that matters – and that really sucked galactic moose, now didn't it.

    • JustPixelz

      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.

  • JustPixelz

    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.

    • Pop_Socket

      Where's my tax cut?

      • PuckStopsHere

        and teh jobzzzz!

    • PsycWench

      But there will be prayer in schools next week, right?

      • HistoriCat

        No but maybe we can work in a Congressional hearing on how awesome that would be.

  • Kitty_Sanchez

    How long does it take for their peers ("lamestream media" and the larger political analysis "community") to finally openly acknowledge that organizations like Fox "News" Channel and Rasmussen are hopelessly partisan and therefore disreputable??

    • ShaveTheWhales


    • ReturnToMetal

      As long as it takes for an ignorant electorate to realize what they've done.

      In other words, don't hold your breath waiting for it.

    • slowhansolo

      Fuck Fox and Rasmussen. If we want to get that particular ball rolling, we ought to start with the AP. It's been nakedly partisan ever since a former Gannett honcho and current wingtard took the reins.

  • carlgt1

    maybe it's not science, which is liberally biased. Perhaps their polls are based on sound Creationist principles?

  • BarryOPotter

    Existentialism! Fuck yeah!

  • PsycWench

    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?
    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.

    • Numbat_Dundee

      But you'll only bring sex into it. You lot always bring it down to sex.

      • kenlayisalive

        Question one: how do you feel about big orange Boehners being forced down your throat?

        Where's the sex in that?

    • Lascauxcaveman

      PsycWench: You wouldn't guess it from the cordial and reasonably intelligent exchanges we're shared in this forum what a smug, insufferable little conservative-libertarian prick I was a age 19. See, the problem is, I knew *everything* back then.

      Best not to take these children too seriously.

      • PsycWench

        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_who_wanders

          The absolutely worst question I have seen (by a competent major pollster) was a question that was about the Holocaust that was so tortuously worded that as best I can recall almost 1/3 of the respondents answered in such a way that it appeared that they doubted it had occurred. I am excluded questions that were asked in a biased way to influence the results. And don't get me started on robo-polls (IVR), Internet surveys or most panel based surveys.

    • ShaveTheWhales

      This is not in any way intended to disrespect psychologists, but even hybrid physicist/computer scientist/engineer/managers can detect the correlation problems in most surveys.

      What I've always found to be disconcerting is that senior corporate managers will usually pay attention to a well-documented critique of survey data, while pollsters won't, and the public tends to believe what they're told, which leads to cyclical reinforcement.

  • CapeClod

    There is a theory that a certain percentage of the voting population is essentially apolitical and sees an election as something akin to a horse race. With no real party identification, elections are something like a personal wager, the stakes being their ability to be clever enough to choose the winner. It follows that, in a tight contest, these idiots hold the key to winning or losing. This is why, in a close race, politicians will always express confidence that they will win rather than acknowledge that the results will be close. I often wonder if Rasmussen tries to tip the scales by providing polls that have clearly favored Republican candidates. They always struck me as lackeys for the GOP.
    I have no idea how many voters behave this way, but since there are a lot of people who gamble on a small scale even though they express little hope of winning, (see any state sponsored lottery), I wouldn't be surprised if it was more than one or two percentage points.

    • Radiotherapy

      Great point Cape. There is no doubt the house will always win. Its why I couldn't stand Las Vegas. The whole sham is built on suckers. They hold a 52-48 (or worse) on every game. They don't cover that up, and you can tell your relatives this forever — but isn't aunt Helen always fucking lucky?
      The step to a two-party system isn't that far. I stated earlier today the "landslide" they are gloating about is what? 51-49. so the pollsters become the house and take a number off the roulette wheel by biasing a question and…presto, a pumpkin is Speaker of the House.

      • MissTaken

        At least the casinos will comp the buffet. All I got comped when I voted was a sticker.

        • ShaveTheWhales

          You got a sticker?

    • ShaveTheWhales

      "I often wonder if Rasmussen tries to tip the scales by providing polls that have clearly favored Republican candidates."

      Sorry if I appear cynical, but you wonder about this?

      I don't remember clearly when these assholes emerged in public, but for easily ten election cycles they've been skewed Republican. And by sheer repetition, they've achieved the same position as Fox — well, yeah, we know they're kind of biased, but it's too difficult to say so.

      Flair and Biased.

      • Fare la Volpe

        But what is so insane about the whole thing is that, for as long as I've been looking at Rasmussen polls, they have consistently given Republicans a 3-to-4 point advantage at every single opportunity. Even when every other polling organization on the planet gives the same general numbers, Rasmussen is still 3-to-4 points to the right. And yet despite this obvious bias, otherwise respected statisticians still hold them up as a legitimate polling organization. I could understand Rasmussen's existence as simple GOP wank material if everyone else ignored them, but no one does. Why are they given legitimacy they have not earned?

        • MoeDeLawn

          Consistency, I guess. There's a weatherperson in my area who gives forecasts 50% scarier than the other three, so I just automatically discount his numbers by said 50%.

  • Numbat_Dundee

    That poll question is, effectively: "What do you think other people are going to think in two years' time?"
    The next step is: "What do you think other people think now about how you'll think in two years time?"
    The final poll question will be: "Do you think the giant hairless monkey will eat me before the next election?"

    • CUNextTuesday

      1 – Pork
      2- Sydney….no, Canberra
      3- Pork

  • Serolf_Divad

    70% voters said that you said that I said, that you said that I said, that you said, that I said ,that you're a big fat turd.

  • crapshooter102

    Check out yesterday's LA Times article on the polls. Guess who is at the bottom? Rasmussen is nothing more than a push-poll. Instead of Rasmussen, just check in with Paul II the new octopus in Germany that predicted the World Cup. He has a much better record and only gets the Crabs, never gives them to anyone else.

  • ReturnToMetal

    A new Rasmussen poll shows 147% of American citizens will believe anything this dickwad tells them.

    But remember, that is a Rasmussen poll.

  • ReturnToMetal