VA-Rasmussen: McCain up 11 against Obama, 22 against Clinton

[Stranger in a strange land]

Again, Webb won that Senate race mainly because Allen screwed up, not because he was a tremendous candidate. Allen was up by 20% until macaca-gate.

Allen was also a hugely popular former governor whose family had a long history with the state (his dad having  been a famous football coach)

[© tweed]

Again, Webb won that Senate race mainly because Allen screwed up, not because he was a tremendous candidate. Allen was up by 20% until macaca-gate.

it was much closer to ten.

and even with macaca, Harris Miller would not have won or come terribly close.  Webb was a good candidate.

[Meeker]

I like how the same people who moan when the Obama hacks get all excited or worried about one poll are doing the same thing over this poll. Have some standards people.

My analysis is the same as always: One poll, several months out, a lot can happen.

[Gustaf]

Then again, Rasmussen does have a right-leaning early game.

And you know this, how, exactly?

[Alcon]

The only - only - proof that Rasmussen has a right-leaning bias is the fact that it's all out on its lonesome this year.  It was fine in 2004 (a barely noticeable GOP bias at most).  That being said, it really is pretty off on its own this year, and that's pretty reasonable evidence.  Rasmussen having a GOP tilt this year is probably not an unreasonable assumption to make.

[Gustaf]

The only - only - proof that Rasmussen has a right-leaning bias is the fact that it's all out on its lonesome this year.  It was fine in 2004 (a barely noticeable GOP bias at most).  That being said, it really is pretty off on its own this year, and that's pretty reasonable evidence.  Rasmussen having a GOP tilt this year is probably not an unreasonable assumption to make.

I'm always suspicious of the kind of reasoning that goes "I know that the election result/popular opinion is X, so if the polls differ, they're biased" You can't really tell bias before the election, only afterwards. Most of those other polls are worse than Rasmussen, imo, which makes me very marginally inclined, at best, to trust them to reflect the state of the race. After all, most American pollsters suck. Of course, if he's still using the same hard-weight I guess he would be off. But that seems too dumb a thing for him to do.

[agcatter]

Excellent point about not being able to tell about whether a poll is biased until AFTER an election.

I'll never forget the night before the 2000 election, I went to bed feeling pretty good after seeng Rasmussen's final numbers showing Bush up 7 or so.  After the election you could see where Rasmussen's numbers had been off all along.  AFTER.

I was pretty pessimistic the night before the 2004 when I saw Rasmussen's numbers showing Bush up only 2.  Well, he won by 2.5 and it was only obvious the DAY AFTER that Scott Rasmussen had indeed gottn it right throughout  the election year.

In other words, nobody can say until AFTER the election whose polls were biased one way or the other.

[Gustaf]

Excellent point about not being able to tell about whether a poll is biased until AFTER an election.

I'll never forget the night before the 2000 election, I went to bed feeling pretty good after seeng Rasmussen's final numbers showing Bush up 7 or so.  After the election you could see where Rasmussen's numbers had been off all along.  AFTER.

I was pretty pessimistic the night before the 2004 when I saw Rasmussen's numbers showing Bush up only 2.  Well, he won by 2.5 and it was only obvious the DAY AFTER that Scott Rasmussen had indeed gottn it right throughout  the election year.

In other words, nobody can say until AFTER the election whose polls were biased one way or the other.

Thank you. Another example was Gallup in 2004, who had a good reputation but blew most of the state polls that year.

[Mr. Morden]

I was pretty pessimistic the night before the 2004 when I saw Rasmussen's numbers showing Bush up only 2.  Well, he won by 2.5 and it was only obvious the DAY AFTER that Scott Rasmussen had indeed gottn it right throughout  the election year.

Although, really, you can only ever prove whether the final pre-election polls are right or wrong.  Just because a pollster nails it in their final poll, it doesn't mean that they were accurately tracking the race before that.  Unfortunately, there's just no way to test whether polls taken months in advance of the election are an accurate reflection of where things stand at that time.

[Gustaf]

I was pretty pessimistic the night before the 2004 when I saw Rasmussen's numbers showing Bush up only 2.  Well, he won by 2.5 and it was only obvious the DAY AFTER that Scott Rasmussen had indeed gottn it right throughout  the election year.

Although, really, you can only ever prove whether the final pre-election polls are right or wrong.  Just because a pollster nails it in their final poll, it doesn't mean that they were accurately tracking the race before that.  Unfortunately, there's just no way to test whether polls taken months in advance of the election are an accurate reflection of where things stand at that time.

No, that's true. But once you've seen some electino results you can make fairly reasonably assumptions. For instance, I would say with some certainty that those ARG polls from the summer that differed with all other polls, were probably wrong too and it further proves how bad they are.

[agcatter]

Actually, in the case of Rasmussen 2000, you could go back in his daily polls and over the fall his numbers on a daily basis were 5 or 6 pts optimistic in comparison to other polls taken during the same time frame.  The only time he had Gore ahead was for a one week stretch in early September before the first debate.  Sure nuff, the LA Times, NBC, and Gallup had Gore up double digits during that same time..  Rasmussen consistantly tracked the same ups and downs picked up by the other polls but always that same 6 or so points too optimistic for the Bush side.

In other words his tracking was wrong but consistantly wrong by the same spread all thu the campaign.

Rasmussen is to be commended because he obviously fixed things between the two elections.  Whether he's got things right this election cycle there is no way of knowing for sure until we see the election returns.  In other words, Gustaf is exactly right that the only way to know for sure is to wait for the balloting and then compare.  Anyone who says Rasmussen or anyone else leans too far one way or the other is just guessing.  He could indeed be flawed ala 2000, but how would you know at this point?

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

LMAO @ the thought of Virginia ever voting for black liberal senator from Chicago for president.   

LOL