Which pollster do you trust more?

[Donerail]

PPP polls are clearly biased in favor of Democrats, and they have been providing some major outliers in their most recent polling.  Rasmussen's polls don't always favor Republicans.  During the 2009 NJ Governor's race, for example, many of their polls showed the race closer than many of them from other sources.

PPP actually has a very slight Republican bias (0.1%), according to Nate Silver's analysis. They've been criticized by Democrats and touted by Republicans.

Rasmussen's polls are awful. They are biased and inaccurate, and quite simply full of errors. Rasmussen, much like Fox, is not to be trusted. They need to just drop the pretense and admit that they are the polling arm of Fox News and the Republican Party.For instance, in the 2010 governor's race (CA), Rasmussen was suggesting that the race was a toss-up, that Meg Whitman would pull off a victory. Then Jerry Brown crushed her by 13 points. Rasmussen polled the 2010 Hawaii Senate election as +13 D. The Democrat promptly won by +53 D; in other words, Rassy's polls were about 40 points off the actual result. Rasmussen predicted an Angle victory right up to the last day of polling in Nevada. He's headlined 2 dinners for county parties. He also was paid in 2004 by the RNC & Bush's re-election campaign. And here's some additional backup for the house effect trends as well.

[tpfkaw]

None of the pollsters in 2010 had any statistically significant error or bias.  If you exclude the Hawaii poll (Hawaii is one of the two most difficult states to poll, along with Alaska), Rasmussen performed at the middle of the pack.  The last Rasmussen poll in California had Jerry Brown up 4 points, compared to the last PPP poll having him up 5 points.  PPP is affiliated with the Democratic Party and is presently doing its polls for the DailyKos and the SEIU.  They've also performed crappily with a strong Democratic bias in post-2010 elections (and even in 2010, they had a Democratic bias *compared to other pollsters* - turned out to be right, but they were still outside the consensus).

Edit:  Not to say I find Rasmussen a good pollster either; right now I'm looking for non-partisan confirmation of any poll by either pollster.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

PPP polls are extremely biased in favor of Democrats.  Much of their polling in the recent Wisconsin recall showed Tom Barrett narrowly beating Scott Walker.  Their most recent poll of the presidential election in Michigan (a swing state) has President Obama leading by 14 points, while a new poll from a Lansing-based pollster shows Mitt Romney leading in MI by 1 point.  Some of PPP's other polls have shown President Obama leading by 10 points or more in some other key swing states, such as Colorado, and there's no way he's that far ahead in those states.

[Donerail]

PPP polls are extremely biased in favor of Democrats.  Much of their polling in the recent Wisconsin recall showed Tom Barrett narrowly beating Scott Walker.  Their most recent poll of the presidential election in Michigan (a swing state) has President Obama leading by 14 points, while a new poll from a Lansing-based pollster shows Mitt Romney leading in MI by 1 point.  Some of PPP's other polls have shown President Obama leading by 10 points or more in some other key swing states, such as Colorado, and there's no way he's that far ahead in those states.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the English language. When a candidate, such as Scott Walker, is ahead by 3-5 points, we consider them to be "beating" their opponent, such as Tom Barrett. Also, in English, we consider the word "much" to mean "greater than 50%", not "1/5", as you seem to consider it to mean. According to current polling, Michigan is decidedly not a swing state. While 14 points may be a tad high, the polling average of all polls (not just one poll from EPIC/MRA) has Obama ahead by 6.8%, with Nate Silver's model projecting Obama winning by 9 points. 14 points, while high, is not outside of the realm of possibility. The Colorado poll (from April), while less excusable, is old, and the Purple Strategies, NBC/Marist, and Keating Research (NOT the Rassy) polls should be used instead, being more current.

[Dereich]

Tenuous PPP. I respect their record from 2010 and their interaction with the community in helping craft poll questions/locations is commendable but I think Ras is probably closer to the mark with 2012 polling.

[Miles]

Tenuous PPP. I respect their record from 2010 and their interaction with the community in helping craft poll questions/locations is commendable but I think Ras is probably closer to the mark with 2012 polling.

So the Missouri Senate race is Strong R rather than a pure tossup? Its those such polls that make me seriously doubt Rasmussen's credibility.

[Dereich]

Tenuous PPP. I respect their record from 2010 and their interaction with the community in helping craft poll questions/locations is commendable but I think Ras is probably closer to the mark with 2012 polling.

So the Missouri Senate race is Strong R rather than a pure tossup? Its those such polls that make me seriously doubt Rasmussen's credibility.

I'm not really sure about the senate race, but sticking with Missouri I find it much easier to believe Ras (Romney+7) then PPP (Obama+1)

[Rooney]

Write-in: That Atlas poster from Minnesota who has made a bunch of polls. He always has the pulse of the nation.

[argentarius]

This far out I would rank PPP as the worst pollster, Ras second worst. By election time PPP is one of the best and Ras still sucks. Recent PPP polls have been an absolute joke.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

PPP polls are extremely biased in favor of Democrats.  Much of their polling in the recent Wisconsin recall showed Tom Barrett narrowly beating Scott Walker.  Their most recent poll of the presidential election in Michigan (a swing state) has President Obama leading by 14 points, while a new poll from a Lansing-based pollster shows Mitt Romney leading in MI by 1 point.  Some of PPP's other polls have shown President Obama leading by 10 points or more in some other key swing states, such as Colorado, and there's no way he's that far ahead in those states.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the English language. When a candidate, such as Scott Walker, is ahead by 3-5 points, we consider them to be "beating" their opponent, such as Tom Barrett. Also, in English, we consider the word "much" to mean "greater than 50%", not "1/5", as you seem to consider it to mean. According to current polling, Michigan is decidedly not a swing state. While 14 points may be a tad high, the polling average of all polls (not just one poll from EPIC/MRA) has Obama ahead by 6.8%, with Nate Silver's model projecting Obama winning by 9 points. 14 points, while high, is not outside of the realm of possibility. The Colorado poll (from April), while less excusable, is old, and the Purple Strategies, NBC/Marist, and Keating Research (NOT the Rassy) polls should be used instead, being more current.

I live in Michigan, and if it was a swing state in 2000 and 2004 (and 2008, until McCain withdrew his campaign), then it's a swing state this time.  Al Gore only carried Michigan by 5 points, and John Kerry carried it by 3 points.  If this election is as close as either of those, then Michigan is definitely in play.  Just because Obama has a modest lead in the average of polls (especially this early) doesn't mean that Michigan isn't a swing state.

[Donerail]

PPP polls are extremely biased in favor of Democrats.  Much of their polling in the recent Wisconsin recall showed Tom Barrett narrowly beating Scott Walker.  Their most recent poll of the presidential election in Michigan (a swing state) has President Obama leading by 14 points, while a new poll from a Lansing-based pollster shows Mitt Romney leading in MI by 1 point.  Some of PPP's other polls have shown President Obama leading by 10 points or more in some other key swing states, such as Colorado, and there's no way he's that far ahead in those states.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the English language. When a candidate, such as Scott Walker, is ahead by 3-5 points, we consider them to be "beating" their opponent, such as Tom Barrett. Also, in English, we consider the word "much" to mean "greater than 50%", not "1/5", as you seem to consider it to mean. According to current polling, Michigan is decidedly not a swing state. While 14 points may be a tad high, the polling average of all polls (not just one poll from EPIC/MRA) has Obama ahead by 6.8%, with Nate Silver's model projecting Obama winning by 9 points. 14 points, while high, is not outside of the realm of possibility. The Colorado poll (from April), while less excusable, is old, and the Purple Strategies, NBC/Marist, and Keating Research (NOT the Rassy) polls should be used instead, being more current.

I live in Michigan, and if it was a swing state in 2000 and 2004 (and 2008, until McCain withdrew his campaign), then it's a swing state this time.  Al Gore only carried Michigan by 5 points, and John Kerry carried it by 3 points.  If this election is as close as either of those, then Michigan is definitely in play.  Just because Obama has a modest lead in the average of polls (especially this early) doesn't mean that Michigan isn't a swing state.

Michigan has gone Democratic in the last 5 elections and will remain the same. Minimum, 6.5-7 point win for Obama; max, 10 points.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

PPP polls are extremely biased in favor of Democrats.  Much of their polling in the recent Wisconsin recall showed Tom Barrett narrowly beating Scott Walker.  Their most recent poll of the presidential election in Michigan (a swing state) has President Obama leading by 14 points, while a new poll from a Lansing-based pollster shows Mitt Romney leading in MI by 1 point.  Some of PPP's other polls have shown President Obama leading by 10 points or more in some other key swing states, such as Colorado, and there's no way he's that far ahead in those states.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the English language. When a candidate, such as Scott Walker, is ahead by 3-5 points, we consider them to be "beating" their opponent, such as Tom Barrett. Also, in English, we consider the word "much" to mean "greater than 50%", not "1/5", as you seem to consider it to mean. According to current polling, Michigan is decidedly not a swing state. While 14 points may be a tad high, the polling average of all polls (not just one poll from EPIC/MRA) has Obama ahead by 6.8%, with Nate Silver's model projecting Obama winning by 9 points. 14 points, while high, is not outside of the realm of possibility. The Colorado poll (from April), while less excusable, is old, and the Purple Strategies, NBC/Marist, and Keating Research (NOT the Rassy) polls should be used instead, being more current.

I live in Michigan, and if it was a swing state in 2000 and 2004 (and 2008, until McCain withdrew his campaign), then it's a swing state this time.  Al Gore only carried Michigan by 5 points, and John Kerry carried it by 3 points.  If this election is as close as either of those, then Michigan is definitely in play.  Just because Obama has a modest lead in the average of polls (especially this early) doesn't mean that Michigan isn't a swing state.

Michigan has gone Democratic in the last 5 elections and will remain the same. Minimum, 6.5-7 point win for Obama; max, 10 points.

True, my state hasn't voted Republican for President since 1988, but that doesn't mean it's not a swing state.  It was close in both 2000 and 2004.  The demographics of Michigan are what make it a swing state, not the past voting patterns.  I rate it a toss-up for this year.

[Donerail]

PPP polls are extremely biased in favor of Democrats.  Much of their polling in the recent Wisconsin recall showed Tom Barrett narrowly beating Scott Walker.  Their most recent poll of the presidential election in Michigan (a swing state) has President Obama leading by 14 points, while a new poll from a Lansing-based pollster shows Mitt Romney leading in MI by 1 point.  Some of PPP's other polls have shown President Obama leading by 10 points or more in some other key swing states, such as Colorado, and there's no way he's that far ahead in those states.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the English language. When a candidate, such as Scott Walker, is ahead by 3-5 points, we consider them to be "beating" their opponent, such as Tom Barrett. Also, in English, we consider the word "much" to mean "greater than 50%", not "1/5", as you seem to consider it to mean. According to current polling, Michigan is decidedly not a swing state. While 14 points may be a tad high, the polling average of all polls (not just one poll from EPIC/MRA) has Obama ahead by 6.8%, with Nate Silver's model projecting Obama winning by 9 points. 14 points, while high, is not outside of the realm of possibility. The Colorado poll (from April), while less excusable, is old, and the Purple Strategies, NBC/Marist, and Keating Research (NOT the Rassy) polls should be used instead, being more current.

I live in Michigan, and if it was a swing state in 2000 and 2004 (and 2008, until McCain withdrew his campaign), then it's a swing state this time.  Al Gore only carried Michigan by 5 points, and John Kerry carried it by 3 points.  If this election is as close as either of those, then Michigan is definitely in play.  Just because Obama has a modest lead in the average of polls (especially this early) doesn't mean that Michigan isn't a swing state.

Michigan has gone Democratic in the last 5 elections and will remain the same. Minimum, 6.5-7 point win for Obama; max, 10 points.

True, my state hasn't voted Republican for President since 1988, but that doesn't mean it's not a swing state.  It was close in both 2000 and 2004.  The demographics of Michigan are what make it a swing state, not the past voting patterns.  I rate it a toss-up for this year.

In my political opinion, and according to recent polls, and according to various political websites (538 et al), it's Safe Obama.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

We'll see.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Sorry SJoyce, but you can't be a fortune teller here. I agree that Obama will probably win Michigan. But Romney has a better shot at winning it than most GOP prez candidates in recent memory: It's one of his home states (), he's running against a weak incumbent, and the state has been hit hard by a lagging economy. Romney has a shot in Michigan.

Especially when you consider every pollster other than PPP. I believe the sources you cite when they say PPP was great during the 2010 midterms. The 2010 midterms have passed though--line recent PPP polls up against the polls from any other mainstream pollster, and you'll find there's a disconnect. Maybe PPP will live up to its sterling record once they start using likely voter models. Right now though, they're losing credibility.

[technical support]

ppp

[Lief 🗽]

Especially when you consider every pollster other than PPP. I believe the sources you cite when they say PPP was great during the 2010 midterms. The 2010 midterms have passed though--line recent PPP polls up against the polls from any other mainstream pollster, and you'll find there's a disconnect. Maybe PPP will live up to its sterling record once they start using likely voter models. Right now though, they're losing credibility.

There's no reason to be using likely voter models in June.