I don't care what the "polls" say, the "rumors" etc.
MAKE SURE YOUR YOU ARE CURRENTLY REGISTERED AND ACTUALLY VOTE DOUBLE CHECK YOUR VOTER CARD TODAY!
Yes, rasmussen is wrong.
Is this a joke?
Rasmussen blew the 2000 election and has been skewing the polls from day one this time..
Why would anyone pay attention to Rasmussen?
I wouldn't trust it. It seems to be an outlier at this point in time.
Is that poll registered voters or likely voters?
This is why Rasmussen is a joke. He has released state polls with Bush down 8 in California, 4 in New Jersey, and tied in Minnesota, yet he doesn't give Bush a lead nationwide?
Rasmussen is a complete fraud and nothing more or less.
Still running scared after blowing 2000, Scott Rasmussen is a complete fraud.
MAKE SURE YOUR YOU ARE CURRENTLY REGISTERED AND ACTUALLY VOTE DOUBLE CHECK YOUR VOTER CARD TODAY!
Before everyone panics...today's data reflects Kerry's strong day on Saturday that even Rasmussen says was bad data. I show the raw numbers for the last three days to be 44-48-50 Bush, 49-45-48 Kerry. All done over a holiday/weekend period when Rasmussen polling always shows Bush down (usually by as much as 6 points in raw data). The real story won't be known until Thursday. Tomorrow, a great day for Kerry drops off and a bad day for Bush drops off. Expect Bush to move ahead by at least one or two points.
I don't know, Rasmussen also today shows that Kerry has lost 2 states in the Electoral College giving Kerry his lowest total in his tracking.... Moving NJ and Michigan to toss up from Kerry.
So I don't know how he's getting they are tied in the national poll... something definately smells fishy.
. . . this polling reflects a 'rogue' sample on Saturday --a sample that won't 'roll out' of the stats until tomorrow!
RASMUSSEN'S EXPLANATION:
September 6, 2004--We have been flooded with e-mails asking (in varying tones of politeness) why our poll results seem different from those released by Time and Newsweek.
There are two basic explanations, one involving our polling data and one involving the newsmagazines. For those who need to know the answer before the explanation, the bottom line is that the President is ahead by 4 to 5 points at this time. That's a significant improvement over the past few weeks, but not a double digit lead.
Our current poll (showing the President ahead by just over a point) includes a Saturday sample that is way out of synch with all the days before it and with the Sunday data that followed. In fact, Saturday's one-day sample showed a big day for Kerry while all the days surrounding it showed a decent lead for the President.
It seems likely that Saturday reflects a rogue sample (especially since it was over a holiday weekend). But, it remains in our 3-day rolling average for one more day (Tuesday's report). If we drop the Saturday sample from our data, Bush is currently ahead by about 4 percentage points in the Rasmussen Reports Tracking Poll.
That's still a smaller lead than shown by Time and Newsweek. Those polls appear to have the mirror image problem of a Los Angeles Times poll in June reportedly showing Kerry with a huge lead. That LA Times survey included too many Democrats in their sample. Today, it seems likely that Time and Newsweek included too many Republicans.
Time reports that Republicans will vote for Bush by an 89% to 9% margin; Democrats for Kerry by an 80% to 9% margin; and, unaffiliated voters for Bush 43% to 39%.
Four years ago, 35% of voters were Republicans, 39% were Democrats, and the rest were unaffiliated. If you apply those percentages to the Time internals, you find Bush up by about 3 percentage points. If you do the same with the Newsweek internal numbers, you find Bush with a six point lead. Those results are very close to the Rasmussen Reports data (excluding the Saturday sample).
All of this leads me to conclude that the President is currently ahead by 4 or 5 percentage points.
For those who say turnout might be different this time, I agree. It might be different. One of our great challenges between now and Election Day is to figure out how much (if at all) the turnout will change from historic norms. Partisans from both sides seem convinced that there are special circumstance that will increase turnout for their team. Others speculate that their may be a smaller number of unaffiliated voters since events of the past four years have caused people to take sides.
Whatever the turnout differences may be, they will not be big enough to match the implications of the Time and Newsweek polls.
As always, it's useful to use common sense when reviewing poll data. If a poll suggests that 10 or 20 percent of Americans are changing their mind on a regular basis, it should be viewed with caution. Most of the time, you will find that the partisan mix of the polling sample is changing more than the actual perceptions of voters.
Yesterday, we released a brief assessment of the Bush Bounce. Based upon our 7-day Tracking data (less susceptible to one-day rogue samples), it appears that the President has gained more than five points over a three week period of time. Given the Swift Boat issue and the Republican National Convention, that seems to be a reasonable measure of the shift.
During the Republican Convention week, the President's numbers improved across the board. He took the lead in the 16-Battleground States, his Job Approval ratings went up to their highest levels in six months, and the number saying the country is moving in the right direction increased to its highest level of the year.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Poll%20Differences%20Sept%206.htm
Cannot explain it, particularly in light of the fact that Rasmussen yesterday said that Bush has a 4 to 5 point lead and that a bad sample on Saturday that had a very big Kerry result had caused the race to appear closer than it really is.
Rasmussen is still smoking crack.
<> Can someone explain this to me???
Yeah, the people who actually make this country run, who
are mostly GOP, are back at work today, not taking poll calls.
Sure, pollsters can adjust for that, but if they are,
what ELSE are they "adjusting"?
Only one poll counts, the one on 02 Nov.
Yes, as has already been pointed out, we can explain it by pointing out that, if we learned nothing else in 2,000, we learned not to rely on numbers from Rasmussen.
Yes, actually it is very simple - as an example when I was in the USMC and we were drilling at boot camp, the DI would observe that everyone was out of step but some F$k*ng Ass%*le (le anus, c'est moi).