The unprecedented item this year was simply the length and closeness of the Democratic primary contest, which was itself a result of the dems changing their primaries to proportional representation affairs in most states, rather than winner take all. That made it nearly impossible for one candidate to win early, going away. Since the republicans did not make that change, their primary was settled early. The only meaningful voice anyone had in the later primaries depended on asking for a democratic ballot.
In other words, people's eagerness to vote *against* Obama, even in another party, is the actual cause of the pollster's silly overweightings of his *support*.
Notice I didn’t accuse Rasmussen of being biased. After going through their website I’m of the opinion they try to do a good job. Pollsters aren’t taken seriously unless they nail the results pretty close. If they have a system, such as using the party affiliation numbers to weight their samples, they have to go with it.
My beef is why they didn’t question that dramatic jump in the 1st Q of ‘08. It sticks out like a sore eye yet there isn’t one word or explanation with the esception of “pubs are having a bad time”.
Really Rasmussen? How so? How about the 10% approval of the dem majorities in Congress?