Posted on 10/06/2008 6:33:32 AM PDT by CatOwner
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Barack Obama attracting 52% of the vote while John McCain earns 44%. This is the highest level of support ever recorded for Obama and is his largest lead of the year. It also continues a remarkable twenty-five days in a row where the Democrat’s support has never declined by even a single point. The Democratic candidate has gained six full percentage points of support since Lehman Brothers collapsed to start the Wall Street mess ...
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
It’s exactly what Rush said. These polls are designed to demoralize. They won’t be accurate until the day of the election.
puroresu wrote:
“If Obama is winning by eight points then that means he’s doing better than every Democrat who ran for the presidency since FDR, with the exception of LBJ in 1964. Does that seem logical to anyone here?
Granted, our nation’s been dumbed down and flooded with multicultists, but could things have declined that much that fast?”
Yes, they may just have.
My take is that the country is trending “bluer”, and that from now on, conservatives (in general) and Republicans (in particular) are going to face a tougher row to hoe to win elections in certain areas of states, and in entire states, that were heretofore seen as “red”.
Let’s consider one state in particular: New Mexico.
New Mexico was for years “reliably red” and somewhat conservative. It was those things, UNTIL the state’s ethnic demographics began to change. If I’m not mistaken, New Mexico recently became the second state (I believe California was the first) in which Euro-Americans no longer constitute a majority. The state has literally “browned out”. And with the change in ethnic color, along comes changes in political colors, as well.
It’s probably not popular to suggest this, but “conservatism” per se - particularly the “American brand” of conservatism - is “a Euro thing”. I’ve read where the roots of conservatism, that being self-reliance and a healthy mistrust of government, go back to the Scots/Irish (and British) stock of early America and Colonial times.
Historically, not all whites have been conservative.
But the vast majority of conservatives have been white.
When Euros no longer comprise a majority, or even when they hold a “shrinking majority”, conservatism (as a belief held by a given percentage of the population) will begin to fade. The “browner” an area grows, the more liberal it will become.
Here on FR I have seen (and archived) a great posting someone made regarding the percentages of Muslims in a population vis-a-vis how “Muslim” a society will become. I contend that as Euros decline as a percentage of the population, we will see a similar shift away from conservatism and shrinking chances of conservatives having much say in elections or in government.
Yes, conservatives will still be here and have a voice. But, that voice will not be speaking as loudly as before (as an aside, we know how the Left would silence it completely if it could, and we may see a concerted effort in that direction in 2009).
Back to New Mexico. Of course, the conservatives are still there. It’s just that - demographically - they are being overtaken by liberals (not only “California liberals” but moreso by Hispanic growth), and no longer speak with the voice that they once had. That “voice” is still there - but it is being drowned out by the louder din of liberalism. The state is shifting from red to purple, and - in time - will go “full blue”.
Wasn’t there someone who said that it could take centuries to build a culture, but only a generation or two to destroy it?
In our case, the seeds of destruction were sown in the 1965 law that redefined immigration into this country. Before 1965, it was the specific and official policy of the United States to give preference to Euros and to exclude most others. Were such policies “discriminatory”? YES, of course they were, and for good reason: to protect the cultural and philosophical foundations of the Euro-American nation.
But in 1965, those laws and policies were turned topsy-turvy, and the flood of non-Euro immigration began. Couple that with the lax attitudes towards illegals (and the blame for this falls entirely on REPUBLICANS, who could have stopped it, but didn’t), and the complexion of America began to change. For some time, the changes seemed slow, barely perceptible. But the seeds were sown and forty years later we’re reaping the harvest, a harvest that is not only ethnic, but political, as well.
- John
Methatmically, this methodology causes your error to compound.
Here's the thing no one is pointing out: If your party weighting is based on polling data, and hang-ups are disproportionately higher for one party than the other, your poll will be way off. In this election, I strongly believe hang-ups are higher among Reps than Dems for a variety of reasons:
1) McCain-Palin are running an anti-media poulist campaign, and pollsters are seen as part of the northeastern media establishment. This means Republican voters are angrier at the media establishment than ever before, so they are more likely to hang up now then every before.
2) Obama and the media keep trumpeting the idea that if you don't vote for The One, you're a racist. So who wants to tell a pollster they are voting for McCain if they pollster is going to think of them as a racist for it?
As someone who deals daily in statistics, I have to wonder: if this is a TRACKING poll, how on earth can you change your baselines and report the set as representing reality with a straight face?
The internals (for statistics’ sake) should remain constant. Otherwise, there is no way to factually discern a trend. The data points aren’t based on the same baseline!
Why would Raz (and for that matter Gallup) do this? Anyone with a background in polling, can you explain this to me? I’m coming at it from a computer programmer, statistician point of view.
In the 2008 primaries he was off by 5.5 points and ranks # 20 among the pollsters accuracy.
Not true. They in fact did cause the crisis and there’s plenty of evidence to support it. I would say it didn’t matter except its been on FOX three days, three times a day. They do have the largest audience.
Just do your part and don’t worry too much. I still don’t think Obama will win. No enthusiasm for the Muslim in CA. I haven’t spoke to a single Democrat that will vote for the Muzzie.
Rasmussen Final Tracking:
2000 Election
Bush +8% over Gore
Good work Scott.
These pollster don’t use a tracking poll for there final predictons in November !
In 2000, Ras poll had BUsh winnning by 8 points !
In 2004, Ras used a 50/50 turnout ratio and was close
This year ,Ras is giving Obama a 7 point advantage and lowered the Repub turnout thus this garbage poll.
This not a TRUE poll but a automatic phone call generated nonsense !
Odd how he is not using the same 50/50 turnout we have had in 2000 and 2004 ???????
We can blame the pollsters all we want, but McCain tanked with the stock market. There is no denying that.
He was dead on in 2004.
But blew the 2000 Election and laughed at ala Zogby.
He had Bush up 8% in his final 2000 Tracker over Gore.
Survey USA.
Dammit, Rush can go play his golf or whatever AFTER the election.
I sure hope Hannity and TGO don't copy him and are on duty today.
It´s the campaign Obama wanted from the start. The economy as the most important issue. Now he can blame Bush and connect Mc Cain to Bush. If you look at the early Obama speeches at youtube you can see that they try to label Mc Cain as out of touch with the average people and the economy in general from the start.
The financial crises and the Mc Cain comment of the “strong economy” was more than gold for Obama.
Mc cain planed a completely different campaign and now he is not able to counter the issue for weeks. he has to connect his leadership campaign and maverick campaign to the economy and not that strange talk about earmarks.
This issue will not go away until election day. Mc Cain and his team needs to find a way to win this issue or all these polls become reality
Welcome to FR.
Anytime the republicans have to fight to win a congressional district in Nebraska that means the republicans are in deep doo doo.
Obama has multiple ways to win to get to 270. McCain has 1 or 2.
Perhaps McCain supporters or conservatives in general don't like being polled and recorded so refuse to answer.
Perhaps Rasmussen has an unconscious bias towards socialists that is reflected in how he chooses whom to poll.
Seeing that Rasmussen predicted big Kerry margins,perhaps he is just wrong.Yesterday I spotted a real anomaly;a Scion bearing a bumper sticker "Rednecks For Obama".I think I was seeing a violation of "truth in labeling"!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.