He’ll say because the affiliation should be based on the last general election. He’s reluctant to deviate methodology.
In 2008 the election results pretty much matched the previous published polling. In as much, 2008 was a wild swing to Dem compared to 2004, I’m puzzled why polling matched results in 2008 if it was skewed Rep as it should have been. I’m still puzzled by this.
Do you have an example of Rasmussen using a democrat skewed poll?
Let me work out some logic here.
Lets assume you’re correct and that “affiliation should be based on last general election” is the standard by which Rasmussen determines the sample of his polls. If that’s the case then:
2012 polling should be based on 2008 results -D+6 or D+7 (Obama won by about 53-46).
and
2008 polling should have been based on 2004 results - R+2 ( Bush won by 51-49)
So, that being said
Rasmussen was accurate in 2008 - his polling predicted a 52-46 turnout and that’s within tenths of a point to what it was.
According to that logic, he’s saying:
He polled in 2008 using an R+2 sample
He came up with Obama winning 53-47 (or 52-46)
I am not a Rasmussen subscriber so I cannot go back and check the 2008 internals but I find that outcome - using an R+2 sample returned Obama winning by 4-6 points - very difficult to believe.
There is chicanery going on here. He’s varying his methodology for some reason (unexplained, to my knowledge)