Rasmussen Reports, You Decide

In the last few weeks, Rasmussen Reports – already among the most prolific pollsters – has released a torrent of new senate and gubernatorial polls. While political junkies might instinctively be grateful for all the data, partisans have to be concerned about Rasmussen’s ability to drive the over-arching narrative. This is all the more so given widespread concerns about Rasmussen’s methodology – concerns which have given rise to at least two new detailed analyses on Pollster.com this month, one by Mark Blumenthal and the second by Alan Abramowitz.

I personally think Rasmussen Reports has an axe to grind – their made-up way of reporting presidential favorables and their questionable non-electoral polls make me mistrustful. At the same time, we don’t want to stick our heads in the sand, and 538.com’s pollster ratings do indicate that Rasmussen seems to be interested in getting things right, at least as far as the horserace is concerned. So we’ve decided to package up the most recent Raz surveys and let ’em all at you in one blast.

CT-Sen (12/7, likely voters, 9/10 in parens):

Chris Dodd (D-inc): 35 (39)

Rob Simmons (R): 48 (49)

Other: 7 (5)

Undecided: 11 (6)

Chris Dodd (D-inc): 39 (42)

Peter Schiff (R): 40 (40)

Other: 8 (7)

Undecided: 14 (10)

Chris Dodd (D-inc): 38

Linda McMahon (R): 43

Other: 8

Undecided: 9

(MoE: ±4.5%)

CO-Sen (12/8, likely voters, 9/15 in parens):

Michael Bennet (D-inc): 37 (36)

Jane Norton (R): 46 (45)

Other: 8 (7)

Undecided: 8 (12)

Michael Bennet (D-inc): 41

Tom Wiens (R): 42

Other: 7

Undecided: 10

Michael Bennet (D-inc): 38

Ken Buck (R): 42

Other: 8

Undecided: 12

Andrew Romanoff (D): 34 (34)

Jane Norton (R): 45 (42)

Other: 7 (8)

Undecided: 15 (15)

Andrew Romanoff (D): 40

Tom Wiens (R): 41

Other: 5

Undecided: 14

Andrew Romanoff (D): 39

Ken Buck (R): 41

Other: 6

Undecided: 14

(MoE: ±4.5%)

IL-Sen (12/9, likely voters, 10/14 in parens):

Alexi Giannoulias (D): 42 (41)

Mark Kirk (R): 39 (41)

Other: 3 (4)

Undecided: 14 (13)

Cheryle Jackson (D): 39 (39)

Mark Kirk (R): 42 (43)

Other: 4 (4)

Undecided: 15 (13)

David Hoffman (D): 38 (33)

Mark Kirk (R): 42 (43)

Other: 3 (8)

Undecided: 17 (16)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

NV-Sen (12/9, likely voters, 9/14 in parens):

Harry Reid (D-inc): 43 (40)

Sue Lowden (R): 49 (50)

Other: 6 (4)

Undecided: 3 (5)

Harry Reid (D-inc): 43 (43)

Danny Tarkanian (R): 49 (50)

Other: 6 (4)

Undecided: 2 (3)

Harry Reid (D-inc): 43

Sharron Angle (R): 47

Other: 7

Undecided: 3

(MoE: ±4.5%)

OH-Sen (12/7, likely voters, 9/23 in parens):

Lee Fisher (D): 36 (40)

Rob Portman (R): 38 (41)

Other: 8 (6)

Undecided: 18 (14)

Jennifer Brunner (D): 33 (38)

Rob Portman (R): 40 (40)

Other: 7 (5)

Undecided: 20 (18)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

OH-Gov (12/7, likely voters,  9/23 in parens):

Ted Strickland (D-inc): 39 (45)

Jon Kasich (R): 48 (46)

Other: 3 (3)

Undecided: 11 (7)

(MoE: ±4.5%)

SC-Gov (12/2, likely voters, no trendlines):

Jim Rex (D): 33

Gresham Barrett (R): 39

Other: 7

Undecided: 21

Jim Rex (D): 36

Andre Bauer (R): 35

Other: 13

Undecided: 16

Jim Rex (D): 32

Henry McMaster (R): 39

Other: 10

Undecided: 19

Vincent Sheheen (D): 23

Gresham Barrett (R): 45

Other: 11

Undecided: 20

Vincent Sheheen (D): 29

Andre Bauer (R): 39

Other: 13

Undecided: 19

Vincent Sheheen (D): 26

Henry McMaster (R): 43

Other: 10

Undecided: 21

(MoE: ±4.5%)

For the final word, I’ll turn things over to Jon Stewart. The ever-brights at Fox & Friends had some difficulty in retransmitting a misleadingly-worded (and dodgy) Rasmussen survey on global warming, leading Stewart to opine (at 1:50) that this poll had a margin of error of “monkey-fuck ridiculous”:

Rasmussen Reports, you decide.

34 thoughts on “Rasmussen Reports, You Decide”

  1. I honestly do believe they purposely fudge their polls up until the last weeks of a given election in favor of republicans.  They consistently put out daily polls on Obama’s favorability that are more than 5 points lower than even Fox polls.  They also distort their headlines to make republicans look better.

  2. We don’t have anything to compare in Co-sen.

    PPP found similar numbers in SC.

    Quinnipiac found similar numbers in CT-Sen and OH-Sen, but Gov was a little closer.

    NV-Sen is same as everyone else is finding.

    IL-Sen is within MoE, which is what all the internals have found.  

  3. I really hope they are off the mark there.

    I am praying someone will prevail on Dodd to retire. He has Corzine written all over him. He’s had a good, long ride, and it’s time to help Ds hold this seat.

  4. Has to be said that Ras was accurate predicting the recent governer races. If anything their margins were smaller thant the actual results. In VA they had Deeds within the margin of error right after the thesis news broke and then Mc just kept pulling away until the final where he was up 14 (actual was about 18).

    In NJ they had Christie up all summer and then fading throughout the fall. They’re last poll had Christie up 3%, just below 50. Final was Christie 4% win.

    Now one could argue that they wanted the Rs and it just happened but I their polling was accurate to what was going on throughout these races. Here in VA we saw Deeds squander his chance and Mc won people over. Thats what Ras polls depicted.

    Instead of trying to explain bad news away, we should take this as a wake up call that D voters have to be re-energized. Before 2006 Rs tried and explain their apparent difficulties away. Ds need to take the news from the field and start reacting.

  5. for a 2010 electorate.

    First, while I think they’re wrong, I don’t know that as I don’t know the true difference in voter enthusiasm.

    Second, I’m hopeful that important legislation can be passed – and GOTV work can be done to bring our numbers up for 2010.

    But those factors aside, if Rasmussen is reasonably consistent w/r/t their likely voter screens,

    then these numbers are still useful – for trends over time.

    So for these results

    1) CT –  Dodd’s numbers are going down a bit – but prospective opponent numbers are stable – and only Simmons is near 50. Does that mean that Dodd can still come back?

    2) CO – there is no apparent poll to poll change in this race.

    3) IL – David Hoffman appears to be getting traction as a serious candidate, other candidates appear stable. I assume that’s a function of increasing name recognition.

    4) NV – Reid’s numbers are at least stable, and might be heading up a bit, while his opponents are stagnating. Don’t know if that’s an effect of Reid’s early ads.

    5) OH Sen- Portman is not gaining against either Brunner or Fisher. However, Brunner’s numbers seem to be sagging.

    6) OH Gov – Strickland’s numbers v. Kasich seems to be getting worse. Is that a function of the economy in general and/or the unemployment rate in the state?

    7) SC – this is one poll, so the lack of trendlines suggest that these numbers aren’t useful – until there’s a second poll on the race sometime in the future. While I think it likely that Rasmussen oversamples Rs on a national basis, I suspect that bias would be reduced in a red state.

  6. So they didn’t poll the Republican primary in South Carolina? I get that these are inter-party match-ups, but since the real race in SC is among the Republicans (well, unless Bauer is the nominee) that would seem the more pressing matter.

Comments are closed.