It is Rasmussen, but WTF? WI Obama 49; Romney 49

[TexasCPA]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/wisconsin/election_2012_wisconsin_president

[Proud Liberal Dem]

1. THE RACE IS TIED!!!! IT COULD GO EITHER WAY!!!!!

STAY TUNED IN UNTIL NOVEMBER 6!!!!!!

Oh, wait, it's another national poll......................

[fugop]

2. It's Rasmussen. That's it.

[JRLeft]

3. Rasmussen will do this up until election day.

[Jersey Devil]

38. yep, then on election day they will post the real numbers

so they can brag before the next election cycle about how accurate they were in the last election.

[bluestateguy]

4. By posting it you give them attention

Thanks a lot

[FBaggins]

10. By replying, you've given it more

And then I replied... and...

[blazeKing]

5. He's clearly gone off the deep end

"Obama carried Wisconsin by a 56% to 42% margin in 2008."


Yeah, it's not a swing state.

[WI_DEM]

8. while I don't believe this poll, WI is a swing state

2012 is not 2008. In 2010 we lost Feingold and elected Walker who won his recall effort. In 2004 and 2000 WI was razor thin for the Dem candidates in the popular vote for president.

[blazeKing]

12. WI must have a lot of people that change their minds a lot

That's a big switch in just a few years

[WI_DEM]

29. Why don't you study returns from other 2008 Obama states

and you'll see lots of switches between 2008 and 2010.

[progressivebydesign]

22. Look at the demographics of who voted in 2010.

Mid-term elections are traditionally voted by the "likely voter" model you see all over the place.

Conservative, rich, white, middle aged. You cannot take a mid-term election a ANY sign of what a General election will be. Every single person I know did NOT vote in 2010, besides myself. It's apples and oranges... and demographics, NOT that Wisconsin suddenly hates Democrats. That's pretty basic election stuff right there. Everyone knows this.

[WI_DEM]

28. I'm not. I'm also looking at 2000, 2004 plus the fact that until 1988 WI

was a reliably GOP state in most presidential elections. WI has two blue areas--Madison and Milwaukee and a lot of red outside of those areas. I don't see where this myth that WI is a strongly blue state came from.

[RomneyLies]

6. Rasmussen

State races don't even matter in the pollster rankings after the election. All that is taken into account is the last nationwide poll before the election.

[FBaggins]

7. That's consistent (if you account for Rasmussen doing the poll)

Mason Dixon is one of the best and they say we're up by two. Marquette University says it's a one point race, but they've been more volatile than the other polls. Marist leans a little left and they said it was a six point lead. Quinnipiac said three points after the first debate and PPP said two points.

Account for the fact that Rasmussen's results tend to lean a couple points to the right and the story hasn't changed much. We're probably up about two percent. The state's in play, but not out of control.

[JiminyJominy]

9. While I Do Think...

Obama gets Wisconsin when all is said and done that state has a way of being tempremental at times.

[Thrill]

11. Notice he always comes out with Polls

Directly after a good poll comes out for Obama in a state. With one tilted to Mittens

[Maximumnegro]

37. Bingo.

[TexasCPA]

13. I am more worried about WI than OH

The Republicans have a much better ground game in WI than OH. I don't think we will lose WI. Even if we do there are still plenty of ways go get to 270 w/o WI.

[dixiegrrrrl]

14. I get the feeling smart people are not trusting the polls.

With good reason.
the rigged polls will have to match the rigged election results

assuming they get away with rigging the election
and since Repubs have control over the voting machines
AND the media
AND are rigging voter registration
the odds are good that they can get away with it, as they did in 2000
and in 2004.
dunno how they screwed up and 'lost" in 2008. Maybe they got too confident.

[Welcome_hubby]

17. Quinnipiac is trustworthy

I even trust Pew despite having a bad outcome for Obama a couple of weeks ago.

But Rasmussen is a conservative with a bad record in 2010, no cell phone calls and a conflict of interest.

[yellowcanine]

15. "It's Rasmussen, but..." You should have stopped right there. And then not clicked "Post."

[regnaD kciN]

23. Pretty much...

Check all the polls as a bloc, and don't obsess over any one poll, especially fronbGravis, WeAskAmerica, or the House of Ras.

[yellowcanine]

26. It should also be noted that Rasmussen is an AUTOMATED telephone poll.

Hence they really don't know WHO is answering the questions.

[Arkana]

16. It's a one day sample. Even the worst pollsters don't do this.

[writes3000]

18. Why Do YOU Only Post Bad Polls/News? You Seem to LIVE For It.

I've been noticing it for days and I can't be the only one who notices it.

[TexasCPA]

20. I have a secret agenda

My secret agenda is to see that idiot Romney disappear from the public eye. It can only happen if Democrats vote in the next 10 days.

[Surya Gayatri]

21. Yes, our "CPA" from Texas does seem inordinately

"concerned" with negative number crunching! Never the positive numbers, mind you, only the negative ones.
Hum, I wonder why that is...

[kansasobama]

19. Beware of Scott Walker- Rassmussen is a good indicator of something - Vote early WI

I would take Rasmussen seriously. Maybe, Scott has something up his sleeve. How to avoid shenanigans. Vote early..

[Surya Gayatri]

24. "I would take Rasmussen seriously." Would you now?

Well, in that case, because it's you after all, I guess the Obama campaign and ground game in WI had better start shaking in their boots!

[progressivebydesign]

25. Another chronic ray of sunshine here on DU. (R)assmussen? Good???

you've lost all credibility with that one.

But yes, everyone should vote early.

[woolldog]

34. Actually the Marquette poll

was the best WI poll during the recall. I'd pay attention to them when they come out with their next poll.

[NHDEMFORLIFE]

27. There's a reason why Nate Silver's job at the NYT exists

And it's a job I wouldn't want; as an English major, numbers give me a headache!
No commercial poll - whether it drifts to the Democratic side of the aisle or the Republican - can be taken at face value. They can't even be trusted by peeling off the top layer of the onion. They have to be dissected and the inner workings analyzed; only then can we get a feel for how accurate they might be.
Ironically enough, I trust the candidates' inside polling more than the commercial polls. They need to play it straight so they have accurate information with which to make their plans.
Now, that being said, the campaigns themselves can publicly lie about the results of their polling, but if someone gets access to the real numbers, they can be counted upon to be pretty accurate.

[workinclasszero]

30. Oh WOW! If even Rasmussen shows the Rmoney (fake)big MO is gone...

Obama must be SURGING ahead in reality!

I know, I know..shouldn't say this but....

Could it be that we will see a...

Democratic...LANDSLIDE in November!?

[Cicada]

31. Don't focus on single polls - use the average

The best, most accurate way to use polls is to take the average. I don't know why people keep talking about single polls since we know that they are less accurate than the average of polls. Even more accurate - drop best and worst poll and take the median poll of the remainders.

But also consider - in 2010 Rasmussen overestimated election day results in its state polls by an average of 4 %. So adjust Ras to a four point Obama lead. Then average with other polls.

[Mayflower1]

32. Never underestimate the Repugs.

Remember Scott Walker !

[blazeKing]

33. Rass has Romney ahead in I think every swing state but Ohio where it's a tie

He's so full of shit

[WI_DEM]

35. Nope, Ras also has it as a tie in Ohio in their latest poll, too.

[geek tragedy]

36. R-ASSmussen? nt

[kansasobama]

39. Rasmussen

Friends:

I know Rasmussen is full of it. But, I also know Scott Walker. So, just want to be cautious.