Rasmussen Offers Excuses For Inaccuracy

The Rasmussen Poll didn't help their reputation in this last election -- either in their swing state polls or their national polls. Respected poll analyst Nate Silver looked at all their polls in the last 21 days before the election, and found they had an average error of 4.2 points (in favor of Romney). Democrats have suspected that Rasmussen tends to favor Republicans, but not by that large a margin. An average error of 4.2 points is simply unacceptable for any polling organization.

Here is what Rasmussen had to say about their election polling:

Our final daily presidential tracking poll showed Romney at 49% and Obama at 48%. Instead, the president got 50% of the vote and Romney 48%. We were disappointed that our final results were not as close to the final result as they had been in preceding elections. There was a similar pattern in the state polls. For example, in Ohio we projected a tie at 49% but the president reached 50% of the vote and the challenger got just 48%. Although every individual result in the battleground states was within the margin of error, the numbers we projected were consistently a bit more favorable for Romney than the actual results.

A preliminary review indicates that one reason for this is that we underestimated the minority share of the electorate. In 2008, 26% of voters were non-white. We expected that to remain relatively constant. However, in 2012, 28% of voters were non-white. That was exactly the share projected by the Obama campaign. It is not clear at the moment whether minority turnout increased nationally, white turnout decreased, or if it was a combination of both. The increase in minority turnout has a significant impact on the final projections since Romney won nearly 60% of white votes while Obama won an even larger share of the minority vote.

Another factor may be related to the generation gap. It is interesting to note that the share of seniors who showed up to vote was down slightly from 2008 while the number of young voters was up slightly. Pre-election data suggested that voters over 65 were more enthusiastic about voting than they had been four years earlier so the decline bears further examination.

That makes it sound like mistakes were made that could have been honestly made by any polling organization. Unfortunately for Rasmussen, most other polling organizations did not make those mistakes and were significantly more accurate than Rasmussen was. Why were they able to see what was happening while Rasmussen wasn't?

There was another old and respected national polling firm that did even worse than Rasmussen. The Gallup Poll showed an average error of 7.2 points (in Romney's favor). Both of these polls need to take a hard look at how they do their polling -- if they are going to stay in the polling business and regain the trust they squandered in this election.

Akin Is A Mainstream Republican

Ever sine Rep. Todd Akin (R-Missouri), who is the GOP nominee for the senate race in Missouri, created a firestorm by saying there should be no exception to allow an abortion in the case of rape (because he said women have a natural bodily protection against getting pregnant from rape), Republicans have been trying to distance themselves from him. And some have even tried to paint him as being out of the mainstream of the party.

That's simply not true. He may have put their argument against abortion in a ridiculous way, but his opinion that there shouldn't be an exception for pregnancies from rape is not out of the Republican Party mainstream. In fact, the party's vice-presidential candidate (pictured above with Akin) has voted repeated for an anti-abortion law with no exception for rape. And the Republican Party platform once again has a proposal for an anti-abortion law with no exceptions at all (not for rape or any other reason).

Akin is only preaching what the huge majority of Republicans actually believe. So why are they trying to distance themselves from him? Because in an election year, candidates are not supposed to say what they believe in such bald-faced terms as Akin used. The Republicans know that most people in this country believe in choice (at least for the first three months of a pregnancy), so they couch their mean-spirited beliefs in religious language and chip away at the edges of current law (as laid down by the Supreme Court). The mistake Akin made was in being too honest and forthright about his (and his party's) beliefs.

And it is starting to look like his honest, but ludicrous, beliefs are now affecting the senate race in Missouri. While polls taken right after the statement showed the race was still very tight (and Akin used those poll results to justify staying in the race), there is a new poll that shows voters may be starting to shift in Missouri. The newest Rasmussen Poll (a poll usually very friendly to Republican candidates), taken on August 22nd of 500 likely Missouri voters, shows the Democratic incumbent now has a 10 point lead over Akin. Here are the numbers:

McCaskill...............48%
Akin...............38%
Other...............9%
Undecided...............5%

The last Rasmussen Poll on July 30th (just three weeks ago) showed Akin with a three point lead (47% to 44%). That means Akin has lost 9 points in the last three weeks, while McCaskill has gained 4 points. Evidently the voters in Missouri don't think much of Akin after his rather brutal honesty (showing his true teabagger values).

Americans Hypocritical About Drones

The United States is currently skirting international law by violating the sovereign airspace of other countries without their permission. They are doing this with the use of drone aircraft. It is known that these drones are being used in Pakistan, Iraq, and Iran (we know they are in Iran because the Iranians shot one of them down). But that is not all. The State Department has said it is considering widening the use of drones to other countries.

But a new Rasmussen Poll shows that a majority of Americans don't see any problem with the U.S. government using drones in this illegal way. In fact only 9% of Americans oppose the use of drones to spy on and even kill "terrorists" in other countries, while 76% approve of this (although it is unclear how anyone can know if the people being spied on or killed are terrorists or innocent civilians). And 50% of the population thinks the president should have the authority to use drones over foreign countries without getting the approval of Congress.

This is American exceptionalism at its worst -- the idea that America should be allowed to do things that other countries shouldn't be allowed to do. I'll bet 100% of the people in this country would think it was wrong for another country to use drones over American airspace -- even if they claimed to be hunting for "terrorists".

But it gets even worse. A majority of Americans don't want drones used over the United States, even when it is being done by our own government. Last week the U.S. Congress passed legislation that would make it easier for law enforcement agencies in this country to use drone aircraft for surveillance only. But this same Rasmussen Poll shows that 52% of Americans oppose this legislation. Only 30% approve of it, while 17% are undecided.

So, while only 30% of Americans think it is proper to use drones in America for surveillance, about 76% think it is OK to use them in foreign countries -- even to kill people. That sounds like the height of hypocrisy to me. Frankly, we shouldn't do anything in another country that we wouldn't allow that country to do in the United States. After all, don't we claim to believe in fairness and justice? Shouldn't we practice what we preach?

Congressional Approval Still Dropping

Americans may be fed up with the federal government, but there is no part of the federal government they have less respect for than Congress. Last December, congressional approval in the Gallup Poll reached an all-time low of only 11%. At that time I didn't think it could get any lower, but I was wrong. In the latest Gallup Poll, released just yesterday, congressional approval has reached a new record-low of only 10%.

The previous record, 11% last December, was during a time when the Republican-dominated House of Representatives (and Senate Republicans) were trying to block an extension of President Obama's payroll tax cuts -- a tax cut that would affect millions of working Americans (but would mean nothing to the rich or the corporations -- the only people Republicans care about). After seeing their popularity drop, the Republicans finally agreed to a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut.

Now it is February, and that extension runs out at the end of this month. And the Republicans are once again blocking extending the payroll tax cut for the rest of this year. The problem is how to pay for the cut. Democrats (and the president) want to pay for it by raising taxes on the rich. Republicans want to pay for it by cutting government services for the elderly, children, the unemployed, and the poor -- the groups that are hurting the most right now.

I am amazed that the Republicans are still clinging to their favoritism for the rich over all other Americans -- especially since this is an election year and the rich make up only a tiny portion of the vote. The rich are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into Republican electoral efforts -- maybe the Republicans think they can buy the coming election (after all, it's working pretty well so far for Mitt Romney within their own party).

I don't think that'll work though. Preventing a payroll tax cut by blocking a tax raise for the rich (which a huge majority of Americans support) is more likely to make their congressional approval drop even further -- down into single-digits. And the people will vote that disapproval next November.

There is another recent poll that reflects the huge disapproval of Congress. The Rasmussen Poll recently asked a very interesting question. Here is that question, and the resulting numbers:

WOULD RANDOM PEOPLE CHOSEN FROM THE PHONE BOOK DO A BETTER JOB THAN THOSE CURRENTLY ELECTED TO CONGRESS?
Yes...............43%
No...............38%
Unsure...............19%

I think that sums up the current view of Congress very nicely (and I tend to agree with the 43%).

Americans Want An End To Afghan War

Readers of this blog will know that I am opposed to the war in Afghanistan. That is because I don't believe the goals of that war can be accomplished (elimination of the Taliban and terrorist activity in that area) -- no matter how long we continue to occupy that country. Several polls in the last few months have shown that a large and growing majority of the American people agree with me -- that the war should be ended as soon as possible.

That view has now been verified by a new poll. The recently released Rasmussen Poll says that two-thirds of Americans want the war over by summer of 2013, while less than a quarter of the population thinks the war should continue past that point. Here are the numbers:

AFGHAN WAR SHOULD END BY MIDDLE OF 2013
Yes...............67%
No...............22%
Not sure...............11%

Poll Shows Palin Is A Problem For Republicans

Ever since the 2008 election, Sarah Palin has been flirting with the idea of running for the Republican presidential nomination. She has tapped into the teabagger movement in the Republican Party and developed a loyal following among them. And more mainstream Republicans have courted her to get the support of her teabagger following. The upshot of all this has been to give Palin the idea she might actually be a viable candidate for the presidency.

But in catering to Palin, the Republicans may have created a conundrum. If she does become a candidate, she could hurt the party whether she gets the nomination or not. At least that's the situation according to a new Rasmussen Poll.

If Palin was to get the Republican nomination, she would have almost no chance of being elected. Although she has a loyal teabagger following, she has the highest negatives of any candidate among the general population -- currently over 50%. And most polls show she would do worse running against President Obama than any of the other Republican candidates.

Some might think that if she ran she would make sure the teabaggers stuck with the Republican Party, and after she lost the nomination, they would be able to exploit her loyal followers in the general election for another nominee. Rasmussen shows that might not be possible. The poll shows that 46% of Palin's followers would be likely to vote for a third party if she failed to win the nomination, and that could be enough to cost Republicans the White House in a close election.

Their best alternative is for Palin to decide not to run, and throw her support behind another candidate. That might keep her teabagger following inside the party on election day. But that doesn't sound like Palin to me. I think she'll run. She just enjoys being in the limelight too much to fade into the background. And that could be a very good thing for Democrats.

"Blue Dog" Bill White Not Polling Well

Yesterday, I discussed the fact that Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Blue Dog Bill White, is not only less well-known that the leading two Republican candidates, but he also has around $4 million dollars less to spend than they do. It's going to take a lot of money just to introduce himself to the voters outside the Houston area, and he has to get that done because voters simply will not elect a candidate they don't know.

Now a new poll has come out that shows just how deep the trouble is for Blue Dog Bill. The newest Rasmussen Poll on the Texas governor's race shows him losing not only to the two leading Republican candidates, but also to their third place candidate -- who only has the support of 16% of Republicans. Here's how he stacks up against all three Republicans:

Hutchison...............49%

White...............36%

Perry...............48%

White...............39%

Medina...............41%

White...............38%

Now the Rasmussen Poll is a poll that usually slightly favors Republican candidates, but that fact doesn't seem to help Blue Dog Bill (pictured) at this point. Even if we take five points away from each Republican (and I doubt the Rasmussen bias is anywhere near that much), Hutchison and Perry still win by more than the margin of error (3%). And the Medina-White race is still within the margin of error.

That margin could probably be made up in the next few months if the leading Republicans were not viewed favorably by the general public, but that is not the case. The two leading Republicans are viewed favorably by a majority of Texans. Here are the favorability ratings for all four candidates:

Hutchison...............57%

Perry...............54%

White...............46%

Medina...............44%

At this point, it looks like the "anointed" Democratic candidate is headed for defeat in November, and this time they can't blame it on Kinky. Maybe someday they'll nominate a Democrat who offers the voters some real progressive change. That's the day they'll have a real chance to win.

Obama Looking Good

It looks like Barack Obama is holding on to his new lead in the polls. One of the last polls to show Obama's recent surge is the Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll. Rasmussen showed the race as being even for several days after other polls began to show Obama taking the lead.

But that has changed now. Even Rasmussen has begun to show Obama with a significant lead. For the last two days that lead has been six points -- 50% for Obama and 44% for McCain. Here is what the Daily Tracking Poll shows for the last two weeks:

09/28/2008
44%
50%
Obama +6

09/27/2008
44%
50%
Obama +6

09/26/2008
45%
50%
Obama +5

09/25/2008
46%
49%
Obama +3

09/24/2008
47%
49%
Obama +2

09/23/2008
48%
48%
Even

09/22/2008
47%
48%
Obama +1

09/21/2008
47%
48%
Obama +1

09/20/2008
47%
48%
Obama +1

09/19/2008
48%
48%
Even

09/18/2008
48%
48%
Even

09/17/2008
48%
47%
McCain +1

09/16/2008
48%
47%
McCain +1

09/15/2008
49%
47%
McCain +2

Americans Not Buying Clinton's Assurances

Last week, Hillary Clinton was asked to stop taking money from the K Street lobbyists. She refused saying, "I don't think, based on my 35 years of fighting for what I believe in, anybody seriously believes I'm going to be influenced by a lobbyist." I thought it was a ridiculous statement at the time. How could anyone not be influenced by the kind of money these lobbyists pour into a campaign?

It looks like the American people aren't believing her assurances either. Rasmussen conducted a survey of 800 likely voters on August 6th and 7th. According to their poll, only 25% of the people believe that Clinton would not be influenced by receiving lobbyists' money. A full 48% believe she would be influenced, and another 28% say they just don't know.

Clinton should probably rethink her position on accepting this tainted money. Americans are fed up with the lobbyists, and that is true of both parties and independents.

Clinton went on to say, "A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans." When asked if lobbyists represent real Americans, 67% of Democrats, 69% of Republicans and 78% of independents said NO. Americans know who these lobbyists represent.

They represent groups like USINPAC, which represents Indian Americans and lobbys for the outsourcing of American jobs. This group raised over $3 million for Clinton in just one fund-raising effort. They raised this money for her because they know she supports the outsourcing of American jobs.

Lobbyists may not be the most ethical people, but they are not stupid. They are not going to waste millions of dollars on a candidate that they cannot influence.