I’m not going to waste my time arguing with an idiot who refuses to deal with the points I make. I’d frankly rather go into the closet and talk to the wall.

Get lost.

Rasmussen did NOT nail it in 2008. Analyses that make such claims were done in November 2008 using PRELIMINARY election results showing a spread of 6.5% or less with Obama winning 52/46. However when the FINAL official numbers were released by the FEC, it became clear that the spread was ACTUALLY 7.28%, and Obama had won 53/46.

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/federalelections2008.pdf

FACT: In 2008, Obama won 53/46. (52.93/45.65)
FACT: Rasmussen missed it 52/46.
FACT: CNN/ORC & McClatchy/Ipsos nailed it 53/46.

This is a demon-possessed man who literally has been on the official record voting to murder babies who SURVIVED abortions and were actually living outside of their mothers’ wombs.

You want God damn America? You want Obama. That’s the bottom line.

You are wrong.

Rasmussen was both the most consistent AND tied for being the most accurate in its final prediction.

That “consistency” thing is important: because liberal polls invariably give the Democrat HUGE advantages in an ideological attempt to de-energize Republicans and then they tighten up the results right near the end to salvage their reputations. They do this on a routine basis. Rasmussen doesn’t. Which is why people like you hate them and try to discredit them.

As we consider swing states like Ohio, let’s think right now which polls have been more accurate than Rasmussen. EVERYBODY ELSE HAD OBAMA WINNING HUGE. And now here we are finding out that Rasmussen pretty much stands alone as the best pollster as usual.

Here’s an example of what I’m saying: Rasmussen has had Ohio CLOSE. Most of YOUR polls have had Obama blowing Romhey away by as much as 11 points. The truth is now starting to look completely different than what liberal polls said over and over and over and over. And here’s another example that your stupid polls in Ohio were so far off it is beyond unreal.

So you cite whatever crap you want, but we’ll see what happens, won’t we?

In the 2004 presidential election, “Rasmussen…beat most of their human competitors in the battleground states, often by large margins,” according to Slate magazine. Rasmussen projected the 2004 presidential results within one percentage point of the actual vote totals earned by both George W. Bush and John Kerry.

In 2008, Rasmussen again nailed it.

In the 2009 New Jersey gubernatorial race, Rasmussen Reports’ final poll predicted that Chris Christie would beat Jon Corzine by a margin of 3 points. Christie won the race with a spread of 4.3 points.

In December 2009, Alan Abramowitz wrote that if Rasmussen’s data was accurate, Republicans would gain 62 seats in the House during the 2010 midterm elections. In a column written the week before the 2010 midterm elections, Rasmussen stated his belief that Republicans would gain at least 55 seats in the House and end up with 48 or 49 Senate seats. Republicans ended up gaining 63 seats in the House, and coming away with 47 Senate seats. Rasmussen REALLY nailed that one.

In 2010, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show Republican Scott Brown had a chance to defeat Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate race. Just after Brown’s upset win, Ben Smith at Politico reported, “The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both parties until a Rasmussen poll showed the race in single digits in early January was that Martha Coakley was a lock. (It’s hard to recall a single poll changing the mood of a race quite that dramatically.)” A study by Boston University and the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism about how the Massachusetts Senate race was covered in the media concluded, “…Rasmussen Report’s poll that showed the overwhelming Republican underdog, Scott Brown, climbing to within single digits (nine points) of Martha Coakley. That poll, perhaps more than anything else, signaled that a possible upset was brewing and galvanized both the media and political worlds.”

To say Rasmussen isn’t an incredibly accurate pollster is jut a complete lie, even given the Fordham study (which for the record wasn’t the only study done). Because Rasmussen has been reliable over the course of several elections now.

Rasmussen has never been the most accurate pollster. He got that reputation because of a few reports on pollster accuracy that were done using PRELIMINARY data from immediately after the 2008 Presidential election. One such report, which was done by a Fordham professor, had Obama winning by 6.2 percent. But Obama actually won by 7.2 percent. After the FINAL election results were known, the professor released another report which showed that Rasmussen’s ranking was just mediocre.

The final Fordham report can be found here:

http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/2008%20poll%20accuracy%20panagopoulos.pdf

http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/07/obamaabortionrecord/