The history of those numbers wouldn't suggest a 7 point split either. That was the maximum with most of the years having pretty equal percentages for each party.The turnout numbers by party affiliation. That bit of limited number data you were using earlier.
Your article points out how right he was in 2008 when it comes to party identification. Plus he was very close with the popular vote as well.
The history of those numbers wouldn't suggest a 7 point split either. That was the maximum with most of the years having pretty equal percentages for each party.
Dude, his party affiliation poll from 2008 was pretty close, very close. If you want to quibble that Rasmussen was off by under 1 percent in the final poll then be my guest. What did he predict 52-46? And it was 53-46? Yeah that sucksI point you to this post (from another thread as it turned out): http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34175081&postcount=72
Do the numbers support a 7 point split? Yes or no?Do you have the current breakdowns of D/R/I?
Do the numbers support a 7 point split? Yes or no?
Dude, his party affiliation poll from 2008 was pretty close, very close. If you want to quibble that Rasmussen was off by under 1 percent in the final poll then be my guest. What did he predict 52-46? And it was 53-46? Yeah that sucks
You're saying his numbers have merit. If you're going to pick up some that are valid and ignore the ones that aren't... I believe there's a word for that. And it's not flattering.
Not when the I's favor the R's by a large margin.The point I was making in the post above (edited while you were typing apparently) is that D's do not require such a split in the first place. Actually R's do in their favor.
I don't know which numbers of his I'm ignoring.You're saying his numbers have merit. If you're going to pick up some that are valid and ignore the ones that aren't... I believe there's a word for that. And it's not flattering.
Rasmussen was off on his 2010 polls but since that was in a midterm we can ignore that, right?
Republican strategist Karl Rove predicts Mitt Romney will win the election with at least 279 electoral votes.
In his column in The Wall Street Journal, Rove said the Republican presidential candidate is winning at every level of the numbers game, “from polling data to early voting.”
“Sometime after the cock crows on the morning of Nov. 7, Mitt Romney will be declared America’s 45th president,” Rove wrote on Wednesday night. “Let’s call it 51%-48%, with Mr. Romney carrying at least 279 Electoral College votes, probably more.”
He argued that Romney has a “small but persistent polling edge,” leading in 19 of the 31 national surveys released in the last week, he said, and the GOP candidate “was at or above 50 percent in 10 polls, Obama in none.” President Barack Obama was ahead in seven of the polls, Rove said, and five were tied.
The former senior aide to President George W. Bush also cited data from Gallup that, he said, indicated Republicans might have a slight edge on voter turnout, and that so far, the GOP was also winning early voting.
“Furthermore, in battleground states, the edge in early and absentee vote turnout that propelled Democrats to victory in 2008 has clearly been eroded, cut in half according to a Republican National Committee summary,” Rove said. “But doesn’t it all come down to the all-important Buckeye State? Here, too, the early voting news isn’t encouraging for the president.”
You're ignoring that he was hardly the most correct in '08, so I imagine you can do whatever continues to amuse you.
You're ignoring that he was hardly the most correct in '08, so I imagine you can do whatever continues to amuse you.
More crazies calling it for Mitt Romney, this time Karl Rove saying Romney by 3%, 51-48, and "probably" getting more than 279 electoral votes. Of course, Morris and Rove are the blindly faithful, but note that Rove (like Morris) has a horrid track record, claiming (for example) thatRepubs would gain House seats in 2006.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83150.html
Notice that he doesn't get into any specifics about which states, lol.
I see you've changed your tune because earlier in the thread you said he was pretty good in 08.Rasmussen was 12th most accurate in 2008, something middling like that.
Also horribly wrong on Ohio in 08 by 6%.
Rasmussen was off on his 2010 polls but since that was in a midterm we can ignore that, right?
Dude you're looning out here. 52-46 is what he said and it was 53-46. That's pretty good. But in any case you're trying to argue that his party affiliation numbers are off enough to get from 36.8% Republican vs 34.2% Democrat to 2008 numbers of 39 D-32 R.You're ignoring that he was hardly the most correct in '08, so I imagine you can do whatever continues to amuse you.
Good for Nate.Actually, I could just care as little as you do.
Nate's got it at 4:1 tonight.