spaceguy said:
Kasz216 said:
gergroy said:
Rasmussen was one of the worst in 2010 wasnt it?
|
Yeah, in it's state samples for congressional races.
Presidential election samples and state election samples are totally different formulas.
Since we're on VGchartz... a good example is well... vgChartz. They have a different formula for each console, because the breakdown of sales isn't consistent. Toys R US sells a higher percentage of total wii's then it does PS3, Amazon sells a higher percentage of Sony based stuff. etc.
Most likely Rasmussen's sampling group is great for simulating the federal but sucks on the local level. They probably have a great representative sample of the country that isn't geographically located like you would expect within the country.
Rasmussen also had the most accurate presidential polls in 2004.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2004/12/lets_go_to_the_audiotape.html
|
Even better because we have a electoral college. Which means national polls are nothing but corporate news hype train.
|
Corporate news hype train is a bit much.
Though I do agree that national polls are somewhat useless. At least in the current era, when the electoral college benefits democrats, because the red states are REALLY red... meaning they waste a lot of votes on guranteed electoral votes.
Even so, Rasmussen has been the best two elections in a row now by quite a bit. That much is undisputable.
Even with a slight popular vote lead. Romney is far behind Obama in electoral votes and has to sweep the big three swing states AND when a couple others.
Honestly, the only thing i'd find funnier then an Obama win via electoral vote, but loss via electoral college would be the extremely rare but possible 269-269 split.
Seeing people react to that dumbfoundedly would be priceless.
I wonder what your reaction was in 2000...
