I'm personally leaning towards Rasmussen's numbers being off. If you look at comparable numbers for Gallup and ANES, you see there are much more independents than Rasmussen generally shows. I don't know their question wording, but something seems off. Generally speaking, the democrats have a party ID advantage, even in years where Republicans do very well, like 2010. As to why Rasmussen seems skewed so heavily republican in recent years (2010-2012), I don't know. As I said, I think something might be off with their question wording, such that they might induce independents to choose a side. Even looking at their data from 2008....it seems they overestimated democrats as well....at least compared to others.

Gallup

ANES

Here's Pew with a nice graph (only 1990-2012 are their numbers)

Found this as well: It is on dailykos but Abramowitz is quite a big name in the political science discipline. And this-in graph form! They don't include Gallup and Rasmussen for some reason, but you can see the issue Abramowitz is talking about.

That's ridiculous. Student's not taking the 12th grade seriously? If true, what do they think would happen if they cut it? Student's just wouldn't take 11th grade seriously. Truthfully, the issue is that, come 12th grade, students have more important things on their mind, like applying for college and looking for a job. The same thing is true come senior year in college, except replace college with grad school. As far as textbooks, I kind of always wonder how public schools get by....especially when trying to keep up with new editions....although in some disciplines, there isn't really a need for new editions.

I would like to say that there is never a good time, place, or excuse to rub someones nose in a defeat. That however wouldn't exactly be true would it. Commentators on the Republican party have a valid point when they say that the Conservatives are living within a self generated bubble of willful ignorance. They are literally refusing to accept the reality in which they live. If there is anyone that is truly asking for it, or is in desperate need of it then the modern Republican party would fit that bill.

Granted the vicious commentary has a lot to do with revenge and self validation, but that doesn't mean the brutal nature of the commentary isn't actually constructive. There isn't actually a rule that says by being a asshole, you can't accomplish something positive in the process. Believe it or not the Republican party needs a good amount of tender loving corporal punishment. It isn't any kind of kindness if you let them slip back into self delusional thought, and allow them to rebuild their bubble. Sure it makes them happy, but if you let them stick their head in the sand chances are they will drown when the oceans rise.

Beyond that the media is over compensating for a Republican bias, and a double standard that has been in place for a very long time. Look it is true the media is harder on the Republican party then they are on the Democratic party, but at the same time they hold the latter to much higher standards. Which means that the Republican party gets to slide on a lot of shit. Even then the media can't ignore everything, and is just about forced to report more then they probably would like. Yes the media has been practicing affirmative action when it comes to the Republican party.

What some of you may view as a mean spirited feeding frenzy is more of a well intentioned intervention. It is a tough love intended to toughen up the Republican party. Just about every long winded rant levied at the party ends with a message about the party needing to reform its platform. Some in the media are even going so far as to shut down the Republican public relations machine down. To be fair there is a lot of self interest involved. After all if the Republican party collapses it will just kill the ratings in election season.

Anyway I think Rachel Maddow is totally justified in what she said. After all she has to smile and listen to some of the most vacant individuals possible. How well would you fare if you had to act serious while talking to what amounts to a bad joke. While at the same time deriving a ever decreasing sense of real accomplishment in making a better case, because your opponent is closer to being a drunken, ignorant, stupid dwarf then a heavy weight prize fighter. She may be inflammatory, but it isn't without a really good cause. Republicans being soft targets like this is going to kill her ratings eventually. It is called being a good sport.

Seriously the Republican party needs to go back to the drawing board, because I am pretty certain that any other political party on the planet could have done a better job, and most would have probably won. I can say this, because most parties would tailor a message that would have been popular with the majority of the electorate. You know having a actual case helps a lot. They really had no excuse the opposition was really vulnerable, and not only didn't they win. They almost lost everything that was on the line. There just isn't anything wrong with saying that, or being particularly blunt about that either.

I don't know if the overt criticism is really construtive. If anything, it will just make the partisan republicans more republican, to the extent that they're even exposed to that message. As far as the quoted paragraph, I agree. The Republican party needs to do some soul-searching and is going to have to adapt. As for how vulnerability of Obama and the Democrats in general, its kind of weird. Economically speaking, Obama should have been defeated quite handily, but his approval ratings rebounded to over 50% as the election drew near. Honestly though, I think the Republican party should have won given the context and historical trends. Regardless, the 2012 elections are going to cause some revisions to the economic voting models.

I agree, it seems like common sense would dictate that all of these things are bad.  That also may be partly Utah's populations fault.  The people are so Republican that they will vote in the Republican on the ticket no matter what, generally.  Even if they are wacko.

I still don't understand why it takes this long to get there. It's the 21st century, we should have an infrastructure for secure, instantaneous voting

Here it is. Interesting numbers.

Call me paranoid, but I for one like having some sort of paper trail.

Nobody trusts voting machines... they're afraid people are going to tamper with them.

I would trust them more than thousands upon millions of paper ballots. My grandma told me stories of her dad, big in local politics, who saw people jam graphite under their finger-nails so that, as they counted ballots, they could mark them as they chose discretely.