Two Pollsters Take Their Lumps Based on Election Day Results

That Rasmussen is biased is no surprise. That the FOX network uses their polls as gospel is also no surprise. One tells the lie, the other repeats it.

Its the election that counts not the polls before the election and if your only voting based on the poll numbers instead of a candidates stand on the issues your a fool. I think the best predicter for polls is the independent vote not the dem or republican. Its the swing that's the thing..

So what you're telling us is the misleads by the Conservatives actually had some effect.

Ok folks, from one not in the business of political elections, save for rare specific instances when requested to consult for just a short time period (and only if wholly on my terms). Zogby is it. To obtain their findings well in advance, the general public must pay a relatively modest fee. Note, Zogby usually publishes quite a bit of the 'good' stuff for free; however, when (and if) they do, it is just hours before an election. Following any of these other pollsters is a complete waste of time. If cost is a factor, get together what need be just a small group and split the cost.

Everyone knows that FOX NEWS and Rasmussen polls are hugely biased toward republicans. I, and many others, have been blogging this for months. The poor performance by Gallup was more surprising.

The chief problem with polling these days is like it was in the original inception, when then overwhelmingly rich and at most middle class people had telephones, now only fairly conservative people still retain the landlines used to call to interview folks...modified now by more lower income people and older people who yet refrain from the mobile mess. The fact is that polls are affected by the Heisenberg uncertainty priciple more than anything else we do, and only in the case of the quadrennial census or the general elections should they be taken with any serious attention to their results, as the pool of respondents and the gravitas of the decision is greater by far than a momentary interview which may or may not be intentionally or not slanted by the phrasing, placement, or progression of the questioning of the poll. Plus, sometimes people lie to them. Freedom of speech includes that right as well. :) Adolf Hitler was a Nazi loser, because he tried to found a government and society based on the concept of the big lie, repeated often enough, that can be represented as truth. The idea that some of our fellow citizens might take this opportunity through sheer lightness of spirits to fib to a pollster is not half so unbelievable as that. NB moderator-The Hitler comment is a historical commentary, not a personal attack.

What a funny response from Rasmussen--they will let the "facts" or lack thereof, speak for them. No matter how wrong. Classic.

I said this before and I will say it again--the polls will never be accurate from now on, based on the demographics of people in the US. Only older, conservative people seem to have land-lines, and the younger rely solely on cell phones as their primary phone. All polls from now on will be badly skewed until they find a way to track cell phones.

That Rasmussen is biased is well understood. That said, all polling is loosing its accuracy due to the organizations' unwillingness or inability to adopt current technology. Any pollster using land lines is immeidately suspect in this age.

The new policy makes good sense to me. One should be able to disagree without being disagreeable. In the 50's, Sen. Dirksen of Ill. and Sen. Russell of GA. would be on opposite sides during the day in the Senate Chambers and have dinner together several evenings a week.