Breaking on CNN...
So long as nothing emerges from FBI interview today.
What else did the Clinton New Network (CNN) have to offer?
Hillary way ahead in the polls
Breaking on CNN...
So long as nothing emerges from FBI interview today.
What else did the Clinton New Network (CNN) have to offer?
Hillary way ahead in the polls
The most credible poll: The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with 43% of the vote, while Clinton earns 39%.
Funny. Rasmussen is a NaziCon poll.
You either are out of touch or live in a libtarded cave.
The Facts about Rasumessen Polling:
Pat Caddell and
Doug Schoen wrote that Rasmussen has an “unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy.”
[41]Slate Magazine and
The Wall Street Journal reported that Rasmussen Reports was one of the most accurate polling firms for the
2004 United States presidential election and
2006 United States general elections.
[40][66][
not in citation given] In 2004
Slate magazine "publicly doubted and privately derided" Rasmussen's use of recorded voices in electoral polls. However, after the election, they concluded that Rasmussen’s polls were among the most accurate in the 2004 presidential election.
[40] According to
Politico, Rasmussen's 2008 presidential-election polls "closely mirrored the election's outcome."
[67]
At the end of the
2008 presidential election, there were eight national tracking polls and many other polls conducted on a regular basis. Polling analyst
Nate Silver reviewed the tracking polls and said that while none were perfect, and Rasmussen was "frequently reputed to have a Republican lean", the "house effect" in their tracking poll was small and "with its large sample size and high pollster rating [it] would probably be the one I'd want with me on a desert island."
[68]
In the January 2010
special election for the Senate seat from Massachusetts, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show that Republican
Scott Brown had a chance to defeat
Martha Coakley. Just after Brown's upset win,
Ben Smith at
Politicoreported, “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.)"
[69] A few days later,
Public Policy Polling released the first poll showing Brown in the lead, a result differing from Rasmussen's by 10 points.
[70] Rasmussen's last poll on the race found Coakley with a 2-point lead, when she in fact lost by 5 points, a 7-point error.
[71]
Journalist
Mickey Kaus said, "If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious
New York Times, go with Rasmussen."
[72]
