You should ignore MOST polls today.. They are gone with the rotary phone.... There is a NEW breed of polling that had ADAPTED to the way people live today... Companies like "Survey Monkey" VET a whole mountain of people and continue to poll THEM and revise their accumulated responses... THIS is far more accurate sampling because more is KNOWN about the respondents..
The LOYAL party whackos are now a minority... The folks who CLAIM party allegiance are now outnumbered by the ones that dont... Gets harder to FIND true Dems or Repubs and most of the older polling outfits simply PUSH people into one one barrel or another...
And "phones" are more complicated.. 1/2 the folks in Hillbilly Hollywood have cell numbers OUTSIDE this zipcode...
I know I just completely wasted 4 minutes of my time replying to you...

But I hope you pause long enough to REALIZE why so many folks are telling you the "polls" are crap... It's because they are.... Until ALL the polling giants wake up to the 21st century at least....
I didn't pick Rasmussen, the wingnuts who keep promoting the poll but only when Trump is above 50% did, so talk to them. SurveyMonkey on the other hand doesn't exactly have a great reputation.
Pollster Ratings
Grade: D-
What you should do is look at a multitude of polling, not just pick out your favorites, dingbat.
You are so gullible and naive, it's hard to make fun of you... Nat Silver founder of 538 is a former columnist for the "Daily Kos"... 538's largest claim to fame is predicting all 50 states in the 2012 election.. An election that was never REALLY in doubt.. His statistics successes are mainly in predicting baseball games..
It's Nate Silver and he was not a 'columnist' at the Daily Kos.
Search Daily Kos []
He also looks at past performances of polling companies and SurveyMonkey isn't that great.
Love your innocence... HATE that you are helpless to learn anything... Or have original thinking going on in there...
Still not sure what this has to do with the point of this thread. I'm calling out the idiots who use Rasmussen and only when he's over 50% in the polls and ignore everyone else. Then again you're not too bright as you seem to agree they are helpless and naive since you can't even realize you're validating my point.
Nate Silver had a permanent blog page at the Daily Kos for years.. Did some very non scientific polls for the Daily Kos while he was there...
Sure it wasn't the NY Times? It's irrelevant anyway.
I'm not validating your point.. Your "point" is complete failure of logic and reason... You're projecting how much "conservatards" depend on Rasmussen, when it's YOU that runs to Rassmussen any time the results are in YOUR favor...
No, I think you can throw Rasmussen in the trash regardless of their result. I trust there polling now just as much as I trust it when they show Trump over 50%. In other words I don't endorse them at all. I just wanted to watch the hypocrisy in action and boy, you dopes don't disappoint.
And I remembered something else about 538 and Nat Silver since this afternoon.. You remember those daily projections in the NY Times about how Trump had less than a 7 to 14% of winning right up to election day???
The NYT CHERRY picked some of most partisan polling agencies to THRILL their readers with those numbers... NOTE - they did NOT include the MAJOR pollers like Rasmussen.. They picked the ones that told the story they wanted to hear... ONE of the seven or so they used was Nat Silver and 538.... Days before the election, he was giving Trump a 14% chance of winning...
I think we've learned that prediction models are shit. 538 also included Rasmussen in it's prediction model as well, not just so called liberal pollsters.
So when I waste my time telling you why almost ALL polling sucks -- and like a mental midget you run to Google and find Nat Silver to SMEAR Survey Monkey -- it's just great to see you squirm...
Oh, I get it. "Almost all polling sucks" unless you agree with it. It's not so much about smearing Survey Monkey as they just aren't reliable.
Nat Silver is OLD school "baseball style" statistics.. DOesn't have the background to pick state and local "representative samples" and OF COURSE he's gonna resist 21st Century polling science...
Ok. What did this have to do with chery picking Rasmussen polling anyway?