Talk Elections

51% - Sarah Steelman (R)
41% - Claire McCaskill (D)

50% - Todd Akin (R)
43% - Claire McCaskill (D)

49% - John Brunner (R)
42% - Claire McCaskill (D)

47% - Tom Schweich (R)
43% - Claire McCaskill (D)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_senate_elections/missouri/election_2012_missouri_senate

It looks like Rasmussen and PPP are polling 2 different USA's.

In their Presidential poll, they'll probably have Obama tied with Romney in MO....

Just another realignment taking place, where as the south is growing in electoral strength and going back to the GOP.

Courtesy of DKE:

Here are Ras's and PPP's final polls during the last Senate cycle.

CT:
PPP: Blumenthal +12
Rasmussen: Blumenthal: +7
Actual result: Blumenthal +12

DE:
PPP: Coons +16
Rasmussen: Coons +11
Actual result: Coons +17

IL:
PPP: Kirk +4
Rasmussen: Kirk +4
Actual result: Kirk +2

IN:
PPP: No poll.
Rasmussen: Coats +21
Actual result: Coats +15

ND:
PPP: No poll.
Rasmussen: Hoeven +47
Actual result: Hoeven +54

WV:
PPP: Manchin +3
Rasmussen: Manchin +4
Actual result: Manchin +11

AR:
PPP: Boozman +23
Rasmussen: Boozman +19
Actual Result: Boozman + 21

CA:
PPP: Boxer +4
Rasmussen: Boxer +3
Actual result: Boxer +10

CO:
PPP: Buck +1
Rasmussen: Buck +4
Actual result: Bennet +2

HI
PPP: No poll.
Rasmussen: Inouye +13
Actual result: Inouye +53

MD:
PPP: Mikulski +22
Rasmussen: Mikulski +18
Actual result: Mikulski +26

NV:
PPP: Angle +1
Rasmussen: Angle +3
Actual result: Reid +5

NY:
PPP: Gillibrand +10
Rasmussen: Gillibrand +21
Actual result: Gillibrand +28

NY:
PPP: Schumer +22
Rasmussen: Schumer +28
Actual result: Schumer +33

OR:
PPP: No poll.
Rasmussen: Wyden +11
Actual result: Wyden +18

VT:
PPP: No poll.
Rasmussen: Leahy +31
Actual result: Leahy +33

PA:
PPP: Toomey +5
Rasmussen: Toomey +4
Actual result: Toomey +2

WA:
PPP: Murray +3
Rasmussen: Murray +2
Actual result: Murray +4

WI:
PPP: Johnson +9
Rasmussen: Johnson +7
Actual result: Johnson +5

FL:
PPP: Rubio +11
Rasmussen: Rubio +20
Actual result: Rubio +19

KS:
PPP: No poll.
Rasmussen: Moran +33
Actual result: Moran +44

KY:
PPP: Paul 15
Rasmussen: Paul +12
Actual result: Paul +12

MO:
PPP: Blunt +5
Rasmussen: Blunt +9
Actual result: Blunt +13

NH:
PPP: Ayotte +15
Rasmussen: Ayotte +15
Actual result: Ayotte +23

OH:
PPP: Portman +18
Rasmussen: Portman +24
Actual result: Portman +18

AL:
PPP: Shelby +18
Rasmussen: Shelby +28
Actual result: Shelby +30

AK:
PPP: Miller +7
Rasmussen: Miller +15
Actual result: Murkowski +4

AZ:
PPP: No poll.
Rasmussen: McCain +20
Actual result: McCain +24

GA:
PPP: No poll.
Rasmussen: Isakson +30
Actual result: Isakson +19

ID:
PPP: No poll.
Rasmussen: Crapo +39
Actual result: Crapo +46

IA:
PPP:Grassley +18
Rasmussen: Grassley +18
Actual result: Grassley +32

LA:
PPP: Vitter +10
Rasmussen: Vitter +21
Actual result: Vitter +19

NC:
PPP: Burr +12
Rasmussen: Burr +14
Actual result: Burr +12

OK:
PPP: No poll.
Rasmussen: Coburn +45
Actual result: Coburn +42

SC:
PPP: DeMint +19
Rasmussen: DeMint +37
Actual result: DeMint +33

UT:
PPP: No poll.
Rasmussen: Lee +33
Actual result: Lee +29


Among races where both polled, Ras was closer on 11, PPP was closer on 11, and they were the same on 3. In the aggregate among these races, Ras was off by 131 points while PPP was off by 156 points.

Dude, look: The stuff you post here is wrong. Some polls are ages old and not the last ones taken in the race and some polls are missing, like in Hawaii where PPP had an accurate poll and Rasmussen blew the race by more than 30 points.

If you want a real analysis, look at Nate Silver's - who found Rasmussen to be the most biased and inaccurate in 2010, by using only the last polls and not polls that were done 3 months ahead of the election.

I guess you like to cherry pick facts, which is your perogative of course. It allows you to ignore the last PPP polls from states like South Carolina and New York, where they were off twice!

Shrug.

NY was a bit off, but the poll was from early October, when other polls showed a small lead too.

The SC poll is from MAY:

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2010/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=45302010523108

Okay krazen, I made these charts right after the 2010 elections:

Senate
()

Only 11 of Rasmussen's races overestimated the Democrat while they had the Republican overperforming in 24 races.

Governors
()
Rasmussen's Republican skew was also evident in the Gubernatorial races; they had consistent Republican bias in 25 races.
My personal favorite was NY, where Rasmussen only showed Cuomo winning by 51-37.

Krazen, you also excluded PPP's Oregon poll:

PPP: D+16
Rasmussen: D+11
Actual: D+18

I remember at the beginning of the 2010 cycle Rasmussen had Wyden at 49% and said that he was vulnerable. lol

Also, PPP's last FL poll on 10/31 had Rubio up 17 not by 11 as you posted.

I cut and pasted the  list from a guy at DKE. If you have the same chart for PPP, go ahead and post it for each of the races.

By the way, PPP had Cuomo winning by 15. I am curious as to how 15 makes a pollster very accurate while 14 makes them very far off!

I'd be ineterested in seeing this, too, Miles.

A toss-up suddenly becomes R+10 just as the economy begins to show significant improvement?  All right, then.

Miles, Krazen, you're both wrong and so are both pollsters. Mason-Dixon all the way. :P

Open up your nearest dictionary, flip to the letter "I." You're looking for a word called Irony here. I-R-O-N-Y.

I've actually never seen that chart at DKE.

Ok fine, I didn't see that PPP NY poll.

Database entry: https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2012/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=29120120315016

Do you have ANY notion of statistics? Even basic?
I mean,your method is so bad it's almost funny.