PA: Rasmussen: Toomey leads Sestak by 7

[Tender Branson]

New Poll: Pennsylvania Senator by Rasmussen on 2010-06-02

Summary: D: 38%, R: 45%, I: 5%, U: 12%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

[Badger]

New Poll: Pennsylvania Senator by Rasmussen on 2010-06-02

Summary: D: 38%, R: 45%, I: 5%, U: 12%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

And Rassy's transition to joke poller status continues....

[Franzl]

Why is Rasmussen only a joke poll when it's favorable to Republicans?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Why is Rasmussen only a joke poll when it's favorable to Republicans?

Rhetorical question is rhetorical.

[Brittain33]

Why is Rasmussen only a joke poll when it's favorable to Republicans?

It's not. It's unreliable in general, but no one thinks it noteworthy to comment when their results happen to match polls released 2-3 days earlier by other pollsters. The same way no one comments on a drunk driver when he happens to make it home without causing an accident.

[Badger]

Why is Rasmussen only a joke poll when it's favorable to Republicans?

It's not. It's unreliable in general, but no one thinks it noteworthy to comment when their results happen to match polls released 2-3 days earlier by other pollsters. The same way no one comments on a drunk driver when he happens to make it home without causing an accident.

Best. Analysis. Ever.

[You kip if you want to...]

It's rather funny that Rass seems to think that Dems are doing better in MO than PA...

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I wouldn't be surprised by this, he still has the GOP holdin g a slim majority for the Congressional ballot. He probably will still have REid down as well

[Eraserhead]

There's no reason to completely trust anyone with the kind of wild polling swings he's had.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Why is Rasmussen only a joke poll when it's favorable to Republicans?

If you believe that virtually every race in the country swung by double digits in a few days for no apparent reason (scandal, verbal gaffe, etc.) then Rasmussen is the gold standard.

[Vepres]

Why is Rasmussen only a joke poll when it's favorable to Republicans?

If you believe that virtually every race in the country swung by double digits in a few days for no apparent reason (scandal, verbal gaffe, etc.) then Rasmussen is the gold standard.

Oil spill?

[J. J.]

Why is Rasmussen only a joke poll when it's favorable to Republicans?

If you believe that virtually every race in the country swung by double digits in a few days for no apparent reason (scandal, verbal gaffe, etc.) then Rasmussen is the gold standard.

Oil spill?

And, Toomey was on the air in the last two weeks; Sestak had some bad press (undeserved) over the job offer.

[Sam Spade]

There's a good reason why races would swing when you poll them the day after the primary and then again two weeks after, separate of any other crap that would occur.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Why is Rasmussen only a joke poll when it's favorable to Republicans?

If you believe that virtually every race in the country swung by double digits in a few days for no apparent reason (scandal, verbal gaffe, etc.) then Rasmussen is the gold standard.

Oil spill?

The oil spill caused Sestak's numbers to drop? That's surely a novel explanation.

And the job offer is a non factor according to other recent polls. If anything it should reflect positively on Sestak since it's concrete proof that he wasn't afraid to "take on the Washington establishment".

There's a good reason why races would swing when you poll them the day after the primary and then again two weeks after, separate of any other crap that would occur.

Oh really? I thought Paul's 25 points advantage was for real.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Joe Sestak is obviously to blame for the oil spill.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Why is Rasmussen only a joke poll when it's favorable to Republicans?

If you believe that virtually every race in the country swung by double digits in a few days for no apparent reason (scandal, verbal gaffe, etc.) then Rasmussen is the gold standard.

A turnout-sensitive model such as the one Rasmussen uses would be more likely to pick up on a post-primary bounce. Looking at the poll's internals, a lot of the movement was to undecided, which does seem to corroborate a bounce effect.

A 45-38 poll from any pollster with any two candidates should probably be taken with a grain of salt, anyway. It's not indicative of a bad poll, necessarily, it's just that there's a little too much information out there that's not known.

[Eraserhead]

Didn't he have some ridiculous swings in CT too? After the Vietnam thing and then after, you know, every other poll showed that nobody cared about that...

[Landslide Lyndon]

BTW, a good point made by Campaign Diaries via Twitter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Franzl]

BTW, a good point made by Campaign Diaries via Twitter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even if it's intentional, which I'm not entirely convinced of, but it's possible.....it doesn't say anything about the quality of his polls.

[Landslide Lyndon]

BTW, a good point made by Campaign Diaries via Twitter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even if it's intentional, which I'm not entirely convinced of, but it's possible.....it doesn't say anything about the quality of his polls.

It says a lot about his agenda. And when a pollster has an agenda, then tampering with the numbers in order to set a narrative isn't such a far-fetched assumption .

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Why is Rasmussen only a joke poll when it's favorable to Republicans?

If you believe that virtually every race in the country swung by double digits in a few days for no apparent reason (scandal, verbal gaffe, etc.) then Rasmussen is the gold standard.

Oil spill?

And, Toomey was on the air in the last two weeks; Sestak had some bad press (undeserved) over the job offer.

J.J., whose fault is that?  Mr. I'll Be Coy caused most of the trouble himself, in my view.

[Franzl]

BTW, a good point made by Campaign Diaries via Twitter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even if it's intentional, which I'm not entirely convinced of, but it's possible.....it doesn't say anything about the quality of his polls.

It says a lot about his agenda. And when a pollster has an agenda, then tampering with the numbers in order to set a narrative isn't such a far-fetched assumption .

But at the same time people look at the Missouri poll and see Carnahan only down one.....and say "and it's Rasmussen too!".

You can't have it both ways....either the poll is reliable or it's not reliable. History suggests that Rasmussen is an above average pollster, and I'll stick to that.

[Joe Republic]

BTW, a good point made by Campaign Diaries via Twitter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even if it's intentional, which I'm not entirely convinced of, but it's possible.....it doesn't say anything about the quality of his polls.

It says a lot about his agenda. And when a pollster has an agenda, then tampering with the numbers in order to set a narrative isn't such a far-fetched assumption .

But at the same time people look at the Missouri poll and see Carnahan only down one.....and say "and it's Rasmussen too!".

You can't have it both ways....either the poll is reliable or it's not reliable. History suggests that Rasmussen is an above average pollster, and I'll stick to that.

The point of the bolded comment was to imply that Rasmussen isn't reliable...

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

BTW, a good point made by Campaign Diaries via Twitter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even if it's intentional, which I'm not entirely convinced of, but it's possible.....it doesn't say anything about the quality of his polls.

It says a lot about his agenda. And when a pollster has an agenda, then tampering with the numbers in order to set a narrative isn't such a far-fetched assumption .

But at the same time people look at the Missouri poll and see Carnahan only down one.....and say "and it's Rasmussen too!".

You can't have it both ways....either the poll is reliable or it's not reliable. History suggests that Rasmussen is an above average pollster, and I'll stick to that.

The point of the bolded comment was to imply that Rasmussen isn't reliable...

And to imply that if Rasmussen says a Democrat is ahead, it must be true.

[Franzl]

BTW, a good point made by Campaign Diaries via Twitter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even if it's intentional, which I'm not entirely convinced of, but it's possible.....it doesn't say anything about the quality of his polls.

It says a lot about his agenda. And when a pollster has an agenda, then tampering with the numbers in order to set a narrative isn't such a far-fetched assumption .

But at the same time people look at the Missouri poll and see Carnahan only down one.....and say "and it's Rasmussen too!".

You can't have it both ways....either the poll is reliable or it's not reliable. History suggests that Rasmussen is an above average pollster, and I'll stick to that.

The point of the bolded comment was to imply that Rasmussen isn't reliable...

And to imply that if Rasmussen says a Democrat is ahead, it must be true.

Yes, precisely. Rasmussen is so blatantly biased towards the Republicans.....even though they're entirely unreliable!....that the only thing a Rasmussen poll favorable to democrats can mean is that they're even further ahead than Scott says!