It is ridiculous to brush Rasmussen off as 'inaccurate'. Their sample might be off but they were very good in the past couple presidential races. And how dare you leftist hacks brush them off as "Republican" then tout PPP's numbers when they are a Democratic pollster?
It's not solely because they're Republican, it's because their sampling, bizarre swings, and general quality have in fact suffered greatly over the past few years. PPP was much more accurate in 2010 and actually was found to exhibit a slight Republican bias.
In this particular case, Rasmussen has been a few points more Republican than the other pollsters, or had oddly high undecideds, or exhibited strange swings, or some combination of the three at quite a few points in this cycle. Polls that would (will?) give me cause for concern at this point would be Gallup, PPP, or any of various state polls. If those do show Romney tied with or with-MOE-ahead-of Obama at this point I'll gladly accept it (for given values of 'to accept') as a genuine 'presumptive nominee' bounce, which I confide will be short-term unless something goes wrong or the President does something stupid.
Until then, it's a couple of right-leaning pollsters understandably trying to capitalize on the perception that there perhaps should be a 'presumptive nominee' bounce and/or using weird samples like they have a history of doing.
If Rasmussen's polling is borne out further down the line I'll gladly retract the extreme suspicion that I have of it presently.
Mitt must be at 300% in Texas. There's no other way to reconcile this with the dozens of state polls by every polling outfit around.
This as well.
