World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Rasmussen Reports

Rasmussen Reports
Founded 2003 (2003)
Founders Scott Rasmussen
Headquarters Asbury Park, New Jersey, United States
Products Opinion polling, news
Owners Noson Lawen Partners (majority investor)[1]

Rasmussen Reports is an American polling company.[2]


  • History 1
  • Business model 2
  • Polling topics 3
    • Political sentiment 3.1
      • Presidential approval tracking 3.1.1
      • Generic Congressional Ballot 3.1.2
      • Right direction or wrong track 3.1.3
      • Healthcare reform 3.1.4
      • Political Class/Mainstream Index 3.1.5
      • Other 3.1.6
    • Elections 3.2
      • Presidential 3.2.1
        • 2000
        • 2004
        • 2008
        • 2012
      • Congressional and gubernatorial 3.2.2
    • Business 3.3
  • Use 4
  • Evaluations of accuracy and performance 5
    • Favorable 5.1
    • Criticism 5.2
      • Nate Silver 5.2.1
      • Other 5.2.2
  • References 6
  • External links 7


Rasmussen Reports was founded in 2003 by Scott Rasmussen, who served as the company's president from its founding until July 2013.[3][4] Rasmussen founded his first polling company in 1994.[5] That company, Rasmussen Research, was bought by for about $4.5 million in ordinary shares in 1999.[6] Starting in 1999, Rasmussen's poll was called Portrait of America.[7] In 2003, Rasmussen founded Rasmussen Reports, based in Asbury Park, New Jersey. He served as president of the company until July 2013.[8][9]

In August 2009, the Washington Post reported that Rasmussen Reports had received a “major growth capital investment.”[10] New Jersey Business magazine reported that the company increased the size of its staff later that year.[11]

In July 2013, Scott Rasmussen left his position as president of Rasmussen Reports.[1][12][13]

Business model

Rasmussen Reports engages in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information, tracking the political world, current events, consumer confidence, business topics, and the president's job approval ratings.[2] Rasmussen Reports also conducts nightly national tracking polls and scheduled state surveys. The company provides commentary and political analysis through a daily email newsletter. In September 2012, Rasmussen Reports and Telco Productions launched a nationally syndicated television show called What America Thinks With Scott Rasmussen.[14][15]

Rasmussen Reports polls make use of automated public opinion polling, involving pre-recorded telephone inquiries.[16] These types of polls are believed to produce results at low cost, although some traditional pollsters are skeptical of this methodology and prefer traditional, operator-assisted polling techniques.[17] Rasmussen's automated survey calls are conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, a firm that licensed methodology developed by Scott Rasmussen.[18]

Rasmussen Reports generates revenue by selling advertising and subscriptions.[19]

Polling topics

Political sentiment

Presidential approval tracking

Rasmussen Reports conducts a daily Presidential Tracking Poll which measures the president’s job approval rating.[20][21] Rasmussen Reports notes that, "It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. Obama's numbers are almost always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That's because some of the president's most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote."[20][22] Newsweek also notes that polls of all adults produce results that are more favorable to Democrats than do polls of likely voters. Since Scott Rasmussen's departure from the polling firm in July 2013, Rasmussen Reports polls have consistently ranked as the most favorable poll in President Obama's favorability rating.[23] Mark Blumenthal of notes that, "Rasmussen's Obama job approval ratings do tend to be lower than most other polls, but they are not the lowest."[24]

In March 2009, a Rasmussen Reports poll was the first to show President Barack Obama's approval rating falling. Writing in the [25]

Generic Congressional Ballot

Each week, Rasmussen Reports updates a Generic Congressional Ballot Poll. The poll tracks what percentage of likely voters would vote for the Republican in their district’s congressional race if the election were held today, and what percentage of likely voters would choose the Democrat instead.[26][27] In 2009, Rasmussen Reports produced the first poll that showed Democrats trailing on the Generic Congressional Ballot for the 2010 midterm elections.[28]

Right direction or wrong track

Rasmussen Reports conducts a weekly tracking poll that asks voters whether they think the country is heading in the right direction or is on the wrong track.[29][30]

Healthcare reform

Since 2009, Rasmussen Reports has tracked attitudes about health care reform legislation on a weekly basis. Since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act became law in March 2010, Rasmussen Reports has consistently measured double-digit support for repeal of the law. Across 100 polls taken from March 2010 to July 2012, likely voters have favored repeal by an average margin of 16 percentage points.[31]

Political Class/Mainstream Index

Rasmussen Reports tracks the gap between what it labels "Mainstream Voters" and the "Political Class."[32] According to the Wall Street Journal, "To figure out where people are, he [Rasmussen] asks three questions: Whose judgment do you trust more: that of the American people or America's political leaders? Has the federal government become its own special interest group? Do government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors? Those who identify with the government on two or more questions are defined as the political class."


The company also provides regular updates on topics including global warming and energy issues, housing, the war on terror, the mood of America, Congress and the Supreme Court, importance of issues, partisan trust, and trends in public opinion. In 2007, Iraq War troop surge of 2007 was a success.[33]

David Weigel wrote that, "where Rasmussen Reports really distinguishes itself, and the reason it’s so often cited by conservatives, is in its issue polling. Before the stimulus debate began, Rasmussen asked voters whether they’d favor stimulus plans that consisted entirely of tax cuts or entirely of spending. Tax cuts won every time, and Republicans began citing this when they argued for a tax-cut-only stimulus package."[34]

In May 2012, a Rasmussen Reports poll found that "a solid majority of voters nationwide favor legalizing and regulating marijuana similar to the way alcohol and tobacco cigarettes are currently regulated.” Of those polled, 56% favored legalizing and regulating marijuana, while 36% were opposed to legalizing and regulating the drug.[35]

In July 2012, a Rasmussen Reports poll found that over two-thirds of Americans would fire every member of Congress.[36] In January 2013, a Rasmussen Reports poll found record low levels of support for the Tea Party movement. Of those polled, 30% held a favorable view of the Tea Party, 49% held an unfavorable view, and only 8% identified as a part of the group.[37]




In the 2000 presidential election, Scott Rasmussen polled under the name Portrait of America, a predecessor to Rasmussen Reports.[7] The Portrait of America prediction for the 2000 presidential election was off by 4.5%,[38] compared to the average 1.1% margin of error most other national polls gave at the time.[39]


In the John Kerry.[41]

In 2004, Slate said they “publicly doubted and privately derided Rasmussen” polls because of the methodology. However, after the election, they concluded that Rasmussen’s polls were the most accurate.[40]


According to the 2004 Bush re-election campaign had used a feature on the Rasmussen Reports website that allowed customers to program their own polls, and that Rasmussen asserted that he had not written any of the questions nor assisted Republicans.[65]

Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls.[87][88] Asking a polling question with different wording can affect the results of the poll;[89] the commentators in question allege that the questions Rasmussen ask in polls are skewed in order to favor a specific response. For instance, when Rasmussen polled whether Republican voters thought Rush Limbaugh was the leader of their party, the specific question they asked was: "Agree or Disagree: 'Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party — he says jump and they say how high.'"[88]

Talking Points Memo has questioned the methodology of Rasmussen's Presidential Approval Index, which takes into account only those who "strongly" approve or disapprove of the President's job performance. TPM noted that this inherently skews negative, and reported that multiple polling experts were critical of the concept.[43]

An unsubstantiated New York Times article claims Ramussen Reports research has a "record of relying on dubious sampling and weighting techniques."[90]


  1. ^ a b Blumenthal, Mark; Edwards-Levy, Ariel (2013-08-22). "Pollster Scott Rasmussen Leaves Firm He Founded A Decade Ago". Huffington Post. Retrieved 24 August 2013. 
  2. ^ a b "Rasmussen Reports, LLC".  
  3. ^ Siegelheim, Matt. "Scott Rasmussen to Launch New Media Venture". Rasmussen Media Group. Retrieved 11 August 2013. 
  4. ^ Prang, Allison (2013-08-22). "Founder Departs Polling Firm Rasmussen Reports". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 23 August 2013. 
  5. ^ "Meet the Man Who Takes America's Pulse". Washington Business Magazine. Spring 2012. Retrieved 2012-07-12. 
  6. ^ Securities and Exchange Commission, Form 6-K, December 1999
  7. ^ a b "Keeping Track of Tracking Polls".  
  8. ^ "Company Overview of Rasmussen Reports, LLC".  
  9. ^ "Scott Rasmsusen". LinkedIn. Retrieved 11 August 2013. 
  10. ^ Tartakoff, Joseph (August 10, 2009). "'"Public Opinion Firm Rasmussen Reports Gets 'Major Growth Capital Investment.  
  11. ^ "Sticking A Toe Into Pool Of Applicants". Snelling Staffing Services. Retrieved 2012-03-26. 
  12. ^ "Rasmussen Reports Announces a Change in Management". Rasmussen Reports. 2013-08-22. Retrieved 24 August 2013. 
  13. ^ Byers, Dylan (2013-08-22). "Rasmussen founder leaves company". Politico. Retrieved 24 August 2013. 
  14. ^ "Telco Develops Syndie Offerings With Rasmussen". TVNewsCheck. Retrieved 2012-2-18. 
  15. ^ "Pollster Scott Rasmussen to Debut Television Show".  
  16. ^ "Methodology". Rasmussen Reports. Retrieved 2012-06-012. 
  17. ^ "The Pros and Cons of Auto-Dialed Surveys".  
  18. ^ "About Us". Pulse Opinion Research. Retrieved 2012-06-15. 
  19. ^ "About Us". Rasmussen Reports. 2010. 
  20. ^ a b "Daily Presidential Tracking Poll". Rasmussen Reports. 2012-07-10. Retrieved 2012-07-10. 
  21. ^ "Rasmussen: Obama gets polling bump from high court health ruling".  
  22. ^ "So What's a Likely Voter? Answers from Rasmussen and PPP". November 17, 2009. Retrieved 2012-07-12. 
  23. ^ "What the Heck Is a Likely Voter?".  
  24. ^ "Why Is Rasmussen So Different?". December 1, 2009. Retrieved 2012-07-12. 
  25. ^ "Obama's Poll Numbers Are Falling to Earth".  
  26. ^ "Generic Congressional Ballot". Rasmussen Reports. 2012-07-09. Retrieved 2012-07-10. 
  27. ^ "The Silver Lining In the SCOTUS Ruling? A Restrained EPA".  
  28. ^ "Generic Ballot Blues".  
  29. ^ "Right Direction or Wrong Track". Rasmussen Reports. 2012-07-05. Retrieved 2012-07-10. 
  30. ^ "The Obama re-election myth".  
  31. ^ "For 100th Consecutive Time, Voters Back Obamacare’s Repeal".  
  32. ^ "67% of Political Class Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction, 84% of Mainstream Disagrees". Rasmussen Reports. 2010-08-03. Retrieved 2012-07-10. 
  33. ^ "Highlights from Tony Snow’s Conference Call With Bloggers".  
  34. ^ David Weigel: Rasmussen, the Only Poll that Matters The Washington Independent, 18 February 2009
  35. ^ Kirell, Andrew (2012-05-22). "Rasmussen Poll Finds More Than Half Of America Now Supports Legalizing Marijuana". Mediaite. Retrieved 21 November 2012. 
  36. ^ "U.S. Congress: You're Fired! 68% of the Country Is Right!".  
  37. ^ Sareen, Anjali (1-7-2013). "Tea Party Popularity Falls To Record Low, Rasmussen Reports". Mediaite. Retrieved 16 January 2013. 
  38. ^ "Gresham's Law of Junk — Franklin & Marshall". 2002-01-08. Retrieved 2012-03-26. 
  39. ^ "Presidential Poll Performance 2000". National Council on Public Polls. 2001-01-03. Retrieved 2012-06-07. 
  40. ^ a b c d Saletan, William. "Let's Go to the Audiotape Who nailed the election results? Automated pollsters. Thursday, Dec. 9, 2004". Retrieved 2012-03-26. 
  41. ^ a b Caddell, Patrick (2010-01-14). "Don't Shoot The Pollster, Wall Street Journal, January 14, 2010".  
  42. ^ "Low favorables: Democrats rip Rasmussen Jan. 2, 2010". Retrieved 2012-03-26. 
  43. ^ a b Kleefeld, Eric (2009-07-29). "The Rasmussen "Presidential Approval Index": Is This Newer Measurement Worth Anything?". Retrieved 2012-03-26. 
  44. ^ "2008 RCP Averages and State Results".  
  45. ^ "Final Rasmussen Poll Results – Presidential Election". Rasmussen Reports. Retrieved 2012-11-15. 
  46. ^ Rasmussen, Scott (11-2-2012). "An Unpredictable End to a Very Predictable Election". Creators Syndicate. Retrieved 28 November 2012. 
  47. ^ "2012 Electoral College Scoreboard". Rasmussen Reports. Retrieved 28 November 2012. 
  48. ^ Rodriguez, Jessica (11-5-2012). "Presidential Polls 2012: Latest Rasmussen Poll Indicates Swing States of Florida, Ohio, Virginia to Decide Election". Christian Post. Retrieved 28 November 2012. 
  49. ^ Easley, Jonathan (11-6-2012). "Rasmussen: ‘I have no idea who’s going to win’". The Hill. Retrieved 9 November 2012. 
  50. ^ Salant, Jonathan; Curtis, Laura (11-7-2012). "Nate Silver-Led Stat Men Crush Pundits in Presidential Election". Bloomberg. Retrieved 9 November 2012. 
  51. ^ Leighton, Kyle (11-7-2012). "Fordham Study: Public Policy Polling Deemed Most Accurate National Pollster In 2012". Talking Points Memo. Retrieved 9 November 2012. 
  52. ^ Which Polls Fared Best (and Worst) in the 2012 Presidential Race
  53. ^ Rainey, James (11-8-2012). "Parsing polls: Nate Silver picks on target, Rasmussen not so much". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 9 November 2012. 
  54. ^ Weigel, Daivd (11-7-2012). "Scott Rasmussen Explains Why His Polls Didn't Foresee an Obama Win". Slate. Retrieved 9 November 2012. 
  55. ^ "Daily Presidential Tracking Poll". Rasmussen Reports. 11-8-2012. Retrieved 9 November 2012. 
  56. ^ "New Jersey Governor - Corzine vs. Christie".  
  57. ^ "Abramowitz: A Note on the Rasmussen Effect". The Democratic Strategist. 2009-12-07. Retrieved 2012-06-04. 
  58. ^ "A Vote Against Dems, Not for the GOP".  
  59. ^ "2010 Election Results".  
  60. ^ Smith, Ben (2010-01-17). "Seeing Brown coming January 17, 2010". Retrieved 2012-03-26. 
  61. ^ "Hiding in Plain Sight, From Kennedy to Brown April 20, 2010". 2010-04-20. Retrieved 2012-03-26. 
  62. ^ a b "The Limits of Rahmism".  
  63. ^
  64. ^ a b c Silver, Nate (November 4, 2010). "Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly". The New York Times. 
  65. ^ a b "Pollster Scott Rasmussen's numbers are firing up Republicans and Democrats".  
  66. ^  
  67. ^ Alex Isenstadt, "Democrats rip Rasmussen",, January 2, 2010, accessed July 5, 2010.
  68. ^ Silver, Nate (2008-10-21). "Politics Done Right: Tracking Poll Primer". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved 2012-03-26. 
  69. ^ "Seeing Brown coming".  
  70. ^ "Poll: Scott Brown ahead of Martha Coakley by 1 point".  
  71. ^ "What Will Happen in Massachusetts on Tuesday?". Rasmussen Reports. 2010-01-18. Retrieved 2012-03-26. 
  72. ^ "175th Anniversary Distinguished Alumni Lecture Series: A Yearlong DePauw Discourse".  
  73. ^ Silver, Nate (January 1, 2010). "Is Rasmussen Reports Biased?". The New York Times. 
  74. ^ Silver, Nate (March 11, 2010). "House Effects Render Poll-Reading Difficult". The New York Times. 
  75. ^ Silver, Nate (April 17, 2010). """Use of Likely Voter Model Does Not Explain Rasmussen "House Effect. The New York Times. 
  76. ^ Silver, Nate (July 19, 2010). "Is a Poll Scientific if it Excludes More Than Half the Population?". The New York Times. 
  77. ^ Silver, Nate (August 24, 2010). "Tuesday Night Live". The New York Times. 
  78. ^ Silver, Nate (June 22, 2012). "Calculating ‘House Effects’ of Polling Firms".  
  79. ^ "Election 2010: Hawaii Senate". Rasmussen Reports. October 17, 2010. Retrieved 2012-06-13. 
  80. ^ "Silver reverses course, attacks Rasmussen anyway". Unlikely Voter. November 5, 2010. Retrieved 2012-09-15. 
  81. ^ "Rating Pollster Accuracy: How Useful?". June 18, 2010. Retrieved 2012-09-15. 
  82. ^ "Note about Rasmussen: Rasmussen and Bias". Retrieved November 14, 2012. 
  83. ^ Walsh, Bryan (December 7, 2009). "Has 'Climategate' Been Overblown?".  
  84. ^ Blake, Aaron (September 17, 2012), Rasmussen: The GOP’s cure for the common poll, Washington Post, retrieved April 23, 2014 
  85. ^ Horowitz, Jason (June 17, 2010), Pollster Scott Rasmussen's numbers are firing up Republicans and Democrats, Washington Post, retrieved April 23, 2014 
  86. ^ Campaign Consultants, Archived July 18, 2011 at the Wayback Machine, Center For Public Integrity, 2003–2004
  87. ^ Bialik, Carl (September 25, 2010). "When Wording Skews Results in Polls".  
  88. ^ a b "Political Animal".  
  89. ^ "Do polls show 'majority support' for health plan?".  
  90. ^

External links

  • Rasmussen Reports website


The website offers "Rasmussen-free maps", with a note headed "Note about Rasmussen: Rasmussen and Bias", mainly based on Nate Silver's criticisms.[82]

After the 2010 midterm elections, Silver concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver's model.[64] He singled out as an example the Hawaii Senate race, in which Rasmussen, in a poll completed three weeks before the election, showed incumbent Daniel Inouye only 13 points ahead, whereas in actuality he won by a 53% margin[79] – a difference of 40 points from Rasmussen's poll, or "the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998."[64] Silver was criticized for his 2010 pollster ratings. Conservative polling analyst Neil Stevens wrote, "after the primaries [Silver] said Rasmussen was in his crosshairs for ducking out on a number of races by not polling primaries. According to Silver’s own chart though, Rasmussen polled twice as often as the second place firm, and is still Silver’s primary target", and "Silver can’t even keep consistent his reasons for hating Rasmussen Reports."[80] Mark Blumenthal, publisher of, wrote that Silver's methodology, in which he awards bonus points to pollsters based on their membership in the National Council on Public Polls and their endorsement of the American Association for Public Opinion Research Transparency Initiative, "appear[s] to significantly and dramatically alter rankings prominently promoted as "pollster ratings," ratings that are already having an impact on the reputations and livelihoods of individual pollsters. That's a problem." Blumenthal noted, "My bottom line: These sort of pollster ratings and rankings are interesting, but they are of very limited utility in sorting out "good" pollsters from "bad."[81]

In 2010, Nate Silver of The New York Times blog FiveThirtyEight wrote the article “Is Rasmussen Reports biased?”, in which he mostly defended Rasmussen from allegations of bias.[73] However, by later in the year, Rasmussen's polling results diverged notably from other mainstream pollsters, which Silver labeled a "house effect."[74] He went on to explore other factors which may have explained the effect such as the use of a likely voter model,[75] and claimed that Rasmussen conducted its polls in a way that excluded the majority of the population from answering.[76] Silver also criticized Rasmussen for often only polling races months before the election, which prevented them from having polls just before the election that could be assessed for accuracy. He wrote that he was “looking at appropriate ways to punish pollsters” like Rasmussen in his pollster rating models who don’t poll in the final days before an election.[77] In June 2012, Silver wrote that "Rasmussen Reports, which has had Republican-leaning results in the past, does so again this year. However, the tendency is not very strong – a Republican lean of about 1.3 points." Silver ranked Rasmussen Reports as having the third lowest house effect of the 12 polling firms that Silver analyzed.[78]

Nate Silver


Journalist Mickey Kaus said, "If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious New York Times, go with Rasmussen."[72]

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 Politico reported, “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]

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]

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] 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]


Evaluations of accuracy and performance

According to The New York Times Magazine, the White House Political Director reported on Rasmussen’s results directly to President Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.[62] The Washington Post reported that Rasmussen’s polls “set off alarm bells inside the Oval Office, according to a senior administration official, who would not be quoted by name discussing private deliberations within the White House.”[65]

Polls by Rasmussen Reports are cited regularly by multiple major news sources, and Rasmussen has appeared as a guest analyst on a number of news broadcasts, including the Fox News Channel, the BBC, CNN, NPR, and CNBC and local television affiliates.


In the business realm, Rasmussen Reports released daily updates of Consumer and Investor Confidence with daily tracking back to 2002. The broad trends are similar to measures produced by the Conference Board and University of Michigan, but Rasmussen is the only consumer confidence measure updated daily. The firm also releases a monthly Rasmussen Employment Index, a U.S. Consumer Spending Index, Small Business Watch, and a Financial Security Index.


According to Nate Silver's assessment of 2010 pollster accuracy, the 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen/Pulse Opinion Research missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points.[64]

In 2010, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show Republican Scott Brown had a chance to defeat Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate race. Just after Brown's upset win, Ben Smith at Politico reported, "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.)"[60] A study by Boston University and the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism about how the Massachusetts Senate race was covered in the media concluded, "...Rasmussen Report’s poll that showed the overwhelming Republican underdog, Scott Brown, climbing to within single digits (nine points) of Martha Coakley. That poll, perhaps more than anything else, signaled that a possible upset was brewing and galvanized both the media and political worlds."[61] The New York Times Magazine opened a March 14 cover story with a scene highlighting the impact of that poll in an internal White House meeting involving President Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.[62] However, Rasmussen's polls all showed Coakley with the lead, including their final poll which had Coakley with a 2-point lead.[63]

In December 2009, Alan Abramowitz wrote that if Rasmussen's data was accurate, Republicans would gain 62 seats in the House during the 2010 midterm elections.[57] In a column written the week before the 2010 midterm elections, Rasmussen stated his belief that Republicans would gain at least 55 seats in the House and end up with 48 or 49 Senate seats.[58] Republicans ended up gaining 63 seats in the House, and coming away with 47 Senate seats.[59]

In the 2009 New Jersey gubernatorial race, Rasmussen Reports' final poll predicted that Chris Christie would beat Jon Corzine by a margin of 3 points. Christie won the race with a spread of 4.3 points.[56]

Congressional and gubernatorial

On November 8, the Rasmussen Reports daily presidential tracking poll analysis said "The 2012 election was very likely the last presidential election of the telephone polling era. While the industry did an excellent job of projecting the results, entirely new techniques will need to be developed before 2016. The central issue is that phone polling worked for decades because that was how people communicated. In the 21st century, that is no longer true."[55]

On November 7, Scott Rasmussen told Slate's David Weigel, "In general, the projections were pretty good. The two differences I noted were share of white vote falling to 72 percent. That’s what the Obama campaign, to their credit, said all along. We showed it just over 73 percent. Also, youth turnout higher and senior turnout lower than expected. That’s a pretty big deal given the size of the generation gap. I think it showed clearly that the Obama team had a great game plan for identifying their vote and getting it to the polls."[54]

After the election, James Rainey of the Los Angeles Times wrote that "Some conservative media outlets used the Rasmussen polling to prop up a narrative in the final days of the campaign that Romney had momentum and a good chance of winning the White House."[53]

An analysis by Nate Silver on FiveThirtyEight ranked Rasmussen 20th out of 23 pollsters for accuracy in the 2012 elections with an average error of 4.2 points.[52]

A Gallup.[51]

The final Rasmussen Reports' pre-election polls showed Obama winning Nevada and New Hampshire, tying Romney in Ohio and Wisconsin, and losing in the other five swing states, including North Carolina. Obama won in the swing states of Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, and Virginia, while Romney took North Carolina.[50]

The final Rasmussen Reports daily tracking poll showed Mitt Romney with 49 percent national support and President Obama with 48 percent national support.[49] Obama won the election by close to 4 percentage points.

The final 2012 Electoral College projection by Rasmussen Reports showed 237 safe electoral votes for Barack Obama, 206 safe electoral votes for Mitt Romney, and eight toss-up states with a total of 95 electoral votes.[46][47][48]



This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from iCloud eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.