This from the Daily Kos:
"Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:20:22 PM PDT
"Whenever someone doesn't like the results of a robo-pollster, the methodology is immediately called into question.
“National Journal refuses to print Rasmussen polls, yet Democrat leaders will trumpet bogus polls like this one in a futile effort to create a false sense of momentum for the hand-picked candidate of New York Sen. Chuck Schumer and the DSCC,” McConnell spokesman Justin Brasell said, referring to the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
The reality is that Robo-pollsters like SurveyUSA and Rasmussen have had the best track record the past few election cycles. In 2004, it was the robos who dominated the results:
Before the election, we publicly doubted and privately derided Rasmussen and SurveyUSA, which used recorded voices to read their poll questions. We rolled our eyes when they touted the virtues of uniformity and when they complained that live interviewers "may not know how to read or speak the English language," could "chew gum," or might "just make up the answers to questions." It sounded to us like a rationalization for cutting costs.
Look who's laughing now. Rasmussen and SurveyUSA beat most of their human competitors in the battleground states, often by large margins.
Then there was 2006:
* * *
Let's look at Poblano's scorecard for 2008:
1. Selzer & Co
2. SurveyUSA (Automated)
3. Rasmussen (Automated)
4. U of New Hampshire
5. Chicago Tribune/Market Shares
6. Field Poll
8. Research 2000
10. Detroit News/Mitchell
11. Ohio Poll/U of Cincinnati
12. Public Policy Polling (automated)
13. Strategic Vision
14. Insider Advantage (automated)
15. Franklin Pierce
16. ABC/Washington Post
19. Farleigh Dickinson
21. CNN/Opinion Research
22. LA Times/Bloomberg
24. Fox/Opinion Dynamics
26. Public Opinion Strategies
27. Star Tribune
29. Franklin & Marshall/Keystone
30. CBS/NY Times
31. Zogby Interactive (Internet)
32. Columbus Dispatch (mail-in poll)"
Mitch is losing. Let's see if the other polls, and the November polls agree.
What's remarkable is that the robo-pollsters, since they can poll at lower costs, run far more polls than the human-using pollsters (introducing more chances of blown calls). Yet it's funny that of the three robo pollsters, two of them are in the top three. The third, PPP, had a terrible Pennsylvania which threw off its averages, but has otherwise kicked ass in recent contests. In fact, PPP was the best pollster in Oregon, North Carolina, and Indiana.