web analytics

June 10, 2007

Rasmussen Interview

  8:47 pm

Scott Rasmussen from Rasmussen Reports has agreed to do an interview by email for www.race42008.com. Since Race42008 has become the nucleus for all things polling, this will be a great opportunity for us to ask what we want.

So, what do you want to know? Leave your questions in the comments section and in the next few days I will put together the interview. Perhaps something on methods, trends in and out of politics, how his company works, boxers or briefs, etc.

Anyway, this should be good!


Trackback URL for this post:

30 Responses to “Rasmussen Interview”

  1. Rasmussen Interview at Conservative Times–Republican GOP news source.

    […] post by Jason and software by Elliott […]

  2. Kevin

    I think this is the most important question in the race, at least electorally speaking. Addressed to a poll participant:

    “Who do you plan to support if your chosen candidate does not win Iowa, Nevada, or New Hampshire?”

    Or some iteration of that question. The nature in which support will coalesce around the winner of IA/NV/NH is a phenomenon not a lot of people are talking about. Florida might not be relevant if all the Brownback/Tancredo/T.Thompson/McCain/Huckabee/Hunter voters all go to Romney.

    Just my idea.

  3. Dskinner

    Why doesn’t he do state polling for presidential primaries? He has established himself as one of the most, if not the most, reliable pollster around, yet he limits himself to national polls which are a lagging indicator of the state of the race.

    I would be very interested to see how he polled Iowa, NH, SC or FL, much more so than to see how he polls general election matchups between random candidates 18 months out.

  4. Tommy

    “Florida might not be relevant if all the Brownback/Tancredo/T.Thompson/McCain/Huckabee/Hunter voters all go to Romney.”

    And monkees fly out my butt.

  5. ThatLibertarianGuy

    I think we may be writing McCain off a little early here, buddy. And Rudy looks pretty strong in NV! Romney’s support is vastly overstated right now, by the way; he’s been saturating the media market while his opponents are biding their time. Romney is peaking too soon, as they say. He’ll stabilize somewhere in the high-teens/low-twenties pretty soon. This will be a four-way race through the first five states, barring some odd event.

  6. Aron Goldman

    Questions for Scott…

    1. What is the reason you do not make your poll’s internals and crosstabs available to the public at no charge as many other polling firms do?

    2. In early May, Newsweek released a poll in which President Bush’s approval rating was 28%. Despite the fact the poll from which this result came was comprised of just adults, not even registered, let alone likely voters, and oversampled Democrats by ~7%, for the past month it has gone unchallenged, and treated with impunity by the press as the narrative by which the president’s job performance is assessed. In your estimation, what is the reason the mainstream media continues to cite flawed polling data such as Newsweek’s, and rarely mention your polls which have an exceptional track record that speak for themselves?

  7. JasonJack

    Do you ever change your sampling methods in the weekly Dem/Rep polls?

  8. Dskinner

    Sorry to post this here, but there isn’t any other place.

    This is a very interesting article about Rudy’s campaign and how he is trying to do things totally different from every before.


    The author doesn’t really provide his take, but here’s mine. What is described in the article will be Rudy’s undoing. (Giuliani’s senior staff is inexperienced in national campaigns, Giuliani likes to speak extemporaneously, and his primary strategy leading up to 2/5) I think that at some point in the future, Rudy will again say something without thinking which will irritate conservatives and hurt him in the primaries (examples already – pro federal abortion funding on CNN, ambivalent on abortion in 1st debate). I also think that we have already seen the lack of experience show with Giuliani’s campaign team. As the front-runner, if Rudy wins Iowa he essentially locks up the nomination. Instead of capitalizing on that opportunity like Hillary is doing, he is running from it. I really think that if in January Rudy decided he wanted to win Iowa he could have done it, but now it is too late and he will have to withdraw in order to attempt to minimalize Romney’s probable win there.

    I also believe that Rudy won’t do as well as he otherwise would do in FL because it will seem like he is running from a fight on neutral ground in Iowa, which is how it will be seen when he officially announces he won’t compete in Iowa.

    Iowa is neutral territory in a purple state and Rudy won’t or can’t play to win there. Voters definitely like winners, (but Rudy can potentially overcome losing Iowa if he is competitive), however another thing that could impact voters just as much is not liking people who back away from a fight, especially when Rudy is supposed to own toughness as an issue. McCain was an outsider longshot in 2000 which is why he was marginally successful in 2000. Frontrunners are supposed to be compete all over.

    He could have used an Iowa win to hold over until FL because NH and SC give advantages to other candidates. NH clearly gives advantages to both Romney (geographically) and McCain (2000 organization/support) and SC gives advantages to Thompson (culturally) and McCain (2000 organization/support). I think after this is over and Thompson or Romney is the nominee, Rudy will look back at his decision to not compete in Iowa as the biggest reason he lost.

  9. Dskinner

    I should have said, “as Hillary is trying to do in Iowa”, since right now Edwards appears to be slightly ahead in Iowa.

  10. David B

    Dskinner, did you really mean to say pro FEDERAL funding on abortion?

  11. David B

    Dskinner: Iowa may be a purple state, but its conservatives are of a stripe that is tough for Rudy, AND it is a caucus not a primary, which magnifies the problem greatly. But you may be right. Also, he may compete hard in Iowa, and he may win it.

  12. JB

    I’d like to know Rasmussen’s take on what kind of monkeys the voters feel should fly out of Tommy’s butt(see post #4), just how many monkeys should do said flying, and most importantly, whether those polled on the monkey issue are registered or likely voters…

    Ok, seriously. As a registered Rudy hater who acknowledges that the man seems to be clingling to a lead nationally, I’d wonder how many likely Republican primary voters are aware of his views on abortion, guns, and other social issues; and what percentage of those voters who are unaware of his stances on these issues are likely to abandon him once they find out. I believe there was a recent poll or discussion on this site that suggested that over 60% of Republicans are unaware that Giuliani is pro-choice, but if that’s true, what are the likely resulting eventualities.

  13. econ grad stud

    I’d want to ask what Rasmussen’s response rate is.
    Rasmussen uses robocalling as well as a few other firms.

    I’d like to hear Rasmussen discuss how polling is going to handle the increasing numbers of people who are going to go cellular only (no landline).

    In my personal experience it appears like ~10% of people have dropped landlines entirely. This is a growing trend that will disrupt the polling industry at some point in the next few years.

  14. Adam


    “Iowa is neutral territory in a purple state and Rudy won’t or can’t play to win there.”

    But there are two kinds of purple states. Iowa is a purple state because its Democrats are deep blue and its Republicans are crimson red (because of social issues). Contrast that with Pennsylvania, another purple state (which until last November had two Republican U.S. senators and a GOP majority in both house of the state legislature). Rudy is doing just fine in PA. Multiple choice Mitt is not.

  15. Dskinner

    Mitt isn’t known well enough in PA for that to mean anything. For that matter Rudy’s actual positions aren’t well-known enough, since a majority of the GOP doesn’t know he is pro-choice. Iowa isn’t a state with super liberal people or with super conservatives. There are many social conservatives which perhaps in your mind makes them extreme. Iowa is a good representation of non-coastal America, which apparently Rudy doesn’t think he can win in.

    David B.

    That was a mistake, Rudy is for state funding of abortion, not federal. Hardly a worthwhile distinction, since either way he believes taxpayers should pay for abortions since the constitution guarantees the right to abortions. That certainly will be an interview he will regret more and more as the campaign goes along. It still supports my point that Rudy will have more problems if he doesn’t plan out his answers and responses to potential questions a little better. Here’s the clip of that interview.


  16. Adam

    “Mitt isn’t known well enough in PA for that to mean anything.”

    Not at all true. Thousands of NYC commuters have moved into the state since 9/11 because of lower taxes. All one needs to do is drive through the Pocono Mountain region to see how much it has grown in recent years. And PA Republicans (especially in the eastern half of the state)don’t particularly care whether or not Rudy is pro-choice. Ironically, it’s the catholic, old-school pro-union conservative Democrats (who are conservative socially but liberal economically) that care about that issue at least as much as any of the Republicans.

    “Iowa isn’t a state with super liberal people”

    It’s the only state I know of where Edwards is leading on the Democrat side. So at least when it comes to economics and anti-war kookiness the state’s Democrats are at least open to a far-left liberal.

    “Iowa is a good representation of non-coastal America, which apparently Rudy doesn’t think he can win in.”

    Maybe, but he might well do well enough in large states that have moved away from the GOP in the general election to clinch the nomination.

  17. Adam

    Sorry I thought you typed “Rudy isn’t known well enough in PA”…it’s a little early 😉

  18. Adam

    One more thing,

    “[Iowa isn’t a state] with super conservatives. ”

    Pat Robertson came in second place in the caucus in 1988. I don’t how you can say that the state isn’t very favorable to strongly social conservatives.

  19. econ grad stud

    I don’t envision any blue states going red in 2008 (Rudy is polling no better in blue states than Bush was in 2003). If we win it will be by winning the 2004 Bush states.

    If we can’t do that there’s no way we’re going to win.

  20. Adam


    I disagree. You’re comparing apples to oranges. The reason Bush didn’t win any blue states where he was leading in 2003 is because his national numbers went from 70 percent in the beginning of the Iraq War to 50 percent by Election Day, largely because of the Iraq War. To say that Republican Candidate X cannot win in blue states where he currently leads just because Bush didn’t do so the last time around doesn’t take this fact into account.

  21. econ grad stud

    Adam the same thing occurred in 1999 polls of the 2000 race. Voters are a lot more willing to say they’ll vote Republican in an early poll than the number that actually do.

    There were a lot of people who thought Bush would win California in 2000 for this very reason.

    The climate for Republicans is much worse than in 2000 or 2004. I don’t envision a pro-war Republican winning any blue states.

    There are however plenty of red states that appear likely to go blue (Ohio, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Virginia).

  22. Adam


    Well we’ll just see. Whatever the polls showed in 2003, I’m sure no one believed a state like VT or RI would go red, but a lot of those states that went blue in 2004 didn’t do so by much. NH can easily go red again as long as you don’t have someone too religiously conservative. PA went blue by only two points. I know it’s anecdotal but I’ve talked to plenty of people in Pennsylvania that haven’t voted for a Republican in a long time that really like Rudy. Admittedly I really don’t recall state-by-state polling in 1999, but we’ll be talking about a whole new nominee this time around with entirely new personlities. I think it’s reasonable to assume that someone who is not from the south will have better luck at picking off close states in the Northeast.

    I agree that some states are likely to go blue. Ohio seems ripe for the Democrats’ picking, especially after the disaster that was Taft. Iowa is always right on the margins anyway and since I believe Republicans in the state are more conservative that those in the Northeast, perhaps depressed GOP turnout might turn the state blue (if Rudy is the nominee). Luckily the GOP is so far ahead in most of the south that it wouldn’t matter.

    The Democrats are bullish on AR but I have my doubts. Even in 2000 the state had a 6-point GOP lean after eight years of Clinton, and Hillary is no Bill. Still, obviously it’s possible. The Democrats probably have a slightly better chance in MO and the GOP will have to take it seriously. I think Virginia is going to become a royal pain for the Republicans considering the shift of the rapidly growing DC suburbs. Virginia is particularly worrisome because the president carried the state by the same 8 points in 2000 as he did in 2004, even though he did about 3 points better nationally. The GOP will still be favored in ’08 but I can easily see it becoming a swing state in ’12. Ironically I think at least a small part of it is George Bush’s fault. If he hadn’t allowed federal jobs to balloon (most federal employess are Democrats) in and around DC and if he gave half a damn about securing the border as he did to paying lip service to the religious right, it would probably be more manageable.

  23. Adam

    By the way,

    David Leip has some cool new toys on his election website. Check out the interactive GOP primary map. It’s pretty nifty.


  24. JamesP

    I think Econ is right, and its a scary thought, considering how feral the Democrats leading lights are. They are a lot worse than they were in 2000 anyway.

  25. JamesP

    Regarding Edwards, does anyone have a good idea why he dominates so much in potential 08 match ups even though he is running so hard to the left this year? Logically at this early stage, wouldn’t high name-id moderates win these sorts of competitions (eg. Rudy for the Republicans)?

  26. econ grad stud

    1) Most voters want to vote Democrat in 2008 at this point in time.
    2) Edwards has a reputation as a moderate and a “nice guy” in 2004 so few people hate him.
    3) He’s run for VP in 2004 so people know who he is.
    4) He has a Southern accent and good looks that reminds people of the last Democratic President.

    At this point his policies probably don’t register with most voters.

    Voters aren’t paying close attention yet (regardless of what they tell pollsters when they feel guilty).

  27. mjs

    Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics’ Horserace Blog recently posited that it would be extremely valuable to see likely primary voters list their current candidate preferences in rank order, epsecially in early primary states (i.e., IA, NH, SC, NV, FL).

    What are your houghts on doing something like that with Rasmussen polls? Would such a survey be feasible with Rasmussen’s automated phone technology or is such a poll better suited for human responders, potential bias flaws and all?


    Houston, TX

  28. Grant Gormley

    Adam #23–Thanks. If Rudy carries Pa and NJ–we win

  29. Texas Conservative

    I would also like to hear Scott’s response to a question on his lack of state-by-state polling.

  30. BarkTwiggs

    I would like to know if Rassmusen Reports will have an educational discount for us poor college students who want to see cross-tabs before anyone else! Or at least an entry level free membership which delays information a few weeks when it’s no longer as valuable.

Recent Posts

Tweets by @Racefour

Search R4'16