Election 2009 actual results: Bob McDonnell 58.6 percent for a 17.4 percent margin of victory. Virtucon rankings are based upon total amount the two numbers deviate from the actual numbers.
1. Survey USA (10/30-11/1) – 58% / 18% (deviation 1.2%)
2. VCU (10/21-25) – 54% / 18% (deviation 5.2%)
3. (TIE) PPP (10/31-11/1) – 56% / 14% (deviation 6%)
3. (TIE) Roanoke College (10/21-27) – 53% / 17% (deviation 6%)
5. Suffolk Univ. (10/26-28) – 54% / 14% (deviation 8%)
6. Rasmussen (10/27) – 54% / 13% (deviation 9%)
7. Washington Post (10/22-25) – 55% / 11% (deviation 10%)
8. Times Dispatch / Mason Dixon (10/28-29) – 53% / 12% (deviation 11%)
9. Daily Kos / Research 2000 (10/26-28) – 54% / 10% (deviation 12%)
10. Virginia Pilot / CNU (10/8-13) – 45% / 14% (deviation 17%)
11. Clarus (10/18-19) – 49% / 8% (deviation 19%)
Next time you see a poll, judge it by its past performance. Here is how they rank in terms of accuracy based upon the 2008 presidential election:
MOST ACCURATE:
1T. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**
1T. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
3. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
4. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
5. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*
6T. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
6T. ARG (10/25-27)*
8T. CNN (10/30-11/1)
8T. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
POLL REVEALED TO BE FRAUDULENT AND REPUDIATED BY DAILYKOS:
10. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
----------------
(If you're below DailyKos, you don't deserve to be taken seriously for another four years. Better luck in 2012.)
POLLS THAT WERE WORSE THAN A FRAUDULENT POLL:
11. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
12. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
13. FOX (11/1-2)
14. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
15. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
16. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
17. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
18. Marist College (11/3)
19. CBS (10/31-11/2)
20. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
21. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
22. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
23. Newsweak (10/22-23)
The first comment is for contrast. Read what you like.
The second comment is about pre-destination – a doctrine held by Presbyterians. Nothing to see here.
The second comment is a joke, but after the first outrageous comment, you’d think he would not do anything to remind people of it.
LH: Right. The second is a light joke. It shouldn’t remind anyone of anything unless they are hyper-opponents or hyper-sensitive looking for a macaca moment..
Why contrast at all in the first place? It was done for political gain, pure and simple. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt on the second remark, but the first one reveals something dark.
Looks like we got an Ian Paisley disciple running for Governor. Sweet! Can it be long before he denounces us as “Dirty Papists” or calls Pope Benny the Antichrist?
What a despicable bigot.
[...] 10, 2009 · No Comments Sure, it makes perfect sense to piss off 14% or so of the voters in Virginia. I’m sure that is why he noted that he was the only Presbyterian running against three [...]
maybe he wants to highlight that he is not Catholic & therefore shouldn’t be mistaken for a pro-lifer. but then again, pelosi & biden are both Catholic & they are pro-choice.
How hilarious is it that the party that just elected Pat Mullins of the Jew-hating organization that tried to take down Eric Cantor is now trying to draw such a tenuous link?
And this comes from someone who uses “Felix” as a derogatory term to highlight George Allen’s Jewish ancestry.
Please, do tell, what other reason Deeds would have for highlighting someone else’s religion?
IF he made the remark in order to gain favor in the eyes of protestants, I can’t see where he has or could make an impact on that point. It was probably just some off the wall comment meant to be funny. I’m not Catholic, which could be why I’m not offended, but I really don’t think there was anything deep to read into that.
Just to add to that, I haven’t heard him say anything deep or funny to date.
G of GFA:
I never got the point of highlighting someone’s middle name as an object of ridicule. It’s one of the silliest things I’ve seen done in politics.
Isn’t drawing a distinction based on religious grounds exactly what Bob Marshall did to my father last year?
Also, I’m not aficionado regarding Presbyterian doctrine, but I thought they believed things happened because they were pre-destined to do so?
I am not sure if Creigh Deeds was religion baiting, perhaps he is, but I’m not sure. It may be true that Presbyterian doctrine teaches that. The thing that gets me, though, is that he embraces one church doctrine, while attacking McDonnell for having a socially conservative policy. Deeds loves to talk about church doctrine as long as it is convenient.
When you strip away the rural mask, Deeds is still a died in the wool liberal. If Deeds is truly serious about bringing Virginians together than he must call on “Common Sense Virginia” and other groups, to stop their attacks on Bob McDonnell’s Christian University education. Deeds needs to show that he does not look down on Christians in Virginia as many in the liberal establishment do.
Riley, Felix is not indicative of any kind of faith of George Allen. It just sounds funny. If his middle name was Shlomo, or Yehuda, or Ehud, then maybe you’d have a point.
Now the campaign that Pat Mullins’ people ran against Eric Cantor…that was trying to use his faith against him.
As for your question, I’m afraid I’m unable to speak with knowledge on Sen. Deeds’ intent, but merely noting a difference is hardly proof of…well, anything. Keep trying, though.
Nice excuse on the middle name.
All I can say is you must have a really pathetic name yourself to hide as you do. What are you so ashamed of?
Riley, since when is “Felix” a Jewish name? The only thing most people think of when they hear it is Felix the Cat. In fact, the biblical Felix was the Roman procurator of Judea, perhaps the antithesis of Judaism, given what what the Romans did to Judea. As you may know, Judea now makes up the southern portion of the disputed territories between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
You do know that we were calling him Felix before his Jewish ancestry became public, right? Just like with your primary turnout attempt, that dog won’t hunt.