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)
[...] Cross-posted to VV [...]
That’s just crazy talk saying the WashPo should employ any sort of standards, even elementary ones, for journalism.
I don’t believe them. The WaPo knew he wasn’t a conservative. They would never have hired him if they thought he was a conservative! They just hoped no one would find out.
Maybe they confused him with George Weigel?
Somehow I doubt anyone at the WashPo has read the biography of Pope John Paul II, so their familiarity with George Weigel is probably limited to nonexistent.