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)
Couldn’t be happier about this development. When George W. Bush can legitimately call you a moron? Run hard, Rick. Run hard.
Better a moron than the fool we have now.
Obama is hardly a fool, quite the opposite. He’s much too cerebral at times. Perry is an honest-to-goodness, off-the-reservation whack job. We need action and leadership, not a reactionary theocrat. Perry will win the nomination simple because the GOP field is so weak, but he has zero chance of winning a general election outside of Texas.
What is your proof that Obama is cerebral? What was his college and/or law school GPA? What courses did he study in college? You don’t know because he has never released that information. What about his law review article? Oh, that’s right, they made the guy Editor of the Harvard Law Review without him ever publishing an article. Go ahead and prove that he is smart. There is no evidence in the public domain whatsoever to substantiate that contention.
Obama is in way over his empty head. He reminds me more each day of the William Hurt character from “Broadcast News,” who looked good on camera and was able to read very well off of a teleprompter, but the guy didn’t have two brain cells to rub together.
In fact, this line from that movie sums up Obama pretty well:
If you’re looking for action and leadership, then why are you looking to Obama? He has demostrated this past week that he is capable of neither.
Utter nonsense. You don’t agree with him, so you’re right and he’s stupid. Morons don’t get to be POTUS unless daddy was first or they came from serious money and influence. What’s next? He only got into an Ivy League school because of affirmative action?
You said it, so you must have thought it, UC. I never said it or implied it anywhere.
Typical liberal — dismiss someone else’s opinion without showing a shred of evidence to bolster your own case. Go back to reading your Saul Alinsky.
I guess that you just don’t like the fact that he shares the same first name as you.
You haven’t exactly offered much proof of a lack of intelligence on his part for that matter. Only your belief that his policies are wrong/don’t work, etc..
And I had to look up Saul Alinsky. I’m clearly not that liberal.
I don’t have to offer up the proof. You are the one who claimed he was “cerebral” and I offered up the lack of proof to back that up.
Is it only my belief that the unemployment rate and virtually every other measure of economic success was better before Obama came into office? I don’t think so. He owns this economy now and he has made it worse in terms of employment, GDP, household income, inflation, etc.
Anyone who suggests that a person who went to Columbia, worked for his JD at Harvard, became editor of the Law Review, and then on to University of Chicago as a Law Professor, and ultimately has won the Presidency simply isnt tuned into reality. Obama came up the hard way. If you want to see ‘stupid’ then suggest Obama release his transcripts. I am not sure who the bigger fool would be in that case…Obama’a style is CEREBRAL. Daily he is attacked for not making immediate decisions on warth shaking issues, by the likes of Rush and Hannity…..and their dittohead followers.
Ken, look more closely. He wasn’t a “law professor” at Univ. of Chicago — he was a visiting lecturer. BIG difference. As I already said, his editorship of the Harvard Law Review is suspect because he never wrote anything before or during his tenure. Plus, he didn’t start out at Columbia, but at Occidental where Jack Kemp studied PhysEd.
Obama didn’t come up the hard way. He didn’t live in Cabrini Green in Chicago. He lived in freakin’ Hawaii where he did cocain on the beach according to his own memoir.
I’d love to see Obama release his transcripts. I’d bet that he took basket weaving for Pass/Fail.
ps Perry for President……that is wonderful……he does represent republican values and smartrs………as Leno says, Perry is Bush without a brain!!!!!