Rasmussen, generally regarded as the most accurate poll, says Romney's slight lead over Obama has now widened to 7%. Do you think the almost one billion dollars Obama has in his campaign war chest will be enough to buy the election?

Here are the actual election margins from the battleground states in 2008, along with Rasmussen's poll margins:

Colorado – actual: Obama +8.5, Rasmussen: Obama +4 (skewed McCain by 4.5 points)
Florida – actual: Obama +2.5, Rasmussen: McCain +1 (skewed McCain by 3.5 points)
Indiana – actual: Obama +1, Rasmussen: McCain +3 (skewed McCain by 4 points)
Iowa – actual: Obama +9.5, Rasmussen: Obama +8 (skewed McCain by 1.5 points)
Nevada – actual: Obama +12.5, Rasmussen: Obama +4 (skewed McCain by 8.5 points)
New Hampshire – actual: Obama +9.5, Rasmussen: Obama +7 (skewed McCain by 2.5 points)
North Carolina – actual: Obama +0.5, Rasmussen: McCain +1 (skewed McCain by 1.5 points)
Ohio – actual: Obama +4, Rasmussen: tie (skewed McCain by 4 points)
Pennsylvania – actual: Obama +10.5, Rasmussen: Obama +6 (skewed McCain by 4.5 points)
Virginia – actual: Obama +6.5, Rasmussen: Obama +4 (skewed McCain by 2.5 points)
Wisconsin – actual: Obama +14, Rasmussen: Obama +7 (skewed McCain by 7 points)

So, the average skew for Rasmussen's polls in the battleground states in 2008 was 4 points toward the Republican candidate, and they skewed toward the Republican in EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE POLLS (an undeniable sign of bias). Furthermore, in the 2010 midterm elections, Rasmussen's polls were skewed almost 6 points toward Republican candidates, making their organization less accurate and more biased than virtually all of their competitors.

Rasmussen was only truly accurate in ONE POLL in recent years, which was the national popular vote poll in 2008, but they were no more accurate than any one of the top pollsters in that regard.

So the notion that Rasmussen is considered "most accurate" is downright ridiculous. No one who has looked at the actual numbers in their state polling would suggest something so absurd. They are in fact one of the least accurate, and they display more bias than any other major pollster.

Their polls from 2010 were way off, hardly the most accurate poll no matter what the WaPo say's.

The discrepancies between Rasmussen Reports polls and those issued by other companies were apparent from virtually the first day that Barack Obama took office. Rasmussen showed Barack Obama’s disapproval rating at 36 percent, for instance, just a week after his inauguration, at a point when no other pollster had that figure higher than 20 percent.

The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.

Even it's polling methods are suspect: Rasmussen, for instance, generally conducts all of its interviews during a single, 4-hour window; speaks with the first person it reaches on the phone rather than using a random selection process; does not call cellphones; does not call back respondents whom it misses initially; and uses a computer script rather than live interviewers to conduct its surveys. These are cost-saving measures which contribute to very low response rates and may lead to biased samples.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs....