<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Polling</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/polling/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 06:12:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Newt&#8217;s supposed path to nomination still sketchy</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/30/newts_supposed_path_to_nomination_still_sketchy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/30/newts_supposed_path_to_nomination_still_sketchy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:23:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iowa caucuses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mitt Romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newt Gingrich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10275776</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Most of the "Gingrich could win!" columns aren't that convincing]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have noticed that most "How Gingrich could win" columns fail to explain how Newt Gingrich could ... actually win. Take, for example, <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/29/hurt-gingrich-is-gops-latest-not-romney/?page=all">this Charles Hurt column in the Washington Times</a>. After the usual boilerplate about how, well, the Republicans don't like Mitt Romney much, but everyone running against him has been revealed as a clown, Hurt writes: "As strange as it all may be, here is why the former speaker really could win." I'm all ears! And here's the "why," in three points:</p><ul>
<li>"First, Mr. Gingrich is truly Clintonian in all his faults."</li>
<li>"Second, before Mr. Gingrich was the ultimate insider, he was the ultimate outsider."</li>
<li>"Finally, then as now, he is a man of ideas."</li>
</ul><p>Huh. I hope the Washington Times didn't pay a lot for this analysis, because it fails to actually explain why Mr. Gingrich could win the Republican nomination for president.</p><p>We have a flood of these "Gingrich could win!!" stories now, because, following the self-immolation of Rick Perry and Herman Cain (and, so long ago it feels like, Michele Bachmann), Gingrich now holds sudden and commanding leads in Florida and South Carolina. He's leading in Iowa. He's even gaining in New Hampshire.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/30/newts_supposed_path_to_nomination_still_sketchy/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/30/newts_supposed_path_to_nomination_still_sketchy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Americans no longer love America, to dismay of conservatives</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/18/americans_no_longer_love_america_to_dismay_of_conservatives/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/18/americans_no_longer_love_america_to_dismay_of_conservatives/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[American Exceptionalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polling]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10233616</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Poll: Americans best in the world at doubting American exceptionalism]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sad news: Americans are more anti-American than ever. Effete socialists make up more than half of the population, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/despite-popularity-among-gop-candidates-american-exceptionalism-on-the-decline/2011/11/17/gIQAa4uNWN_blog.html?wprss=the-fix">according to</a> a new Pew Research Center report, <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/283482/belief-american-exceptionalism-subsides-brian-bolduc">as highlighted by the Corner's Brian Bolduc.</a></p><blockquote><p>Belief in American exceptionalism is declining, the Pew Research Center concludes in a new report:</p>
<blockquote><p>About half of Americans (49%) and Germans (47%) agree with the statement, “Our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior to others;” 44% in Spain share this view. In Britain and France, only about a third or fewer (32% and 27%, respectively) think their culture is better than others.</p>
<p>While opinions about cultural superiority have remained relatively stable over the years in the four Western European countries surveyed, Americans are now far less likely to say that their culture is better than others; six-in-ten Americans held this belief in 2002 and 55% did so in 2007.</p></blockquote>
</blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/18/americans_no_longer_love_america_to_dismay_of_conservatives/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/18/americans_no_longer_love_america_to_dismay_of_conservatives/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>99</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Newt Gingrich, book-shilling faux candidate, surges</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/10/newt_gingrich_book_shilling_faux_candidate_surges/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/10/newt_gingrich_book_shilling_faux_candidate_surges/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newt Gingrich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10190884</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The scandal-plagued, unelectable former House speaker stumbles toward the top tier]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In last night's hallucinatory GOP presidential debate, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich did his usual blustery free-associative word-barrage routine that for years convinced numerous reporters and pundits that he was somehow an intellectual statesman. The highlight was probably when Gingrich was asked what he'd done to earn his consulting firm a $300,000 contract from Freddie Mac. Gingrich <a href="http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/11/newts-fannie-mae-lobbying-whopper">insisted the money was for history lectures.</a> That is not really the case.</p><p>Gingrich also took on healthcare policy, by repeatedly pointing out that he did not have enough time to say anything about healthcare policy, a subject about which he is known to be among the world's foremost thinkers.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/10/newt_gingrich_book_shilling_faux_candidate_surges/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/10/newt_gingrich_book_shilling_faux_candidate_surges/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>71</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Public opinion surprises</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/09/public_opinion_3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/09/public_opinion_3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2011 15:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polling]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald//2011/09/09/public_opinion</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new Pew poll contains some unexpected findings about how Americans view Terrorism and their rights]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The most common claim to justify endless civil liberties erosions in the name of security -- and to defend politicians who endorse those erosions -- is that Americans don't care about those rights and are happy to sacrifice them.&#160;&#160;The principal problem with this claim is that it is false, as <a href="http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=1316">a new Pew Research poll</a> demonstrates:</p><p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
    <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vdalLiDivk8/Tmo9fuuavjI/AAAAAAAAAKk/n57xa6HZCAA/s1600/pew2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br />
      <img alt="" border="0" height="58" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vdalLiDivk8/Tmo9fuuavjI/AAAAAAAAAKk/n57xa6HZCAA/s400/pew2.png" width="295" /><br />
    </a>
  </div>
</p><p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
    <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-e47qhJqi9L8/Tmo-Hdn2UgI/AAAAAAAAAK8/zFTYEvrHsTQ/s1600/pew4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br />
      <img alt="" border="0" height="117" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-e47qhJqi9L8/Tmo-Hdn2UgI/AAAAAAAAAK8/zFTYEvrHsTQ/s400/pew4.png" width="293" /><br />
    </a>
  </div>
</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/09/public_opinion_3/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/09/public_opinion_3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>141</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Karl Rove says birtherism is a White House trap</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/02/17/rove_birthers/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/02/17/rove_birthers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill O'Reilly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Birthers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Karl Rove]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/02/17/rove_birthers</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bush's brain and Bill O'Reilly agree that there can't be that many Republicans who actually believe that stuff]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Despite the fact that birthers make up some ridiculously large -- and growing -- portion of the Republican base, I really don't think there is any downside to prominent Republicans pointedly declaring birtherism to be a ridiculous conspiracy theory. Karl Rove is smarter than John Boehner, so where <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/02/14/boehner_birther">Boehner grumbles that it's not his job to tell deeply misinformed people that they've been deeply misinformed,</a> Rove comes out and says birtherism is stupid. <a href="http://gop12.thehill.com/2011/02/rove-confront-birthers-now.html">Plus, he spins it perfectly: It's not just a conspiracy theory, it's a <em>liberal trap.</em></a></p><p>
    <object style="height: 390px; width: 640px;"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7jf7j1j-W9s?version=3" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7jf7j1j-W9s?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640"></embed></object>
  </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/02/17/rove_birthers/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/02/17/rove_birthers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>84</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Poll: Majority of likely GOP primary voters are birthers now, apparently</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/02/15/birther_poll_4/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/02/15/birther_poll_4/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2011 19:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Birthers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarah Palin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/02/15/birther_poll</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It's come to this: The people who will choose Obama's opponent think the president is a secret foreigner]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fifty-one percent of people who say they're likely to participate in a Republican primary next year are birthers, <a href="http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/02/romney-and-birthers.html">according to a new poll from Public Policy Polling.</a> Twenty-eight percent firmly believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States and 21 percent are unsure. "If anything," PPP writes, "birtherism is on the rise." Of course it is! Who's combating it?</p><p>Birthers have an 83 percent favorable opinion of Sarah Palin, by the way.</p><p>I think these are largely casual birthers -- not the ones who examine the "evidence" such as it is and concoct bizarre conspiracy theories, but people who believe it because they heard it somewhere, and they don't like the president. Dave Weigel says <a href="http://www.slate.com/BLOGS/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/02/15/poll-most-republicans-doubt-obama-s-citizenship-as-birtherism-becomes-a-screen-for-ideology.aspx">"birtherism has become another screen for extreme partisanship,"</a> with birthers giving higher favorability marks to Palin, Huckabee and Gingrich than the non-conspiratorial respondents.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/02/15/birther_poll_4/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/02/15/birther_poll_4/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>157</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Americans support the Egyptian protesters</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/02/08/poll_americans_support_egyptians/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/02/08/poll_americans_support_egyptians/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2011 14:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Egyptian Protests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/02/08/poll_americans_support_egyptians</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new Gallup poll shows that the overwhelming majority of Americans are sympathetic to the pro-democracy protesters]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gallup is out with a new national poll on Americans' views of the pro-democracy protests in Egypt. The results show that fear-mongering <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/02/03/mubarak_american_allies">by some</a> in the media about a post-Mubarak Egypt has apparently not taken hold, with huge majorities expressing sympathy for the protesters:</p><blockquote>
<p>Overall, are you sympathetic or unsympathetic to the protestors in Egypt who have called for a change in the government?</p>
<p>Very sympathetic 42 |&#160;Somewhat sympathetic 40 |&#160;Somewhat unsympathetic 6 |&#160;Very unsympathetic 5 |&#160;No opinion 6</p>
</blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/02/08/poll_americans_support_egyptians/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/02/08/poll_americans_support_egyptians/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>24</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pollster in fraud case now representing self</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/01/18/obama_doj_miranda_guidance/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/01/18/obama_doj_miranda_guidance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2011 21:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/01/18/obama_doj_miranda_guidance</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An update on the high-profile lawsuit pitting the blog Daily Kos against the defunct polling firm Research 2000]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The political world was rocked last year when Daily Kos <a href="http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=8592E62A-18FE-70B2-A808F31078188AEA">accused</a> Del Ali,&#160;president of the polling firm Research 2000,&#160;of fabricating polls that Kos had commissioned. The charge cast doubt on countless news stories, going back years, that had been based on Research 2000 polls. Kos founder Markos Moulitsas sued Ali in federal court in California last June, <a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/daily_kos_files_suit_against_research_2000.php">alleging</a> fraud and breach of contract.</p><p>Six months later, a negotiated settlement between the two parties has fallen through, and Ali's lawyer recently recently withdrew from the case for reasons that are not clear. Ali has been representing himself since Jan. 6, according to court filings</p><p>Meanwhile, Research 2000, once a significant player in the small world of national polling, has gone out of business. Its <a href="http://research2000.us">website</a> refers viewers to the Wikipedia page for "opinion polls."</p><p>"No, I'm not doing any polling -- at this time," Ali told me in a brief interview last week. He declined to comment on the lawsuit. Moulitsas said in an email: "The wheels of justice grind slowly."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/01/18/obama_doj_miranda_guidance/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/01/18/obama_doj_miranda_guidance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Poll: 35% blame Palin for Tucson shooting</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/01/17/poll_palin_map_arizona/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/01/17/poll_palin_map_arizona/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 2011 21:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gabrielle Giffords]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarah Palin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/01/17/poll_palin_map_arizona</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The media focus on Sarah Palin's notorious crosshairs map does some lasting damage]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#160;This new <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/17/cnn-poll-blame-game-in-arizona-shootings/">CNN poll</a> on the Tucson mass shooting seems like bad news for Sarah Palin:</p><blockquote>
<p>
      <em>QUESTION: Overall, how much do you blame each of the following for the shooting in Arizona -- a great deal, a moderate amount, not much, or not at all?</em>
    </p>
<p>
      <strong>The laws under which guns are bought and sold in this country</strong>
    </p>
<p>Great deal 30% ...&#160;Moderate amount 22% ...&#160;Not much 14% ...&#160;Not at all 33%</p>
<p>
      <strong>The use of harsh rhetoric and violent metaphors by politicians and commentators</strong>
    </p>
<p>Great deal 25% ...&#160;Moderate amount 23% ...&#160;Not much 17% ...&#160;Not at all 32%</p>
<p>
      <strong>A map on Sarah Palin's website that marked 20 congressional districts, including the district represented by the congresswoman who was shot, with an image that looked like the crosshairs of a gun</strong>
    </p>
<p>Great deal 19% ...&#160;Moderate amount 16% ...&#160;Not much 15% ...&#160;Not at all 44%</p>
<p>
      <strong>The resources available to deal with people who may be mentally ill</strong>
    </p>
<p>Great deal 41% ...&#160;Moderate amount 29% ...&#160;Not much 13% ...&#160;Not at all 15%</p>
</blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/01/17/poll_palin_map_arizona/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/01/17/poll_palin_map_arizona/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>120</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rasmussen to critics: But I was right!</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/11/03/scott_rasmussen_polls_inaccurate/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/11/03/scott_rasmussen_polls_inaccurate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 2010 19:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2010 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2010/11/03/scott_rasmussen_polls_inaccurate</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The pollster stands by his midterm polls in response to observers alleging pro-Republican bias]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pollster Scott Rasmussen, who has previously been accused of giving conservative candidates a boost with biased polls, is getting hammered today by two political observers for midterm poll results favoring Republicans that turned out to be inaccurate.</p><p>Taegan Goddard of Political Wire <a href="http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/11/03/worst_poll_of_the_year.html">asked</a> if a Rasmussen poll in Hawaii was the worst prediction of the year:</p><blockquote>
<p>A Rasmussen survey in Hawaii showed Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) leading challenger Cam Cavasso (R) by 13 points two weeks ago, 53% to 40%. The final results showed Inouye winning re-election by 51 points, 72% to 21%.</p>
</blockquote><p>And New York Times polling guru Nate Silver made <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/live-blogging-election-night/#more-3235">this assessment</a> early Wednesday morning:</p><blockquote>
<p>Rasmussen polls quite consistently turned out to overstate the standing of Republicans tonight. Of the roughly 100 polls released by Rasmussen or its subsidiary Pulse Opinion Research in the final 21 days of the campaign, roughly 70 to 75 percent overestimated the performance of Republican candidates, and on average they were biased against Democrats by 3 to 4 points.</p>
</blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/11/03/scott_rasmussen_polls_inaccurate/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/11/03/scott_rasmussen_polls_inaccurate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What issue is worth losing an election over?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/11/01/politicians_wanted/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/11/01/politicians_wanted/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Nov 2010 22:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2010 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2010/11/01/politicians_wanted</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A good politician knows something policy experts don't: Representation matters]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>
    <em>This originally appeared at Jonathan Bernstein's blog</em>
  </p><p>Here's something for election eve. We're about to put a new set of politicians in office, and we're going to hear a lot about two things: the party swing, and the oddball winners. They're both good stories, and should be covered. But we're going to hear a lot less about the overall quality of the newly elected pols, and why that even matters. So, as I <a href="http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/10/a_new_political_science_blog_m.html">join</a> others in pointing to a new venture over at YouGov called <a href="http://today.yougov.com/news/categories/model-politics/">Model Politics</a>, in which political scientists run and then analyze interesting poll data, I'm going to talk about one piece in particular, to eventually get around to thinking about political skill.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/11/01/politicians_wanted/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/11/01/politicians_wanted/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Christine O&#8217;Donnell, Joe Miller terribly unpopular</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/10/28/miller_odonnell_unpopular/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/10/28/miller_odonnell_unpopular/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2010 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christine O'Donnell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Miller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2010/10/28/miller_odonnell_unpopular</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two former Tea Party success stories plummet in the polls]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The media's relentless focus on Christine O'Donnell's general weirdness has finally paid off! She will <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2010/10/28/christine-o-donnell-surges-to-21-points-behind-chris-coons.aspx">just definitely not win her Senate race</a> against a normal human man who has never had to deny practicing the Dark Arts. So there's one Senate race the Democrats can feel really good about!</p><p>The press' heroic work revealing just how much of a huge jerk Joe Miller is has also worked like a charm: <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2010/10/28/the-incredible-shrinking-joe-miller.aspx">68% of Alaska voters have an unfavorable opinion</a> of the smoldering hearthrob with his own personal goon squad and a history of alienating his coworkers <a href="http://www.alaskadispatch.com/dispatches/politics/7301-stress-lies-and-politics-tainted-joe-millers-borough-job-records-show">with constant paranoid lying.</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/10/28/miller_odonnell_unpopular/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/10/28/miller_odonnell_unpopular/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>O&#8217;Donnell drops further behind in the polls</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/10/28/us_delaware_senate_poll_1/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/10/28/us_delaware_senate_poll_1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2010 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christine O'Donnell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polling]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/10/28/us_delaware_senate_poll_1</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new survey shows her Democratic opponent holding a commanding 21-point lead]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Despite a spate of television ads aimed at reintroducing her to voters, Republican Senate hopeful Christine O'Donnell of Delaware has failed to chip away at Democratic nominee Chris Coons' strong lead, according to a new poll. She even may be going backward.</p><p>The survey released Thursday from Fairleigh Dickinson University-PublicMind shows Coons holding a commanding 21-point lead, with 57 percent of likely voters saying they will vote for him compared to just 36 percent for O'Donnell. O'Donnell trailed by 17 points in a similar Fairleigh Dickinson poll released earlier this month.</p><p>"It would be an historic comeback for her to win on Tuesday," said Dan Cassino, a Fairleigh Dickinson political scientist.</p><p>Cassino said O'Donnell, a tea party favorite who spent years as a conservative evangelical commentator on cable television, would probably win in other states that have more social conservatives and a larger tea party presence.</p><p>"But there just aren't enough in Delaware," he said.</p><p>O'Donnell, who has raised more money than Coons, has been dogged by past television appearances in which she spoke out against masturbation, characterized homosexuality as a disorder, and acknowledged dabbling in various religions, including witchcraft as a teenager. She also has drawn criticism for her thin resume and spotty financial history.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/10/28/us_delaware_senate_poll_1/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/10/28/us_delaware_senate_poll_1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is Dan Maes the least popular Republican candidate in the country?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/10/25/maes_polls/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/10/25/maes_polls/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2010 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tom Tancredo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2010/10/25/maes_polls</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Colorado's would-be governor is below 10 percent in two polls, could hurt the state party for years]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Colorado Republican party failed in their effort to get gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes to withdraw from the race. Even in a cycle in which extreme views, conspiracy theories, Bircher tendencies, and general stupidity are all fast becoming normalized by a radical crop of depressingly viable insurgent Republican candidates, Maes is <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/09/14/dan_maes_mess">just too inescapably awful for Colorado voters.</a> Plus, the true believers can just vote for immigrant-hater Tom Tancredo, currently mounting a third-party campaign. But how bad is it for Maes?</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/10/25/maes_polls/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/10/25/maes_polls/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Americans hate Sarah Palin</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/10/08/palin_unfavorable/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/10/08/palin_unfavorable/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2010 15:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarah Palin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2010/10/08/palin_unfavorable</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new poll find that almost half of the nation doesn't care for the queen of the tea parties]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20018819-503544.html">According to a new CBS poll,</a> America really doesn't care for Sarah Palin. She is viewed favorably by 22% of Americans, and unfavorably by 48%. Those are not great numbers for a potential 2012 candidate.</p><p>One problem is that powerful female politicians tend to be divisive, to say the least. In a New York Times/CBS poll from the summer of 2007, <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/a-breakdown-on-clinton-ratings/">Hillary Clinton was viewed unfavorably by 42% of registered voters</a>. She polled as high as 46% unfavorable before that. (Gallup <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2169159/">had her at 50% unfavorable.</a>) Everyone also <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/127097/views-pelosi-not-fundamentally-changed-health-vote.aspx">began hating San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi</a> once she became Speaker of the House.</p><p>All these women have been relentlessly demonized by their political opponents. And for different reasons, they're all pretty easy targets (Pelosi, for one, never really seems to care). But these Palin numbers should be mentioned whenever anyone describes her as a front-runner for the 2012 nomination.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/10/08/palin_unfavorable/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/10/08/palin_unfavorable/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>91</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Americans increasingly opt to marry later in life</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/10/07/us_census_marriage_gap/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/10/07/us_census_marriage_gap/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Oct 2010 17:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Great Recession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polling]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/10/07/us_census_marriage_gap</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The median age at first marriage for those lacking degrees has now drawn even with the college-educated]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Young adults with college degrees are now more likely to be married than those who are less educated, a reversal of longtime trends as the struggling economy pushes weddings to all-time lows.</p><p>About 62 percent of college-educated 30-year-olds were married or had been married, compared with 60 percent of those without a bachelor's degree, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of census data. That is a significant shift from the 1990s, when young adults who didn't finish college were more likely to have wed than their better-educated counterparts, 75 percent to 69 percent.</p><p>The median age at first marriage for those lacking degrees has now risen to 28, drawing even with those who are college-educated. As recently as 1990, the gap had been as much as three years apart -- age 27 for college-educated, age 24 for those not.</p><p>Demographers attributed the shift partly to an economic downturn that has hit lesser-educated workers harder. As a whole, more younger adults are postponing marriage while they struggle to find work, and those lacking college degrees are seeing sharper declines in marriage.</p><p>The rising number of unmarried couples choosing to live together -- common particularly for those who are not college-educated -- is also contributing to the decreases in marriage.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/10/07/us_census_marriage_gap/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/10/07/us_census_marriage_gap/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Poll: Christine O&#8217;Donnell unqualified</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/09/21/odonnell_poll/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/09/21/odonnell_poll/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2010 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christine O'Donnell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michael Castle, R-Del.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2010/09/21/odonnell_poll</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Delaware voters wish Mike Castle were on the ballot, but against the anti-sex activist they'll take the Democrat]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to a poll taken right after Delaware's primary, Delaware voters <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0921/Witchcraft-Rent-money-Christine-O-Donnell-s-big-problem-she-s-behind">really wish they could elect Mike Castle to the Senate</a>. Unfortunately, primary voters gave the GOP nomination to <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/christine_odonnell/index.html">Christine O'Donnell</a>, the anti-sex activist who spent the '90s saying hilarious things on television. So <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/poll_proves_christine_odonnell.html?wprss=plum-line">Democrat Chris Coons leads O'Donnell 54-39.</a> And 60 percent of voters think O'Donnell is unqualified to be a senator.</p><p>But as the Christian Science Monitor notes, the professionals have since arrived to take control of the O'Donnell campaign, and they have a month (and $2 million) to make her seem respectable. She's got smart new advisors and campaign operatives and as long as liberals keep laughing at her, the money will continue pouring in from disgruntled conservatives.</p><p>Not that money and staff is all it takes to make a loon seem credible, but, well, that is actually exactly the means by which the GOP is making loons seem credible this cycle.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/09/21/odonnell_poll/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/09/21/odonnell_poll/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>69</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bush appointee invents America where everyone agrees with him</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/08/24/imagining_a_mandate/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/08/24/imagining_a_mandate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bank Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gay Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gulf Oil Spill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immigration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Park51]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2010/08/24/imagining_a_mandate</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[70 percent of Americans think exactly like Peter Kirsanow, according to polls that he made up]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Former Bush administration recess appointee Peter Kirsanow has written <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/244586/superpatriotic-elites-peter-kirsanow">what he thinks is a clever post indeed at The Corner</a>, in which he wonders how liberals can possibly claim to love America when vast, huge, massive majorities of Americans hate liberals and everything they stand for.</p><p>Emphasis mine:</p><blockquote>
<p>Consider some of the statements from prominent politicians and their acolytes in the elite media regarding recent controversies -- the Ground Zero mosque, the Arizona illegal-immigration law, the financial-reform bill, the California marriage referendum, Obamacare, Afghanistan, and the administration's Gulf drilling moratorium. Their commentary suggests (if the polling on these issues is reasonably accurate) that <strong>approximately 70 percent</strong> of Americans are racist, xenophobic, greedy, homophobic, uncaring, and stupid religious bigots, and bloodthirsty, polluting imperialists to boot.</p>
</blockquote><p>Well.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/08/24/imagining_a_mandate/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/08/24/imagining_a_mandate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Poll: Americans think &#8220;Muslim&#8221; means someone they dislike</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/08/19/obama_muslim_poll/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/08/19/obama_muslim_poll/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2010/08/19/obama_muslim_poll</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[18 percent, including 34 percent of conservative Republicans, believe Obama is one. And they don't like it]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://people-press.org/report/645/">34% of self-described "conservative Republicans" think President Barack Obama is a Muslim</a> -- a gain of 16 points since last year. 30% of people who disapprove of Obama's job performance also think he's a Muslim. It seems like the more that conservatives dislike the president, the more they believe that he is a Muslim! (How soon we forget Reverend Wright, I guess.)</p><p>Dave Weigel <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2010/08/19/the-big-bad-muslim-poll.aspx">blames the media</a>, and some conservative bloggers, because he is a communist Muslim.</p><p><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/244168/barack-obamas-religious-identity-vacuum-kathryn-jean-lopez">Kathryn Jean Lopez, noting that only 34% of Americans think Obama is a Christian, describes it as</a> "Barack Obama's Religious-Identity Vacuum," because, obviously, if one-in-five Americans thought K-Lo was an illegal Mexican immigrant, that would represent her "National-Identity Vacuum."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/08/19/obama_muslim_poll/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/08/19/obama_muslim_poll/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>74</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Kos pollster charges, explained</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/06/30/kos_pollster_fraud_specifics/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/06/30/kos_pollster_fraud_specifics/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2010 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2010/06/30/kos_pollster_fraud_specifics</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What, exactly, is suspicious about the polling numbers Research 2000 produces?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Both the polling business and the blogosphere -- and especially the select group of nerds who dwell where the two intersect -- were thrown into a tizzy on Tuesday with bombshell allegations that the polling firm <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/06/29/kos_poll_fraud/index.html">Research 2000</a> is a sham operation.</p><p>There&#8217;s always been a great deal of smoke and mirrors obscuring the polling industry, but the revelations here go beyond mere number-massaging, possibly to the point of data actually being made up.</p><p>Until a few weeks ago, the prolific pollster was best known for its work on behalf of the liberal website Daily Kos, although it also had a number of other mainstream newspapers and TV stations as clients. Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas ended his relationship with the firm shortly after Research 2000 repeatedly showed Bill Halter narrowly winning the Democratic Arkansas Senate runoff (he ultimately lost to Blanche Lincoln), and, more important, after Research 2000 ranked near the bottom of numbers guru Nate Silver's <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/pollster-ratings-v40-results.html">pollster ratings</a>.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/06/30/kos_pollster_fraud_specifics/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/06/30/kos_pollster_fraud_specifics/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>188</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

