No, you did not. You gave me criticism of three specific polls. You have not provided criticism of Rasmussen’s method or random sampling and statistical methodology.

Here is gallup’s take on party identification. They also have the category of leaning party identification. +8 is high, but has happened previously after a party conference, and +7 happened twice.

“But are those increases temporary, or do they have some staying power? In general, it appears that the increases are short-lived and fade as the enthusiasm from the convention subsides.

Since 1996, the percentage of Americans who identify with or lean to a party has dropped in the poll after that year’s post-convention poll for each party. So to the extent history is a guide, Gallup’s next survey would likely show a slight drop in the percentage of Americans identifying with or leaning to the Republican Party.”

And over time and on average these fluctuations even out. I prefer Rasmussen because they correct for party ID, but the method of simply polling and releasing the numbers as given is also valid because of the statistical nature of polling.

Over many polls – and we have seen a huge number in the last few months – the gap between McCain and Obama has been very narrow.

This polling has been done mainly through random sampling of the population. The population contains those 11 million extra Democrats. Therefore, sufficient random sampling will capture them. And we have sufficient random sampling.

Thus, the RCP average is a very good reflection of the state of the race. (Although I would ignore the USA Today one that has McCain 10 points in front – outliers should be discarded, imo, until we have more confirming data.)