Of course he has.
Sheesh. One poll comes out with numbers some people don't like and they automatically blame the media for lying or the pollster for switching methods. Face it. Newt's numbers in Iowa have been collapsing for a week now.
He might still win it. Who knows? Rasmussen found that only 40% of the respondents were sure of their vote. For a bunch of people who claim not to give a damn about polls, everyone here sure gets upset over them.
You might want to re-read what I wrote. I definitely used the word "if". You might have heard of the word before.
And, to your comment about polling, it does not describe me for a well-defined poll with a limited number of outcomes. That describes most candidate preference polls.
Rasmussen, though, has adjusted his polls in the past. In the past, he has adjusted the way he re-evaluated party affinity.
Which raises a unique -- and better -- question in Iowa. How is he weighting these polls relative to liberal, moderate, and conservative republican caucus goers?
If he's not doing it at all in a state that clearly has a far higher percentage of Christian conservative voters, then his poll is politically naive.
It would be the same as sampling 800 democrats versus 200 republicans in a 1000 sample national poll.
In fact, that might just explain why Iowa polling is all over the map.