"I do not believe 55% of New Yorkers are against the trial of KSM in New York."

They aren't. Rasmussen knew they wouldn't be so he actually asked a different question:

"Terrorist suspects linked to the 9/11 attacks will now be tried in a New York City civilian court rather than in a military tribunal. Do you agree or disagree with the decision to try these terrorist suspects in a New York City civilian court?"

The question was about military tribunal v. civilian court, not the location itself. NYers don't give a rat's arse that these losers are coming to NYC for trial. They're not afraid and they don't think it's going to open wounds. NYers will laugh at KSM if he tries to get on a soapbox (something very difficult to do in a federal trial, as Josh has noted) and make a case for himself. Wingnuts, of course, won't see the brave and tough NYCers laughing because they will be curled up under the beds urinating on themselves, hoping that brave Mr. 9/11 will come in and save the day.

The problem with the question is that people have trouble putting "civilian" above "military". Military invokes visions of Tom Cruise going after Jack Nicholson and brave men and women in uniform. "Civilian" invokes images of sleazy defense lawyers. Of course, the phrase "NY civilian court" might make somebody think of an NYC traffic court or something like that. A better description would have been "federal court located in NYC".

Also notice how the question implies that trying terror suspects in federal court v. military tribunal is somehow not the norm. In fact, it is the norm. I believe just about every terror conviction - maybe all of them - won by the Bush admin happened in "civilian" courts. The first WTC bombing perps were tried and convicted in fed court in NYC. (and are spending the rest of their lives in the Colorado Supermax - which, to the best of my knowledge, has not been targeted for attack by Al Qaeda) Trying these folks in a military tribunal is the EXCEPTION, but Rasmussen words his question to make the folks being polled (ie - the typical Rasmussen polling sample - white, old, and right-leaning) potentially believe otherwise.

Typical BS Rasmussen issues question.

The Dems may have the majority, but the media is still controlled by republicans and big business and they are determined to de-legitimize this President and the party.

And you know that it won't be a year out from the actual election? If we based our predictions on the polling landscape a year out from the actual election, the 2008 presidential race would have been Rudy v. Clinton with Giuliani winning the WH.

2010 could certainly be a bad year for the Dems. But if HCR passes, if Afghanistan starts to turn the corner, and if unemployment drops to around 6 or 7% (all possibilities but far from certainties), I don't think people will be looking at the do-nothing GOP, the folks who got us into this mess in the first place, and saying, "They look good!"

And speaking of Rasmussen, he's the only pollster showing the GOP with a lead in the congressional generic ballot. And it's not even close - he's got them ahead by 7%. Isn't that an outlier? The Pollster.com generic ballot average is 44.3-43.0 in favor of the Dems. If you exclude Rasmussen from this average, the Dem lead jumps to 48.1-41.4. Is Rasmussen right while everybody else is wrong. Or is Rasmussens "skews towards old, white people" LV model the wrong model to use this far out from the actual election?