Los Angeles Times blogger/former Bush flack Andrew Malcolm, who has a lengthy track record of distorting public polling, writes:

So, the reality is, all Republicans have to do basically is get out of their own way and let angry, frightened voters see their incumbent Democratic targets between now and November.

If, as polls indicate, voters are now reeling from Obama-deficit sticker-shock and about 60% want his prized healthcare repealed, why talk about anything else? [Emphasis added]

Huh. Interesting. Just a few days ago, Jonathan Chait pointed out that the latest Kaiser Foundation poll finds that only 27 percent want the health care law repealed, and the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found voters less likely to support candidates who favor repeal than those who don't.

So what's Andrew Malcolm taking about? He didn't cite any specific polls, probably because he's referring to Rasmussen polling and … well, let's let Nate Silver explain:

What Rasmussen has had is a “house effect”. So far in the 2010 cycle, their polling has consistently and predictably shown better results for Republican candidates than other polling firms have.

…

Now, what you do need to be aware of is that Rasmussen's opinion is one among many. They might turn out to be right -- but so might all of the other pollsters who have a different opinion about the electorate. If you're running a news organization and you tend to cite Rasmussen's polls disproportionately, it probably means that you are biased -- it does not necessarily mean that Rasmussen is biased. [Emphasis in original]

And if you're a journalist and you tend to cite Rasmussen's polls without making clear they are Rasmussen polls -- and instead portray them as representative of all polling -- it probably means you're both biased and dishonest.