Dick Morris is a real piece of work. The former Clinton campaign advisor who gave birth to the political career of New York’s radical left-wing Congressman Jerrold Nadler, is out with a piece this week explaining why current polls understate Romney’s vote and are wrong. Morris argues that all pollsters are using a 2008 turnout model, which overstates the Democratic vote. Morris contends that key Obama constituencies, such as African Americas, Latinos and young people, are not as fired up about Obama’s reelection and will not turn out at the same levels. While that maybe true, it merely means that Obama is likely to win by a smaller margin than he did four years ago not necessarily that he will lose. In truth, the turnout model is what the turnout model is. Morris actually claims that older voters, Blacks and Hispanics are overstated in polls because they have a disproportionate number of landlines. In fact, the opposite is true; these voters have a higher number of cell phones with the exception of older voters who participation levels in presidential elections have been stable through three presidential cycles and who are more likely to have landlines. Incredibly, Morris goes on to praise Scott Rasmussen, a pollster whose entirely robo-based polling includes no cell phone users and thus over-samples Republicans and pro-Romney voters. Virtually every major serious survey researcher in the business uses some percentage of cell phones in their sample. Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio, well known in Republican circles for his acute accuracy, includes cell phones at around 15%-20% of his sample. Nate Silver of the New York Times has written about the need to include a cell phone cohort in political polling. Cell phone users tend to be disproportionately young, Black, Hispanic and Urban. They definitely tilt Democratic. Not sampling them at all, as Rasmussen fails to do, kills the accuracy of your poll. Rasmussen adds insult to injury by refusing to include Libertarian Party candidate Gov. Gary Johnson who is now on the ballot in 48 states, in his polling. Rasmussen argues with a straight face that the best way to test Johnson’s strength is to not list him in the poll. Rasmussen does ask voters if they are for Romney, Obama or “some other candidate.” Polls which do list all candidates including Johnson, Green Party candidate Jill Stein and Constitution Party Virgil Goode all show Johnson winning more votes than the other minor candidates. Because Johnson is the only candidate on in virtually 50 states, excluding his name from the polling as Rasmussen does, is malpractice. A poll that does not include all the candidates on the ballot is methodologically flawed, unscientific, and biased. It is important to note that pollsters did not include Green Party candidate Ralph Nader in Florida’s presidential polls in 2000 and therefore did not anticipate the 97,000 votes he won in a race in which George W. Bush won by 563 votes. Morris goes on to argue that Obama is not over 50% (although he is hovering on it) and that undecideds historically have broken for the challenger. Life-long liberal Democrat Morris, who converted to both Republicanism and Christianity after President Bill Clinton fired him for his dalliances with prostitutes while on the Clinton campaign payroll, fails to note that undecideds don’t break for the challenger when the challenger has a net-unfavorable rating among undecided voters. That is ,when a candidate’s unfavorable rating is higher than his favorable rating. Candidates underwater on Election Day by this measure rarely win. Romney’s unfavorable rating has risen steadily while Obama retains a net-favorable rating among both all voters and undecideds. Dick Morris and his colleague Scott Rasmussen are simply wrong.