Talk:Public Policy Polling

Citation needed
"The neutrality of PPP's surveys has been questioned" - this is unsourced and should be moved to a new 'criticsm' section similar to the Rasmussen article. Vote (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Article expansion
I expanded the article a fair bit. I definitely think this was long past overdue - PPP is a prominent pollster and extremely accurate (including in those hard-to-call primaries and special/recall elections), with major errors very rare. Compare to say the length of the Rasmussen Reports article. If there are any objections, feel free to bring them up here; I tried to do a good job with being impartial, but everyone is imperfect. Seleucus (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Only accurate for the left leaning primaries, but not of the general elections. They scew results by weighting the demographics to suit their ends to gain positive spin for the left leftists favorites.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.76.154.249 (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced text removed
"In New York, the official Republican candidate dropped out of the race and endorsed the Democratic candidate while PPP was in the field interviewing voters. PPP's results showed the conservative candidate with a large lead; in the end, the Democrat won with a 2.3% lead."

Removed for being doubtful and harmful. Obviously feel free to restore with a reference. Mr-Thomas (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Heavy-Handed Introduction
Now I hope I'm not crying wolf here - I'm relatively new to Wikipedia. But the second paragraph of the introduction seems a little heavy-handed in how it addresses the topic:

"In addition to political issues, the company has polled the public on topics such as the approval rating of God, whether Republican voters believe President Obama would be eligible to enter heaven in the event of the Rapture, whether hipsters should be subjected to a special tax for being annoying, and whether Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer."

Technically there's nothing wrong with that, but it's a rather biased statement to introduce a topic with. It's sort of the equivalent of writing something like "In addition to covering a diverse range of scientific and historic topics, Wikipedia includes articles on the Toast sandwich, Dick Assman, and Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism", near the top of Wikipedia's page on itself. That the PPP has goofy polls is (probably) worth including, but as written I don't think it's very neutral. (Mind you, I know relatively little about the bulk of their work; if a significant number of their polls actually are joke polls, then I withdraw my sentiment.)

Xanthos IV (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong, the article even doesn't have a 'criticism' topic, even the organization being so controversial. About what you are citing: It's absolutely ok, very illustrative in this respect, this organization makes this kind of pools, and that is an unusal fact that was cited in newspaper and that news are duly and effectively referenced here. You can not use different contexts as examples to attack a topic you dislike, and that examples were exxaggerated. This is not the right place for this kind of forum, citing inflamatory examples about Hitler and trying to defend an organization passionately. 2804:1530:105:3BB3:7964:E52D:D9E0:967F (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)