Talk:Rasmussen Reports

Possible perception of bias
I have just edited the 2018 section (although I forgot to log in). Before it is reverted back I think it is worth discussing whether as previously written the tone is suitable for wikipedia.

"Traditionally, such a wide error in polling would lead to a major rethink of methodology, but Rasmussen pushed back against critics after their widely derided miss, falsely claiming that "that the midterm result was relatively poor for Democrats compared to other midterms" - despite the fact that the Democrats scored a historic margin in the popular vote victory. Ultimately, Rasmussen has made no effort since the 2018 midterms to fix their demonstrably flawed polling methodology."

Terms like 'demonstrably flawed' don't seem to be appropriate, and I haven't been able to find a source for the quote given in the section. In general, the voice of the paragraph is of someone who doesn't like Rasmussen, although I am of course sure this is completely unintentional.

I also added a section on Trump's appraisal and tweeting of Rasmussen. I think the President praising a poll is sufficient to be under the section of favourable evaluation. CMSPhys (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the article seems to violate anything. Rasmussen’s failure in 2018 is well-documented and reported on; the fact the President likes a pollster that gives him better numbers is not especially notable either in any context. Toa Nidhiki05 12:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I genuinely don't see how anyone can read that section and believe it is coming from an unbiased perspective.CMSPhys (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed with this. I edited phrasing for NPOV and then saw this comment on the talk page. Section phrasing is at best highly opinionated. At the minimum, phrasing should be adjusted to be neutral. DirkDouse (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

For Rasmussen's says they are non-partisan but look at their social media accounts. Daily Caller, Gateway Pundit & Breitbart are their preferred sources of information. The commentators have a right wing slant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkhill10304 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OR. Chetsford (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Should the article, in WP's own voice, identify Rasmussen Reports as "right wing?"
Should this article, in Wikipedia's voice, describe Rasmussen Reports as "right wing?" Chetsford (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is obviously, as indicated by sources, a Republican-leaning polling firm (though I suppose even this is a fine point as the sources diverge as whether it's agenda driven or whether its methodology just happens to favor Republicans).
 * However, an SPA has attached 13 references to the invocation of the term "right-wing". After going through all 13, I haven't been able to find any that specifically say "right-wing". One says its results tend to favor Republicans by 3.9 points, another says it "shows better support for Republican candidates than others", another quotes an officer of the company's competitors as saying it is "right leaning", and a variety of similar variations of these terms and phrases, all of which are points that should be included in the article and that are addressed elsewhere in the lead as well as in the body. However, neither in nor out of the article can I find RS that specifically describe it as "right-wing", which is a term we usually use for articles like Frank Gaffney, etc. The editor in question has said "There is no officially arbiter of being right wing."  [sic] and "For Rasmussen's says they are non-partisan but look at their social media accounts."  [sic]. In general, to describe individuals or entities in WP's own voice using potentially pejorative terms (e.g. "right-wing," "left-wing," "fascist," "conspiracy theorist," "pedophile," etc.) we need several RS that actually use those terms themselves to demonstrate they are factually correct; WP:OR generally prohibits us from conducting original analysis of an entity's posts to their social media accounts and independently making that determination. Chetsford (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - The WP entry for Right-leaning redirects the user to the page for Right-wing politics. A consist, well documented, non-random history of being Right-Leaning demonstrates a clear link between the products they deliver and their philosophy. Right-Leaning is not a derogatory term and has been applied to other mainstream outlets such as Breitbart News, The Daily Caller and The Gateway Pundit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkhill10304 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I didn't see this discussion before I recently removed that content from the lede. No, that doesn't belong. First of all, there actually are officially partisan pollsters (like those who the major parties contract with to conduct polls). Rasmussen is an independent polling company though, which doesn't appear to contract with any of the parties. Second, every pollster's accuracy ebbs and flows (Rasmussen's tends more toward the ebbing). In 2016, the definitive polling guru Nate Silver ranked Rasmussen as having a pro-Democratic bias of 3.6 points. I'm not sure what it would mean to be a "right-wing pollster" unless you were a right-wing person who was also a pollster, or if you were a polling company who had an affiliation with a right-wing think tank or something like that. But Rasmussen is just a for-profit polling company. Trying to put any ideological indicators in the lede seems unhelpful. Marquardtika (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Labeling Rasmussen as right-wing—notwithstanding any possible negative POV connotations per Chetsford—may give the impression that the firm itself has partisan goals or supports right-wing or right-leaning candidates and positions, when the only actual right-wing aspect of the polling firm is that its poll numbers tend to favor Republican candidates slightly more than other polls, which is not the same thing as being right-wing themselves. Labeling Rasmussen as right-wing may be conflating these two ideas as the same.


 * Anyhow, many media organizations have largely been careful to distinguish between these two ideas and avoid labeling Rasmussen as "right-wing", only going so far as to say that their polling methodology tends to favor right-wing or right-leaning candidates in their polling results when contrasted with other polling outlets. Some examples:
 * One of Trump's favorite pollsters shows his approval plummeting (Yahoo! News): "While 42 percent approval is in line with the overall aggregation of polls tracking Trump’s approval rating, it is notable from Rasmussen, which tends to show more favorable numbers for Republicans and the president." Only mentions that their numbers lean right, not the firm itself.
 * Donald Trump tweet on 50% approval cherry-picks polling data (PolitiFact) "One reason why Rasmussen has shown higher ratings for Trump stems from its methodology. For one, it polls likely voters." Politifact here attributes the poll numbers to its methodology, not to any internal bias.
 * There are probably more examples, and there are also probably some counterexamples, but it seems that Wikipedia should follow the most conservative (as in moderate or cautious), NPOV approach that other RS are doing and not label Rasmussen as right-wing in its own voice. (And the fact that they are frequently cited by Republicans is obviously irrelevant; being cited by someone does not mean you hold the same beliefs). Kalimi (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Whitewashing - Marquardtika's edits go beyond a fair discussion on objectivity. It is whitewashing legitimate information regarding this entry. To remove all references to their FiveThirtyEight grade, removing methodological discussions regarding their methods & removing other relevant information regarding this organization misrepresents this organization. Furthermore, there is a difference between variance and bias. To say "every pollster's accuracy ebbs and flows" ignores that their well documented bias towards the right. To dismiss objective criticism as mere anecdotes from a "competitor" (despite the criticism coming from around the statistical community) skews the truth and is antithetical to the goals of WP.


 * This article has a lot of bizarre content that I'm honestly not sure how has survived this long. For a start, a Donald Trump tweet is used as a source. That's just...what. I don't have the energy to deal with this at the moment but I'm sure someone will come along and deal with this hot mess eventually. Marquardtika (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Marquardtika has repeated content that is closely aligned with (Rasmussen) while eliminating information from objective & credible sources. It has been established repeatedly that Rasmussen has a Right-leaning bias. The commentary regarding their methods and performance is also well established. This spin or white-washing regarding Rasmussen's history is against the Wikipedia editing standards.


 * I've "eliminated information from objective & credible sources"? Oh, like this tweet of Trump's? LOL. The content I changed was not compliant with policy, and in many instances WP:OR because the content was not supported by sources. Other editors here seem to agree. Marquardtika (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Mistyped info in the article
If the company was founded only in 2003, how could they survey the 2000 election?? Violansky (talk) 11:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * If you read the section on 2000, it says "In the 2000 presidential election, Scott Rasmussen polled under the name Portrait of America, a predecessor to Rasmussen Reports." Marquardtika (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Conservative
Previous editors had concerns about describing the pollster as objective. This was revisited several times, including during a serious of edits describing the pollster as right-wing. Newsweek has now described the pollster conservative. This on-top of the other analyses reported by sources describing the pollster as having a significant and persistent bias. Any edits to the alternative will need to provide several independent sources.
 * As per WP:RSP "Unlike articles before 2013, post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable." Wikipedia uses reliable sources. An unreliable source can't be introduced by a single editor to unilaterally overturn a closed RfC. Chetsford (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Point of discussion
Does this analysis of the content of a tweet violate WP:OR? Chetsford (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

You people are unbelievably ignorant.
Do you describe the hundreds of other polls as "left wing"? Because they are You just don't recognize that because you have been manipulated to believe that left wing is just "the norm."

This article is the embarrassing. Do you really believe that things such as this make people trust Wikipedia more? Wikipedia is becoming a joke, and it's becaus of articles like this. 12-year-old children are running this circus. 199.66.65.246 (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I removed 'conservative' from the first sentence because it's unwarranted and consensus from a couple years ago was to omit the similar term 'right-wing'. But in general you will get better results from a reasonable argument rather than just coming here to insult everybody. –CWenger (^ • @ ) 19:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

It’s ok to be white poll
The Poll That Did in Dilbert Creator Scott Adams Is Even Dumber Than You Can Imagine Doug Weller  talk 19:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Here's another one. I think the WP:RS coverage of this incident moves the balance on Rasmussen from "objective, impartial pollster" towards "political activist who provides polling that supports conservative positions". This is a classroom example of a leading question:
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/02/28/rasmussen-poll-scott-adams-dilbert/
 * A poll asked if it’s ‘OK to be white.’ Here’s why the phrase is loaded.
 * Scholars raise questions about the Rasmussen poll that Scott Adams cited in the racist rant that led to ‘Dilbert’s’ cancellation
 * By Marisa Iati and Scott Clement
 * Washington Post
 * February 28, 2023 at 11:36 a.m. EST
 * The survey question was asked by the conservative-leaning Rasmussen Reports, whose head pollster described it as a “simple” and “uncontroversial” query. But, in fact, the phrase in question has a freighted history that implies more than its face-value meaning....
 * Survey takers familiar with that background may have wanted to avoid expressing approval of wording co-opted in that way, experts said....
 * In recent years, Rasmussen has shifted from serving primarily as a right-leaning polling firm to more actively amplifying conservative causes, with a website featuring commentary from conservative and libertarian pundits. [emphasis added] In the video about the recent survey question, Mitchell also hyped polling results that he said showed “nearly half the country is concerned that vaccines are causing a significant number of unexplained deaths.” (The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said there is no evidence that coronavirus vaccines are causing deaths.) On Twitter, the firm also elevated misinformation about alleged fraud in the 2020 presidential election and highlighted conspiracy theories suggesting that the Jan. 6 insurrection was a “set-up.”...
 * “You can see that phrase and easily recognize that someone’s trying to get a rise out of you by using it,” Pitcavage said. “Disapproving of that statement and disapproving of whiteness or White people are two very different things.”
 * --Nbauman (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

More crazy stuff
, : you may be interested to learn that they recently stated that the COVID-19 "vaccines killed more people worldwide than Jews killed in the Holocaust", after polling people on whether they agree with the statement "China lied. Fauci lied. People died". Wtf lol. Endwise (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Endwise Crazy. But the world is turning crazy, so no surprise I guess. Doug Weller  talk 07:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)