Talk:Rasmussen Reports

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rasmussen Reports. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070808065237/http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com:80/post/?q=N2E1YjQ0NzQ3ODVmOWU2M2E5YWNiMDEwMmQ1MWNmN2Q= to http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2E1YjQ0NzQ3ODVmOWU2M2E5YWNiMDEwMmQ1MWNmN2Q=
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/10/39727?currentPage=all

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Evaluations of accuracy and performance section

I think there is too much quoted material within the Favorable sub-section and the Nate Silver Criticism sub-section. Much can be paraphrased. Additionally, the Nate Silver sub-section includes Silver's critiques of Rasmussen Reports, and then the article includes quite a lot of third-party critiques of Silver. This amount of third-party critique of Silver belongs on his article, not within the Rasmussen Reports article. Fdssdf (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It's illogical to use election results to measure the accuracy of polling methods in this country where the accuracy of our vote counting is notoriously low and we still have not addressed the problem in Congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.93.49 (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Removal of criticism

I feel like if you compare what is in the article today to what it was before the election much of the relevant critical comments have been removed. Leaving you with the overall impression that is not an accurate reflection of this pollsters accuracy or deviation from elections. There also seems to be a lot of things that seem very positive i.e. they accurately predicted 47 out of 50 states that isn't really an accurate description of their accuracy as a pollster or in comparison to other pollsters. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:342:102:6F20:1D72:F628:353E:CE39 (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

telephone polling

The article quotes R as saying that the 2012 election would be the last national election based on telephone surveying. But the section on 2016 does not indicate how the polling was done. Kdammers (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

2016

For 2016, the article gives the accuracy of RR on the popular vote but not on the electoral vote. According to RR (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/rasmussen_reports_calls_it_right), they were the only poll to call Trump the winner. Kdammers (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Rasmussen' own version of this article

Rasmussen have posted on their website a version of this article: Rasmussen Reports: What Our Wikipedia Page Should Tell You. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

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.