Talk:Rasmussen Reports

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: Please see WP:OR. Chetsford (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible perception of bias 

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

message: 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  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)
thread_title:  Conservative 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  You people are unbelievably ignorant.