It is important to pay attention to polling methodology and the wording of questions asked respondents. Leading questions based on false premises can produce highly misleading results. This phenomena is demonstrated by a recent Rasmussen poll of likely voters relating to the Inspector General’s report on alleged malfeasance by FBI officials in the origins of the Mueller investigation.
See
“Voters Favor Jail, Firing for Rogue Officials Who Targeted Trump,” Rasmussen Reports, December16, 2019.
Rasmussen reported the following, in part:
“Voters are ready to jail or fire senior law enforcement officials who illegally targeted President Trump, but most think they are unlikely to be punished.
“The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone and online survey finds that 52% of Likely U.S. Voters consider it likely that senior federal law enforcement officials broke the law in an effort to prevent Trump from winning the presidency. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say that’s unlikely. This includes 36% who say it’s Very Likely they broke the law to get Trump and 24% who say it’s Not At All Likely. These findings are virtually unchanged in surveying since February of last year. (To see survey question wording, click here.)”
…
1*How closely have you followed news reports about the Justice Department inspector general’s investigation of the FBI – very closely, somewhat closely, not very closely or not at all?
2*How likely is it that senior federal law enforcement officials broke the law in an effort to prevent Donald Trump from winning the presidency – very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely or not at all likely?
3* How likely is it that criminal charges will be brought against senior federal law enforcement officials for their effort to prevent a Trump presidency?
4*What type of disciplinary action should be taken against senior federal law enforcement officials if they are found guilty of breaking the law to prevent a Trump presidency? Should they be jailed, fired, formally reprimanded, or should no disciplinary action be taken?
*****
Similar questions might be asked about the landing of aliens in Washington, D.C., such as:
1. How closely have you followed news reports about the landing of aliens in Washington D.C. without a visa — very closely, somewhat closely, not very closely or not at all?
2. How likely is it that the aliens broke the law in landing in Washington, D.C. and entering the United States without a visa? – very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely or not at all?
3. How likely is it that criminal charges will be brought against aliens who landed in Washington without a visa — very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely or not at all?
4. What type of disciplinary action should be taken against aliens who landed in Washington if they are found guilty of breaking the law by entering the country without a visa? Should they be jailed, or once their superiors are contacted, fired, formally reprimanded, or should no disciplinary action be taken?
The answers to these questions would be interesting indeed, and might just tell us as much about the opinions on the alien landings and appropriate punishments as did the original Rasmussen poll.
In the past, we have endorsed the Rasmussen daily tracking poll on Trump’s job approval, because it is a poll of likely voters. The above examples suggest we now need to look closely at the wording of the questions used in the daily tracking polls.
The Trenchant Observer
