The Daily Signal - #478: Scott Rasmussen Explains Pollsters' Flaws on Trump, Socialism

Episode Date: June 5, 2019

Scott Rasmussen founded one of the leading polling firms in America. He’s observed decades of polling trends and knows the industry better than anyone. I had the chance to sit down with Scott recently to discuss some of the major trends in American public opinion. We also cover these stories:•President Trump marked the 75th anniversary of D-Day on Thursday, speaking in Normandy, France.•NYC police commissioner James O'Neill officially apologized to the gay community, saying that the Stonewall raid was “wrong, plain and simple.”•Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is standing up to defend conservative commentator Steven Crowder, after YouTube moved to block advertising from Crowder’s YouTube channel. The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [e-mail]. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Friday, June 7th. I'm Kate Trinko. And I'm Daniel Davis. Scott Rasmussen founded one of the leading polling firms in America. He's observed decades of polling trends and knows the industry better than anyone. I had the chance to sit down with Scott recently to discuss some of the major trends in American public opinion. Today, we'll share that interview. Plus, is straight pride becoming a thing?

Well, it just bite becoming to Boston, new things of 2019. We'll discuss. By the way, if you're enjoying this podcast, please consider leaving a review or a five-star rating on iTunes. Now onto our top news. Could there be over a million migrants coming to the U.S.-Mexico border this year? That's a prediction of Stephen Coppitz, the president of Princeton Policy Advisors, who told the Washington examiners Paul Bedard the large numbers in May caused him to revise his prediction from 931,000 migrants to over a million in 2019 alone. Meanwhile, Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, who attended a meeting with the acting director of immigration and customs enforcement, Mark Morgan, is claiming that people are renting babies to come to the border.

Grassley told reporters, per the hill, I can't believe that this actually happens, but that people down there in Central America or Mexico are renting babies to get across the border and then sending them back and renting them again to get across the border. Well, President Trump marked the 75th anniversary of D-Day on Thursday, speaking in Normandy, France. In the audience were presidents and prime ministers, members of Congress, and yes, veterans of D-Day. The president gave a moving tribute to the World War II generation, stressing the character that empowered them to fight. Here are a few of the president's words. They battled not for control and domination, but for liberty. democracy and self-rule. They pressed on for love and home and country, the main streets, the schoolyards, the churches, and neighbors,

the families and communities that gave us men such as these. They were sustained by the confidence that America can do anything because we are a noble nation with a virtuous people praying to a righteous God, the exceptional might came from a truly exceptional spirit. The abundance of courage came from an abundance of faith. The great deeds of an army came from the great depths of their love. And it changed to current rules, the Federal Communications Commission is now allowing phone companies to preemptively block phone calls, reports USA Today, which says the

former status quo was consumers had to opt in to such services. Quote, if there is one thing in our country today that unites Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, socialists and libertarians, vegetarians and carnivores, Ohio State, and Michigan fans, it is that they are sick and tired of being bombarded by unwanted robocalls, said Ejit Pai, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, my message to the American people today is simple. We hear you, and we are on your side. Well, the LGBT movement traces itself to the Stonewall riots in New York.

There, 50 years ago, in 1969, police raided a gay bar, and patrons resisted arrest. That provoked a six-day protest. On Thursday, New York City's police commissioner, James O'Neill, officially apologized to the gay community, saying that the Stonewall raid was, quote, wrong, plain and simple. Every single day, there is an average of over 1 million new sexually transmitted infections, according to a new report from the World Health Organization, which also found that one out of every 25 people worldwide has an STD. According to a press release put out by the group, quote, these STIs have a profound impact on the health of adults and children worldwide. If untreated, they can lead to serious and chronic health effects that include neurological and cardiovascular disease, infertility, ectopic pregnancy, still bursts, and increased risk of HIV.

Well, Texas Senator Ted Cruz is standing up to defend conservative commentator Stephen Crowder after YouTube moved to block advertising from Crowder's YouTube channel. It all started a week ago when Carlos Maza, a writer and video host for Vox, accused Crowder on Twitter of harassing him in videos for being gay. YouTube then announced that Crowder actually hadn't violated any of its rules, but then just the very next day it reversed course, saying, quote, A pattern of egregious actions has harmed the broader community and is against our YouTube partner program policies, end quote. YouTube introduced its demonetization policy last year, which blocks ad revenue from, creators who have caused, quote, lasting damage to the community, including viewers, creators, and the outside world, end quote. Well, in response to this, Senator Cruz tweeted, YouTube is not the star chamber.

Stop playing God and silencing those voices you disagree with. This will not end well. He then went on to cite Samantha B and Jim Carrey as double standards and accused YouTube of applying its rules inconsistently, saying, quote, no coherent standard explains it. Here's an idea. Don't blacklist anybody. Next up, we'll feature Daniel's interview with a leading pollster. If you're tired of high taxes, fewer health care choices, and bigger and bigger government, it's time to partner with the most impactful conservative organization in America.

We're the Heritage Foundation, and we're committed to solving the issues America faces. Together, we'll fight back against the rising tide of homegrown socialism, and we'll fight four conservative solutions that are making families more free and more prosperous. But we can't do it without you. Please join us at heritage.org. I'm joined now by Scott Rasmussen. He is the founder of Rasmussen Reports and co-founder of VSPN, and he's now doing independent polling at Scott Rasmussen.com.

Mr. Rasmussen, thanks for joining us. Great to be with you today. So I want to ask you first about the 2016 election. You know, a lot of polling agencies had Trump, Donald Trump, losing the election. What was the secret to accurate polling in that cycle? National polling averages showed that Donald Trump would lose the popular vote by three points. He lost by two. So the national polls were actually closer than they were in 2012.

I think there were two problems. First, the people analyzing the polls assumed, you know, there's always a margin of error. many of the people in the media assume, well, she's up by three points, she's probably going to win by six because of the margin of error. They just didn't believe it could be that close. Second thing is state polling was bad. And in the key states, there wasn't enough polling done in places like Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. And a lot of them didn't appear to have enough people without a college education in some of the polls. Ultimately, though, it was the analysis that failed more than the polling, but polling took the fall.

Right, right. Well, that is interesting, and contributed to the shock in 2016. You know, it was really funny. I had to go on Fox every week during that year, and I was always asked the same question by the host, what is Donald Trump's path to victory? And at first didn't look like there was much of a path, but then pretty quickly it became clear that if he got the Romney-Cain State's picked up Iowa Alves, and he was at 263 electoral votes. And we were able to say early on that if he's that close, he could pull off a surprise, and the only place that were possible were Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

It didn't mean that I was expecting that to happen. But on the weekend before the election, we got a really important clue in the data. 14% of all voters were still uncommitted to one of the major candidates. Way out of proportion to earlier elections. And that said, yeah, I mean, in the 2012 cycle, it was only four points at that point. Okay, wow. So there was a sense that, okay, there's the potential for a surprise here. What about under-polling of a particular segment of the population?

You know, a lot of folks who voted for Trump hadn't voted in a long time. Yeah, part of that, and every firm has different approaches to defining likely voters. A big part of it I mentioned a few moments ago was people without a college education. If you do a survey right now, just if you went on and hired SurveyMonkey or somebody to do a poll and you didn't include pretty stringent controls, you would get way too many people with a college degree, way too many people with a graduate degree. And if you think of where the Trump support comes from, you know, that means you missed a lot of that support. And I think that's some of what happened in 2016, especially in those surprise states. Well, a big issue in polling today is socialism with the growing trend, popularity of it with Bernie Sanders and AOC and all of those fun folks. What do you make of the polling trends when it comes to the way Americans feel about socialism?

This has been one of my real pleasant surprises coming back. You know, I stayed out of polling for several years, came back in and got to look at data fresh again. And like everybody else, I was shocked by the number of people that support socialism. latest poll, found 39% of voters favor socialism. And I grew up in the Cold War era. We know that was the evil ideology that destroyed the Soviet Union. And Ronald Reagan was convinced that we would outlast them because their system was internally inconsistent. And he was right. When I began to look a little deeper, I quickly realized that when people today say they like socialism, they are not at all talking about what Bernie Sanders or AOC are promoting.

Total disconnect from that. In fact, most people who say they like socialism don't think of it as an economic ideology. And for people who might think of the Heritage Foundation is sort of the ideas they want to associate with, there are some things about socialism today that will shock them. A majority of people who say they like socialism today think the country would be better off with less government involvement in the economy. Only one out of three people who say they like socialism think it leads to higher taxes and a more powerful government. They are not thinking of what we used to think of as socialism, and they are not thinking of it as a competition to free markets. In fact, 80% of people who like socialism also like free markets.

Wow. Well, yeah, and I was actually just looking at this Gallup poll recently showing that a large segment of the population in double digits, double-digit majorities of Americans want the free market to govern certain sectors of the economy over the government, even if they say they like socialism. So, yeah, and this is, I think what we have to get used to, first off, if you're, an economic conservative, you have to get used to the idea that most people who say they like socialism agree with you on free markets. So there's common ground. Instead of saying you're wrong, we should say, well, yeah, let's talk about where the market can get involved. Second thing is there's a difference

between supporting the idea of socialism and supporting socialist policies. So when you talk about something like Medicare for All, Americans want to make sure everybody has access to health care. Americans want to have a system that makes sure that everybody can get some kind of decent insurance. And if you ask about Medicare for all, it does well. However, if you say, what about, and this is in Bernie Sanders plan, getting rid of private insurance companies, only 18% of voters support that. People want to have more choices in their life. They want to have more choices about health care, not less.

and if you can do that, then if you can provide more choices, you've won those people over. And that's the difference. People aren't looking for socialist policies to limit their choices. Well, that kind of reminds me of the Medicare for All proposal that seems to pull pretty well when you just give the name, but then when people hear about the details, and the same goes for the Green New Deal.

And by the way, one of the things, there's a real sickness in Washington about polling data, which is that if people are concerned about something, people in Washington assume they want the federal government to fix it. I'm convinced that if enough parents couldn't get prom dates for their kids, that Congress would try to pass a law to fix that because that's their view. We've asked a number of questions about guaranteeing things like guaranteeing an income or guaranteeing, the right to health care types of questions. And people agree with the concept. But fewer than half think it's the responsibility of the federal government.

A lot of people are much more comfortable with state and local experimentation. Some are saying it should be in the private sector. In other words, they want a system that makes sure that anybody who's willing to work, for example, can make a living. Yeah. Well, you've been polling for a while, and I'm curious some of the major trends that you've seen. What is the most surprising shift in American public opinion over the years that you've seen? You know, I don't know that I would even consider it surprising anymore,

but I would have considered it surprising when I started is how incredibly polarized people are. It is a team sport up and down the light. Right now, 82% of Republicans believe Donald Trump is more ethical than most politicians. 86% of Democrats believe that Hillary Clinton is more ethical than most politicians. You get your team and you stick to it. And what that has meant is that our last two presidents, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, their job approval never moves. Barack Obama was at about 47% for most of his term, went up a little bit coming into his reelection. Donald Trump's at about 46%.

See, that feels normal to someone like me. Exactly. But back in the 90s, the 80s, I mean, I guess even growing up after 9th, after 9,000, we saw the huge surge for Bush. Right. And that kind of thing used to be normative at times. Yeah. And first of all, there wasn't as much polling.

When Jimmy Carter was inaugurated as president, there were probably only a handful of national polls released during his first three or four months in office. And he got a nice honeymoon. Everybody wanted to do well. We also had a situation back then when the president could give a prime time speech. It would be carried in all three networks because they would cancel all the other programming,

so the entire nation watched it. There was no rebuttal. So a president really could sway opinion, could really have an impact. That world has changed. It is amazing now. Most Americans really don't know when the president gives a speech. So given the polling now on socialism, increasing popularity, at least of the term, the idea of socialism, which, again, problems there. How would you recommend conservatives go about making their kids?

case for public policies given that trend? You know, I think that conservatives ought to be focusing on free markets, choice, giving people more options, getting control to a closer to home level. And obviously, the way you discussed that depends on the issue at hand. But for example, on an issue like the minimum wage, almost two out of three people think it should be set at the state and local level. It kind of makes sense. New York City might need a different minimum wage than, you know, Boise, Idaho, right? And beyond that, I think there's an instinctive recognition that when you break it down that way, you let people to see what works. The experimentation, the laboratories of democracy can work. So giving choice between levels of government and letting governments compete is one thing.

on something like health insurance. It's suggesting that people ought to have a choice between low-cost insurance with less coverage and higher cost coverage, the coverage is about everything under the sun. Well, it's so fascinating, there's so many other issues that I want to ask you about. I do want to ask you one final question

because you were the co-founder of ESPN. Those early years, what was it like helping, you know, run ESPN during the 80s? Well, you know, for me, ESPN was an idea. We launched it with a $9,000 cash advance on a credit card. Wow. We were too stupid to know it couldn't be done. And within a year, Getty Oil funded $100 million and it was off and running.

And, you know, again, it was just, it was surreal, everything about it. And I look back, and I really do think a sense of it is, we just, didn't know it wasn't possible. There was just, we had the idea, we learned about the satellite distribution technology, which was as revolutionary then as the internet was 15 years later. We had the satellite capacity, we had an idea that there was a yearning for sports programming, and we believed in the idea so deeply that we were able to sell it. And then it just took off beyond anybody's imagination. Yeah, well there's never been anything like it. Scott Rasmussen, really appreciate

Appreciate your time today. Thank you. Have a great day. Are you looking for quick conservative policy solutions to current issues? Sign up for Heritage's weekly newsletter, The Agenda. In the Agenda, you will learn what issues Heritage Scholars on Capitol Hill are working on, what position conservatives are taking, and links to our in-depth research. The agenda also provides information on important events happening here at Heritage that you can watch online, as well as media interviews from our experts. Sign up for the agenda on heritage.org today.

So a group in Boston is planning to host a straight Pride parade, with the organizer Mark Shahati saying on Facebook that the plan date is August 31st. They've picked Brad Pitt as their mascot. John Hugo, president of Super Happy Fun America, which is, yes, the real name of the group organizing this, spoke to the CBS affiliate in Boston. We want people to be aware that there are not only one side to things. And there are a lot of people who are uncomfortable with some of the things that are going on in our country. And they're afraid to speak up.

So, Daniel, what do you think? Would you march in a straight pride parade? Well, that is getting quite ahead of the conversation, I think. I mean, you know, this is the question of what even is this? I really, that's kind of the key question. Well, I, okay, no, I would not march in a straight pride parade. But first, I just have to say, this is pretty great trolling of the city. The ingenious thing about it is that the city is not allowed to discriminate on the

basis of sexual orientation, which includes straight orientation. So they basically are threatening to sue the city of Boston saying if you don't sponsor us the same way you're sponsoring the gay pride parade, then we're going to sue you for discrimination, which is like pretty, pretty interesting. So initially the mayor was against it, but then was like, okay, okay, you're going to sue us. I mean, I think he's still against it, but I think he's not blocking it. Yeah, it looks like it might happen. So it's pretty interesting, interesting stuff. But I feel like Boston, at least the city's initial opposition to it, shows, like, why would you be opposed to this? Is there anything? Wait, are you serious? Why would you be opposed to it? No, like, why would they be

if gay pride is really all just about celebrating your particular individuality or achieving equality for everyone, then you shouldn't, in theory, be against, you know, celebrating your straight identity. But I think their opposition is. to that just shows that equality, quote-unquote, was never really about equality. It was about celebrating a particular kind of sexuality. That might be the case. And I would say that, like, I think in the interest of free speech, if, yeah, sexual orientation is a protected class, then absolutely Boston has to allow the straight pride parade and so should other metropolitan areas. I mean, I would say I'm a little bit torn on this one. I agree. It's brilliant trolling. Obviously,

the LGBT community, while I disagree with them on a lot of things. They certainly have faced both a hostile culture and hostile laws. That's not something for the most part the straight community has faced. But, you know, when I was sort of thinking about this, and I was trying to think about why, aside from trolling purposes, a straight pride parade made me really squeamish. And I was like, well, I don't like LGBT pride parades. Like, I don't think your sexuality should be the first and foremost thing about you, regardless of what your orientation is. But then I was also thinking about when I lived in New York, there was basically an ethnic parade every other weekend, maybe every weekend, you know,

the Puerto Ricans, the Brazilians, I don't know, a lot more. And I'm not opposed to those in the same way. And I was trying to think about what the difference is. Well, I think there is a difference there. So, like, I would, you know, I have a Welsh background. Davis is a Welsh name. Yeah, you and Hillary Clinton. I would totally go to the Welsh, you know, parade.

There has never been a Welsh parade in the United States. I know. Okay, this is all theoretical. but I would do that and I think there's a difference the difference is it's a subtle one but it's like on the one hand you've got a kind of dignified I think it's like dignity of being

like dignity of my heritage which is not focused on the self it's like a collective and there's a lot of history connected to it versus what I think when the parade is called pride no matter what kind of pride you're talking about

that just goes a bit far for me. You wouldn't go to a Welsh pride parade? No, I don't think pride is the right word. I mean, we talk about taking pride in our achievements or taking pride in our nation or something, but because when it's attached to a parade, it's just in my mind at least, this is a personal thing.

It's like, okay, this is a bit excessive and maybe narcissistic, and I just don't think that's healthy. Yeah, I mean, that's an interesting point, that it's focused on other people, and you could say, like, yeah, it's about your heritage, it's about your ancestors. I mean, I don't think I would ever participate in an Irish or Slovenian parade, but I also hate parades.

I mean, the gay pride folks might say that it's also about the gay community. But really what is, I mean, the gay community is focused on a particular kind of thing. Well, I think the bigger thing here, though, is, again, like, going back to the idea is, like, is your sexuality that important a part of yourself? And I feel like this has become such a thing, like, I love reading online advice columns. It's probably a bad habit. But you frequently get questions or someone will be like, oh, I'm married to a man and I've discovered that I'm bisexual, not by actually engaging in lesbian activities. Just they've decided. And should I come out as part of the queer community?

And it's like, you are not intending to cheat on your husband. Right. Why is being bisexual something that feels so important to you? Right. And I find that so interesting. And it just feels to me. I mean, maybe a somewhat controversial, but in the 90s, you know, a lot of Christian purity things got slammed for focusing so much on virginity as opposed to like the virtues of chastity. And it feels a little bit similar like the reduction of self.

Um, to that. So I mean, I just, I don't know. I just feel like we need to take sexuality less seriously. And maybe then we would have fewer 13 and 14 year olds freaking out about whether they're pansexual or bisexual or bisexual or gay or lesbian or transgender or whatever. Or like maybe just. Right, not as a category that defines your whole personhood. Right, especially when research shows that there is fluctuation among people over their lifespan. Like, it's not as black and white, I guess.

So I don't really understand why. Like, obviously who you choose to marry. But in order to open up this space for the gay lifestyle and for acceptance of that, they have to argue that it is fixed. That there is no evolution over your whole life. Because if it's just fluctuating, then it's like, oh, well, just. wait and see or, you know, why is it so important to you? Why not just go along with your own personal changes? But that's really core to the argument is that this is my nature, therefore. Well, and I think they're- And I think they kind of push that further than is, I mean,

I think different people show different tendencies, but I think they've pushed their case a bit far. Right. And I think that's something that the LGBT intellectual community is going to have to confront, which is not to say, I'm certainly not an expert in sexual-orientation. research, but my understanding is it may not be true. I'm not saying it's true of all people. I think some people do show a strong proclivity towards same-sex attraction. But I'm just saying studies have shown that other people are, I guess, bisexual or something technically, but it's like, how do you choose to actually live your life? Right. And that's sort of where it should come down in my view. But I don't know. I just, yeah, I mean. Well, the other thing I think is interesting about this is it

kind of gets into identity politics where you've got one group that is perceived to be a historically oppressed minority and now they are coming forward and celebrating their identity in response to this historic oppression so perceived. I mean, I mean legitimately, yeah. And so, but that like celebration of the minority identity is premised upon the historical oppression. But what happens if you have the next like hundred years of celebrating Pride Month. And kids are taught that pride is virtuous, that they should do this, and it becomes the standard thing. Like, then actually being straight would become the not the norm, right? It would become...

I think it would be hard for that to be not the norm. But yeah, I mean, I see your point. But what I'm saying is like that that's why this whole identity politics is so unstable because, you might have a different situation 100 years from now if you reinforce new norms. Yeah, but I mean the other thing is... And so I think that's where the straight pride thing is coming from because it's saying, you know, we're in Boston, we're already encouraged to like celebrate pride and everything and we're pressured against not celebrating it.

And so I think it's a reaction to that. Yeah, and I think that's something that in general identity politics people haven't grappled with enough. It's like if you keep promoting certain groups, but you don't promote the other groups that, you know, in this case, is both sexual orientation, that's not exactly fair. There might be reasons for it, but you might be causing more resentment at a certain point. I mean, obviously things on the LGBT front have moved very quickly, and I think it's safe to say that, you know, for the most part, this is not a persecuted minority these days in the United States. Obviously, worldwide, there's some different situations.

But anyway, we'll see what happens. Yeah, interesting stuff. I bet if this actually goes through, like, no one is going to show up. Yeah, and there would certainly, I don't think there would be any mainstream press coverage. The Washington Post is the one that first covered this. Really? I mean, he spoke to a Boston CBS affiliate. I'm not sure what their aim is in covering it, but.

Very interesting. Well, we will leave it there for today. Thanks for listening to the Daily Signal podcast brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation. Please be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or SoundCloud, and please leave us a review or rating on iTunes to give us feedback. Rob and Jenny, with you on Monday. Thank you. You've been listening to The Daily Signal podcast, executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis, sound design by Michael Gooden, Lauren Evans, and Thalia Rampersad. For more information, visitdailySignal.com.