monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Rasmussen regularly overstates Republicans. Gee, who'd guess? Has for years. questionable methodology.

Rasmussen Reports’ final White House Watch survey showed Democrat Hillary Clinton with a 2.0% Popular Vote lead over Republican Donald Trump.[56] After all 136+ million U.S. votes were counted, Hillary Clinton won the Popular Vote by 2.1%.[57] In a post-election commentary entitled "Issues Mattered After All," Rasmussen Reports’ Managing Editor wrote "The media created a false narrative about the 2016 presidential campaign, and most polling reinforced it. Controversy was the name of the media game, most of it focused on Republican Donald Trump, and many media outlets, most prominently the New York Times, and many pollsters were saying a little over a month ago that Democrat Hillary Clinton had already won. But the three daily tracking polls – the Los Angeles Times, IBD/TIPP, and Rasmussen Reports – consistently showed a much tighter race."[58] As in 2012 (see above), a Fordham University study by Dr. Costas Panagopoulos,[59] who once served in the office of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, compared pre-election polling with the results from Election Day. The study ranked 14 organizations but, unlike 2012, chose to omit the results of Rasmussen Reports.[60] An American Research Group study[61] based on the method of Martin, Traugott, and Kennedy,[62] found that Rasmussen Reports had the highest accuracy among 25 pollsters in the 2016 election.

I will acknowledge that the Politico story does strongly suggest an attempt to play on certain white voter's antipathy and fear of black. It shouldn't have been done, and if the numbers are a Politico suggests, it was noxious. It hardly demonstrates, though, a pattern of Trump or his supporters actively working to insult and marginalize African-Americans

Wiki says otherwise.

Time magazine has described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group."[87] The Washington Post called Rasmussen a "polarizing pollster."[88] John Zogby said that Scott Rasmussen has a "conservative constituency."[89] The Center for Public Integrity listed "Scott Rasmussen Inc" as a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign.[90] The Washington Post reported that the 2004 Bush re-election campaign had used a feature on the Rasmussen Reports website that allowed customers to program their own polls, and that Rasmussen asserted that he had not written any of the questions nor assisted Republicans.[72]

Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls.[91][92] Asking a polling question with different wording can affect the results of the poll;[93] the commentators in question allege that the questions Rasmussen ask in polls are skewed in order to favor a specific response. For instance, when Rasmussen polled whether Republican voters thought Rush Limbaugh was the leader of their party, the specific question they asked was: "Agree or Disagree: 'Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party—he says jump and they say how high.'"[92]

Talking Points Memo has questioned the methodology of Rasmussen's Presidential Approval Index, which takes into account only those who "strongly" approve or disapprove of the President's job performance. TPM noted that this inherently skews negative, and reported that multiple polling experts were critical of the concept.[43] A New York Times article claims Ramussen Reports research has a "record of relying on dubious sampling and weighting techniques."[94]

A 2017 article by Chris Cillizza for CNN raised doubts about Rasmussen's accuracy, drawing attention specifically to potential sampling biases such as the exclusion of calls to cell-phones (which, Cillizza argued, tended to exclude younger voters), and also more generally to a lack of methodological disclosure. Cillizza did, however, note in the same piece that Rasmussen was one of the more accurate polling organizations during the 2016 United States presidential election.[95]

Founder Scott Rasmussen is the author of a conservative book[96], and was a featured guest on a cruise by the conservative media outlet The National Review, along with other conservative luminaries.[97]

You're not aware that Scott Rasmussen no longer works for the org he established, Walter?

He left in 2013.

Your link also states as much, further down the page.

Or you can back it up with facts? Wiki says otherwise.

Senate Democrats expressed outrage Tuesday at reports that the head of Russia’s foreign intelligence service visited Washington recently despite being on a U.S. government blacklist that prohibits many dealings with him.

The Russian Embassy in Washington said via Twitter that Sergey Naryshkin, who heads the Russian intelligence agency known as the SVR, was in Washington last week for “consultations” with his American counterparts “on the struggle against terrorism.” The embassy cited a report in the state-controlled Russian news agency, Tass.

“This is a serious national security issue,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said. “Russia hacked our elections. We sanctioned the head of their foreign intelligence. Then the Trump administration invites him to waltz through our front door.”

Schumer and other Democrats suggested that Naryshkin’s visit may have influenced President Trump’s decision not to impose new sanctions on Russia before a deadline Monday. The administration instead released a list of more than 200 Russian officials, politicians and “oligarchs,” defined as people with a net worth of more than $1 billion — who it said could be penalized.

Schumer said the Trump administration should disclose with whom Naryshkin met in Washington, who accompanied him and what they discussed.

“Which other sanctioned Russian intelligence agency figures has the Trump administration let into our country and, most importantly, is his visit why the Trump administration decided to forgo sanctions?” Schumer asked.

Naryshkin, a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s, is one of several senior Russian military and intelligence officials, as well as business executives, who have been sanctioned by the Treasury Department as punishment for Russia’s actions in Ukraine, cyberattacks and meddling in the 2016 U.S. elections.

The sanctions mean any assets Naryshkin might have in the U.S. would be frozen and American persons and companies are prohibited from doing business with him.

A senior State Department official, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity, said that by reaching out to other countries, the administration had ruined “billions of dollars” worth of deals that some foreign capitals were conducting with Moscow.

The official said that this represented a “real loss of money” and that sanctions or the threat of sanctions could hurt Russia. The official would not specify which deals were frozen, which countries and companies were involved, nor say exactly how much money was involved.

I was just responding to your question

[and now the rest of the world is laughing at him .

Trump’s reception: 75% of Americans liked the SOTU.

Just read the fact checkers., and Trump did it again, as usual.. Bullshit.

His speech was also approved by the lowest percentage in the last twenty years, since polling on SOTU started. I think it's time we started talking about the failed Trump presidency.

Founder Scott Rasmussen is the author of a conservative book[96], and was a featured guest on a cruise by the conservative media outlet The National Review, along with other conservative luminaries.[97]

Trump lawyers say Mueller hasn't met the threshold for a presidential interview

President Trump's legal team believes special counsel Robert Mueller has not met the threshold that needs to be met to conduct a face-to-face interview with a president, according to a report.

Trump's attorneys believe Mueller and his prosecutors need to demonstrate that only the president can provide the information they seek, sources told CNN.

Trump’s lawyers are also allegedly examining a 1997 federal court ruling that could postpone, limit, or sidestep an interview with Mueller, according to the Wall Street Journal, because it could prevent Trump from revealing details about his decision-making process and official actions.

Winners and losers from Trump's State of the Union address

WINNERS

Strength metaphors

Trump's illusion of unity

Steve Scalise

Tax cuts

LOSERS

The truth

Brevity

The deep state

Bipartisanship

Immigration reform

As Deficit Soars Toward $1 Trillion, Congress Shrugs and Keeps Spending

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin urged Congress on Tuesday to raise the federal government’s statutory borrowing limit and said Washington must soon grapple with the mounting federal debt, just as lawmakers are embarking on a significant spending spree.