Which polling firms showed 'right track' versus 'wrong track' in December 2025 and how do their methodologies differ?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
In December 2025, national "right track/wrong track" questions trended toward "wrong track" in most mainstream, large‑sample polls but showed higher "right track" readings in at least one long‑running private tracker; major differences trace to sample frame (registered/likely voters vs. adults), mode (telephone/live interviewer, online panels, mixed), weighting and question timing. Reuters/Ipsos, Civiqs, Marist and Morning Consult reported pluralities or majorities saying the country was on the wrong track in the period around December 2025, while Rasmussen’s tracker showed notably stronger "right direction" readings in some weeks (and is separately documented as using mixed phone/online methods and proprietary likely‑voter models) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. December snapshot: which firms showed "wrong track" versus "right track"
Large probability‑based and high‑sample‑size polls in late 2025 predominantly recorded "wrong track" majorities: Reuters/Ipsos (KnowledgePanel®) reported 49% "wrong track" vs. 34% "right direction" in February but their large‑sample approach and subsequent reporting show continued plurality "wrong" sentiment through 2025 trends [1], Civiqs’ national registered‑voter tracking displayed roughly 58% "wrong" and 36% "right" through late November into December [2], Marist reported 64% off track and 35% right in December in its reporting (drawing on multi‑mode polling) [3], and Morning Consult’s tracker averaged about 39% right direction in early December—meaning a majority or plurality were still "wrong track" in aggregate [4]. By contrast, Rasmussen’s December weekly/ nightly tracker at times showed roughly 41% of likely voters saying the country was heading in the right direction in a week ending Dec. 11, 2025, and Rasmussen has been highlighted for producing higher “right track” readings in pockets of 2025 [5] [6]. Reporting aggregators such as Ballotpedia and independent aggregates also emphasize variation across pollsters and the persistence of "wrong track" majorities in many reputable polls [7] [8].
2. Methodological fault lines that explain disagreement
Differences map to three concrete methodological axes: sampling frame, mode/panel source, and weighting/likely‑voter screens. Reuters/Ipsos used a probability‑based KnowledgePanel® and a large representative sample (n≈4,125 in the February release) that aims to mirror the U.S. adult population and reported 49% wrong vs. 34% right [1]. Civiqs and Morning Consult are tracking services that rely on large, often online panels and daily aggregation of registered or likely voter samples, with Civiqs showing 58% wrong [2] and Morning Consult reporting gender and income splits that influence aggregated "right" averages [4]. Marist used a multi‑mode design (live phone, text, online) and reported 64% wrong in December [3]. Rasmussen’s tracker combines telephone and online measurement, focuses on “likely voters,” and supplements with its proprietary weighting—choices that have historically produced more favorable “right direction” results for Republicans at points in 2025 [5] [6]. Ballotpedia and other aggregators flag that poll inclusion criteria (probability vs. non‑probability, panel management) affect comparability [7].
3. How those methodological choices change answers
Sampling frame shifts the baseline: adult samples tend to show more pessimism than likely‑voter screens in some periods, and registered vs. likely voter definitions move percentages several points [7] [4]. Mode effects matter because live interviewer or mixed‑mode surveys (Marist, Reuters/Ipsos) can reduce self‑selection bias compared with pure opt‑in online panels that some trackers use [3] [1] [2]. Weighting and likely‑voter models can amplify partisan skews—Rasmussen’s nightly tracking and subscriber business model are transparent about their methods and have produced atypically higher “right track” readings at times, a pattern noted in coverage [5] [6]. Aggregation and timing also shift the narrative: short‑term events (shutdowns, policy shocks) produce volatility captured in high‑frequency trackers like Morning Consult and Civiqs [4] [2].
4. Why the disagreement matters — and where the reporting limits are
The practical consequence is that headline “right” vs. “wrong” claims depend on which poll or aggregator is cited: citing Rasmussen’s likely‑voter weekly number yields a substantially more optimistic portrait than citing Reuters/Ipsos, Civiqs or Marist adult/registered‑voter figures [5] [1] [2] [3]. Aggregators such as Ballotpedia stress averaging to reduce single‑poll idiosyncrasies, yet they also caution about methodology differences that remain unresolved by simple averaging [7]. Reporting limitations include the lack of a single, unified December 2025 snapshot in the supplied sources (many reports span varying windows), and exact day‑by‑day polling tables for all named firms in December 2025 are not fully present in these excerpts; therefore, readers should treat specific percentages as tied to each poll’s field dates and sample definitions [1] [2] [5].
5. Bottom line
Most high‑quality, probability‑based and multi‑mode polls in late 2025 showed Americans more likely to say the country was on the wrong track; a notable outlier pattern came from Rasmussen’s likely‑voter‑focused tracker that reported comparatively stronger “right direction” numbers—differences that are best explained by sampling frame (adults/registered/likely), mode (panel vs. live interviewer), and weighting/likely‑voter screens rather than a single shift in public mood [1] [2] [3] [5] [4].