Political Upsets, Political Polling, and Advocacy

NoRINOsThumbby Jerry Richardson   6/11/14
Dave Brat ‘upsets’ Republican House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor in the Virginia Republican primary. Wow! What should we make of that?

There are numerous conclusions that could be drawn. Including:

The Republican establishment has scorned, rather than considered, political input from the Tea Party movement, and has just been chastised for their refusal to listen. True.

There are a growing number of Republicans who are disgusted with the groveling approach—John Boehner being a leading groveler—taken by many congressional Republicans in the face of the lawlessness of Barack Obama and the Democrat party.  True.

There are a large number of Republicans who are tired of two-faced footsy-playing (with the Democrats) designed to legislate a path to amnesty for illegal aliens.  Eric Cantor has been a major footsy-player, and that contributed materially to his defeat.  True.

“A narrator urges voters to “stop Eric Cantor’s liberal deal-making” and to “term-limit Eric Cantor and save the country from reckless spending and amnesty for illegals by voting for Dave Brat.”
His [Eric Cantor’s] campaign website makes no mention of his past support for amnesty on his website, even though Cantor was one of the leaders behind the House GOP’s immigration principles in which they declared that one of the “founding principles of our country was that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their parents.” If that is indeed one of the “founding principles,” then Congress would essentially have to award perpetual amnesty to the children of illegal immigrants.”  REFERENCE1

In short, many conservative Republicans are probably tired of RINOs (Republican in Name Only); but they are certainly very, very weary of CINOs (Conservative in Name Only). True.

All of the above conclusions are important.

But a conclusion that I wish to discuss is that the ‘Cantor upset’ is also a long-overdue smack-down given to arrogant politicians for inept, or dishonest, polling—a smack-down for touting embarrassingly wrong poll results:

The only poll that matters … it’s true — the only poll that matters is the one on Election Day. Eric Cantor proved that last night, much to his chagrin, after his campaign bragged last week about an internal poll showing him up 34 points against his primary challenger, Dave Brat. Despite being outspent 25:1 in the primary — that’s not a typo, but twenty-five to one — Brat prevailed by beating Cantor by eleven points in an unusually high turnout.” REFERENCE2

Why does this happen; why do we see such extremely misleading poll results?

The ostensible primary motive for political polling is to get an accurate picture of the political landscape relative to a particular candidate or candidates or relative to certain political issues.

But, there is usually a very strong secondary motive: The motive to obtain information that can be used to propagandize voters—either to encourage supporters or discourage the opposition. After all, in the minds of the elite, us plebeians “can’t handle the truth.”

Political polling is often touted as being ‘scientific’ and yet polling is conducted, in many cases, with obvious biases such as (questionable random sampling, leading (biased) poll questions, as well as questionable interpretations of the results).

When pollsters, who initiate polling, are intently seeking the answer they want—bingo—they often find that answer. Political-polling, is very susceptible to the biases of the person(s) conducting the poll.

Political polls have become another tool used by politicians and the established media to propagandize voters—so, almost daily, polls are published by so-called ‘news organizations’ because the organizations have become nothing more than advocates for certain political parties or political candidates.

The American public has shown a growing distrust of advocacy-news.

Trust-levels for the established-media have been recently quantified and show that MSNBC is far less trusted, with 5%, than Fox News with 25%:

“The most-trusted name in news for all Americans is, unsurprisingly, Fox News, which also has the highest ratings by far in the industry. Broadcast news — the three networks — come in a close second, with CNN a more distant third place. However, the “honor” of being the least-trusted name in news, in practically every demographic, is MSNBC, a subsidiary of NBC News — which ranks below Jon Stewart among all but Democrats.” REFERENCE3

MSNBC is paying a price (in lost viewers and reputation) for being an unusually dishonest advocacy-organization (everyone is a racist who questions anything Barack Obama says or does, just ask Al Sharpton).

MSNBC has become a shameless extension of Barack Obama’s PR efforts, and they continue to doubled-down on their efforts to champion Obama’s on-going war of destruction on America.

My intent here is not to jeer at MSNBC or to cheer for Fox News (there is plenty not to cheer for).

My intent is simply to underscore the fact that blatant journalist dishonesty, endemic advocacy, and outright incompetence have not gone unnoticed by the American people.  For that we can be grateful.

Undoubtedly many people are doing what I do: Obtaining most of their news from online sources that have demonstrated a commitment to being an honest broker of news and opinions.

The loss of trust in propagandizing-organizations (who masquerade as news agencies) is overdue and well deserved.  One of my all-time favorite bumper-stickers remains:

I don’t trust the liberal media.

As for political ‘upsets’, let us hope for many more ‘upsets’ in the arenas of advocacy-news and political polling.

And let us hope for a resurgence of professional journalists to replace many that we currently have: The many political hacks that constitute a revolving stable of advocates for progressive ideology—waiting and hoping that their advocacy-efforts will gain them notice and win them a call to work for the Obama administration (or whoever is the next progressive).

We need truthful professional journalists, who are unwilling to lie and spin the facts.

We have had too many non-journalists (ideological advocates) cut in the mold of Jay Carney.

© 2014, Jerry Richardson • (829 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Political Upsets, Political Polling, and Advocacy

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Yes, it won’t be long before Jay Blarney goes “back” to “objective” journalism. (And indeed it is “objective” in Liberal Newspeak, where everything good translates to “agrees with me” and everything bad translates to “opposes me”). Of course, as a regular reader of HotAir, I recognized a couple of your references already.

    Incidentally, have you noticed that Chris Matthews lately has been acting reasonable at least on occasion? It’s as if he had brain surgery removing some sort of cancer that had been warping his judgment (such as it ever has been) for years (probably ever since Barry Zero became the likely Democratic presidential candidate in 2008).

    One good example of a dishonest poll dishonestly reported came last night, when an exit poll in Virginia (or at least the 7th CD) found that voters overwhelmingly favor immigration reform that involves border security and a path to legalization over mass deportation (which no one actually proposes). Of course, no proposed “reform” bill provides genuine security; they all pretend to, but never condition any legalization on prior achievement of reliable security (which, given the commitment of the Beltway Bandits of both sides to mass immigration whether legal or illegal, businesses to keep wages down and Democrats to bring in lots of [eventual] new voters, is the only way to accomplish it). Sometimes they just ask people if they favor some sort of unspecified immigration reform — and who doesn’t favor something?

    This can be seen elsewhere with polls of scientists who believe in CAGW. They never actually ask that; they ask if the scientists believe that global warming exists (i.e., if the Earth has warmed at all since the end of the Little Ice Age) and if mankind makes any contribution (however minor) to it. They never ask if they expect warming to continue to catastrophic levels and is primarily anthropogenic.

    But, as you note, the purpose isn’t to learn and inform, its to propagandize. That’s why I generally refer to journalists as “newsliars”.

  2. David Ray says:

    Saw an interesting bumper sticker.

    “The first amendment gives freedom of the press.
    It doesn’t give freedom to lie.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *