Do Polls Report Opinion – Or Shape it?

by Phil Erwin 

The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll ostensibly “proves” Americans think the meeting between Trump campaign principals and a Russian “agent” was “inappropriate.” Not coincidentally, that same poll reports President Trump’s approval rating has dropped to a record low 36%.

But what does such mathematical “disapproval” really tell us?

To begin with: The poll reports the opinions of only 1001 adults. That’s sampling just three people in every million! How sure can we be that those few opinions accurately measure how all Americans feel?

Statisticians and pollsters insist that the math is sound; that such polls can accurately and consistently be extrapolated to reflect the true sentiments of We, the People.

Oh, yeah? Remember Brexit? And “President-Elect Hillary”?

Color me skeptical. And by the way, this particular poll seems always to sample 1001 people. A peculiar number. Is it always the same 1001 people? Were they pre-screened, so as to “properly” reflect the views that ABC and the Post want to reflect? Of course, they’d deny that and assure us that their poll samples are “completely random.” But why should we believe that? I’m pretty sure polls are now conducted using automated dialing. How sure can we be that the software doing the dialing might not be hacked, from within or without, in order to guarantee that the same numbers are always called? As an ex-programmer, I assure you, this could be done, while hiding the subterfuge behind a fraudulent call log.

Auto-dial polls are so hack-able, the media outlets running the polls might not even know that the samples are jury-rigged. And if they want to doctor their own samples, it could be hidden such that nobody ever discovers it.

For all we know, ABC and the Post actually have a team of 1001 “opinion consultants” receiving checks every month for “monitoring” their own phones on polling days “just in case” their “expertise” is needed.

But let’s step away from that disturbing possibility, and just presume that those samples really and truly are random, and actually do represent a fair cross-section of America. Would that guarantee the poll results accurately reflect true American attitudes and values?

Or does it simply reflect precisely what the Media have worked to convince Americans is true?

Let’s think about this.

The Media have spent months suggesting… actually, proclaiming – that Donald Trump, Jr. had an “illicit” meeting with a Russian government “agent.” The implication is that in this meeting: Secrets were divulged, monies were paid, favors were promised, and the youngest daughters of all Americans were traded to the KGB as sexual slaves to sate the appetites of the Kremlin’s most trusted…

OK, I’m exaggerating. But it is absolutely true that the Lamestream Media and all the Democrat mouthpieces they can muster for camera shots have insisted that Trump, Jr. met with a Russian “agent.” Now, think about that. Why don’t they call her a “lawyer,” or a “lobbyist,” which would be accurate?  Why call her an “agent”, which is not a known fact?

Answer: Because the word “agent” implies that she’s a spy, working for Russia, suggesting her intentions are nefarious, and any American meeting with her must be a traitor!

That’s a lot of collusion they can imply with one single, emotion-charged, misdirecting word.

And misdirecting is precisely what this whole Russian “collusion” thing is all about.

I question whether a single Democrat in D.C. actually believes that the Trump campaign “colluded” with the Russians. But it doesn’t matter what they believe. What matters is that they convince the Liberal Lapdog Press to convince you of it.

Because if they can convince you, and your phone number is on that list of 1001 people to ask, “Do you believe it was ‘appropriate’ for the Trump campaign to meet with Russian government ‘agents’ ” – Just what do you think you’ll say?

Will you respond, “Sure, it was a stand-up meeting, at which American interests were well-served!”

Or will you say just what you’ve been programmed to say? “No, it was wholly inappropriate for Trump to meet with them, and it might have been illegal – even Treasonous!”

Tim Caine (that Guy-Who-Would-Be-Veep, if only he’d signed on with somebody that actually knew how to win a campaign!) trotted out the T-word like a haughty housefrau.

(Does he understand he’s actually advocating for Don Junior’s death? For a twenty-minute meeting in which no information was transmitted Way to keep it real, Senator.)

It is said that the Democrat powers-that-be met the day after Hillary got her backside booted and vowed to dedicate themselves to preventing the Trump Administration from getting anything accomplished. I don’t know whether that’s true, but it’s certainly plausible. The Senate slow-walking all nominations; the incessant court cases challenging Trump’s Presidential authority to set immigration policy; the refusal of Democrats in Congress to even talk with Republican legislators, much less work with them – all smack of a conspiracy to obstruct.

But Democrats know they wouldn’t get away with pure obstructionism, unless the Lapdog Press were ready to support that effort as “principled” and “heroic,” rather than “cynical” and “un-American.” Nor can Democrats maintain an obstructionist stance if the polling starts to reflect public disapproval.

But Democrats also know they “own” the national polling mechanism, just as they own the Media outlets that pay for polls and publish them. And Democrats understand the true value of polls, which lend credence and weight to whatever lies the Lamestream Media have been feeding you.

Polls tell Democrats when their lies are working, and when it’s time to come up with new lies.

So if you want Democrats to succeed in their plan to bring the Nation’s business to a standstill, give away all the nation’s wealth to people who aren’t supposed to be here, and jeopardize the very existence of your country, then by all means: Answer that phone, and tell ABC that you actually believe the BS Democrats are peddling like the inveterate snake-oil salesmen they truly are.

If you like your plan, you can keep your plan! If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor! Your premiums will go down by $2500! The cost curve of healthcare will bend down!” Yeah. And Benghazi was all about a video, Iran will never get a nuke, and Hillary never broke the law when she kept classified information on her own server, destroyed government computers, and deleted 33,000 e-mails that American taxpayers legally owned.

Snake-oil.

Too bad it’s not 150 proof. The old stuff wouldn’t cure what ailed you, but at least it felt pretty good goin’ down.

Phil Erwin is an author, IT administrator and registered Independent living in Newbury Park. He would like to support some Democrat ideals, but he has a visceral hatred for Lies and Damn Lies (and is highly suspicious of Statistics.) That pretty much eliminates supporting most Democrats, and a bunch of Republicans to boot.


Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments