Category: polling

Opinion Polling and a Conservative View from the NY Post

Cuckservatives.
To summarize:
1. Supporting amnesty is a good thing for the GOP nomination.
2. Side implication: getting the GOP nomination is more important than the well-being of the American people.
3. The most important thing for a GOP candidate is winning that small fraction of the vote that is “Latino.”  White voters can be taken for granted and simply ignored.
4. The popularity of Trump – wrongly perceived by the electorate as being anti-immigration – has no bearing whatsoever. Rigged “opinion polls” should be listed to instead.
5. One should follow the lead of McCain in these matters, who, after all, did so well in the 2008 general election, and who got re-elected in Arizona only after dishonestly tricking gullible White Arizonans to think he was “tough on illegal immigration” by squinting into the camera and muttering about “build the damn fence.”
Some realities:
1. Opinion polls do not exist to measure opinion. They exist to CREATE opinion. Combine a deceptively worded question, with a (in reality) non-random poll sample, with a deceptive “interpretation” of the “data,” and you get the “spin” that influences the conformist sheeple to go along with the program.
Polling questions on “immigration reform” that I have seen tend to emphasize enforcement, and couch language about amnesty in tough terms, usually counter-posed with some straw man alternative. Support for strict enforcement coupled with “hard-love” legalization is then equated to a “pro-amnesty” position.
The following would be typical:
Do you support immigration reform that would, once and for all, forever and ever, enforce immigration law, close the borders, end all illegal immigration, 100% permanently, coupled with allowing illegals presently in the country to stay if they pay a fine of ten million dollars apiece, speak English better than a British butler, and graduate from Harvard with a medical degree, OR do you support herding up all illegal aliens, killing them, and turning them into Soylent Green?
If more than 50% of Republican voters choose the “support immigration reform” option then that is construed as support for amnesty. Well done!
2. The current enthusiasm for Trump, and pitifully low numbers for Jeb and Miss Lindsey casts a pall over the chances of a GOP victory in 2016. Assuming the establishment will never let Trump be nominated, and given that the establishment would like to foist a pro-amnesty candidate, optimally Jeb, on us, this suggests that the base will be so “turned off” and unenthused in the general election that the Democrats could run a donkey as their candidate and still win. The base despises Jeb and pink-frilled Graham and the rest of the amnesty freaks.

Questions on Polling

Trump.
“Opinion polls” tell us that the majority of Americans – including a majority of Republicans – wholeheartedly support illegal alien amnesty. That’s the drumbeat of news reporting on a weekly basis.
If that is so, if that is true, then why do other polls tell us that Donald Trump has risen so sharply as a candidate among Republican voters after making strong remarks against illegal aliens, remarks that the usual suspects complain are “offensive?”
You’d think the opposite should be true, no?  
I don’t watch “FOX” or read any mainstream conservative papers, but I wonder if any of those conservative sell-outs have even noticed this inconsistency. The reality is of course that opinion polls on controversial subjects are designed to create opinion, not measure it.
All you need to do is (1) craft the questions in such a way as to lead the polling subjects to the desired answers, (2) pick a polling sample which is as non-representative as possible and skewed in favor of the desired answers. and (3) report the results in a breathless and misleading manner.
Given the most folks are conformist sheep, hearing that others allegedly believe “X,Y,Z” will make these folks also inclined toward “X,Y,Z.”  The same principle holds with news reporting, editorials, etc. Jeb Bush has been created into a “front runner” by virtue of the mass media repeatedly reporting him as such, even before he officially announced a candidacy.  It’s the “jump on the bandwagon” herd mentality. As another example: ever wonder why, in election time, people put signs on their lawns and stickers on their cars proclaiming their adherence to a candidate?  What’s the purpose?  Simple: to create the sense to the lemming observer that “hey, lots of people are supporting this person, that’s what everyone is doing, they must be right and good, so I had better support the candidate myself.” Why else spend the time and money on something so stupid?
As well: let’s assume for the moment that opinion polls (at least sometimes) do reflect public opinion. What does that tell us about the public that their opinions on major issues and personalities are so fickle and can be so easily swayed by recent events and propaganda? It always amazes me when a President’s approval ratings move up and down so quickly, based on some sort of recent event or speech.  Don’t the people being polled have any convictions whatsoever?  For example, imagine a President who represents everything a person opposes, whose actions and speeches work against that person’s interests. You’d expect that such a person would, when polled, give the President a rating of “disapproval.”  Why then should that suddenly change a month later to “approval” because “the economy grew by 0.001% this quarter” or “employment rates increased by 0.25%” or something or other happened which does not in any material way change the underlying reality of what is happening? 
And some people still support “democracy?”