A lot of experts feel that fear is a great way to control the masses. One can see the logic in that when some thought is put on it. There is quite a bit of information out there that would easily support this claim. Many laws are passed that take away a person individuals liberties all for the sake of feeling safe. There are many means of control. One of these major ways to control a group of people could well be a deadly disease or virus.
Certain actions, though not similar, can bring about the same or similar reaction in people as a whole. Terror has been used, real or fake, to create a sense of fear and urgency as well as uncertainty in order to push an agenda whether it be war or martial law. Over the last few decades, we have been hit with a handful of new pathogens or viruses that cause the average person a lot of stress and fear of one’s own life. We had sars, bird flu, swine flu, ebola and now we have to face the coronavirus.
Three months ago, there was a simulation of a coronavirus outbreak. A staged pandemic drill. It’s not so bad that they had a drill, it’s just the timing of that is suspicious. This event was carried out by the World Economic Forum. Yet another organization that most humans haven’t even heard of but powerful world leaders and leaders of industry and entertainment congress and make plans on things and issues which concern everybody all without including the average citizen. John Hopkins University and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were in attendance. It was called Event 201 and was focused on the coronavirus. The scenario was played out in which the virus spread into South America and would be blamed on animal to human transmission. They estimate 65 million deaths worldwide. Human freedom would almost certainly be dead. Event 201 was executed exactly how the outbreak is currently taking place. At this time, they are claiming that Wuhan, China is ground zero for the outbreak and that the eating of bats and snakes led to the coronavirus epidemic. But, coincidentally there are biohazard laboratories in Wuhan. It’s possible that the bug could have been miss-handled and gotten out of a lab or maybe it was purposely let out.
These people that belong to this Economic World Forum also belong to the infamous one percent. They are the same people that supported eugenics and world depopulation. This meeting was held in Davos, Switzerland. Currently, there are over 71,000 cases around the world with 99% of them being in China. The virus has claimed 1,776 lives. 11,147 people have recovered for the coronavirus infection. It’s said to have an 83% infection rate and a 17% fatality rate. Is this disease naturally occurring or is there something a lot more nefarious taking place right under our noses? Some feel that maybe President Trump hand something to do with this outbreak specifically to destabilize China. Social experimenting could be taking place just as well. The perfect test group would be people stranded on ocean liners under quarantine.
Can a killer bug just pop out of nowhere? Chemical and biological warfare has been used in military battles for centuries. A bug like the coronavirus could be of interest to many who may stand to benefit financially or militarily for its use as a biological weapon or to get a pharmaceutical drug on the market. Also, consider the fact that Bill Gates is all about population reduction and is part of a mock pandemic international exercise. Bill Gates comes from a line of eugenicists. This should raise a red flag but most people don’t truly understand Bill Gates’s agenda. He’s no humanitarian.
Not only is the information coming from China is being doctored but this whole thing may be manufactured, including the coronavirus itself. Did this outbreak start with people eating certain animals or is it due to scientific negligence? Maybe this is China being used as a testing site or was the virus created as a new form of bioweapon? These are some of the possible pieces of the puzzle. We have to put the pieces together.
I am not a conspiratorial theory-type. But if I was, I might suspect that former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is Republican secret agent – a sort of Manchurian candidate – programmed to wreck the Democratic Party and get President Trump re-elected.
Of course, he is not. But he could not do more to ensure the defeat of the eventual Democrat candidate for President. – no matter who it is.
For generations, Democrats have promoted the belief that all those corporate fat cats were Republicans. That is why they complained about political donations from evil Wall Street. If there ever was the personification of what Democrats claimed to hate, it is Michael Bloomberg – a mega-billionaire willing to spend a fortune to buy his way into the White House.
While billionaire businessman Tom Steyer exposed a bit of Democrat hypocrisy as the Party leaders embraced both Steyer’s politics and money, Daddy Warbucks Bloomberg eliminates any pretense that Democrats are concerned about corporate money and those Wall Street one-percenters who control it.
They may be critical of him as a competitor, but not his money in principle. Senator Elizabeth Warren said Bloomberg should withdraw from the race but encouraged him to then use his billions to help Democrats get elected.
On the issue of money-in-politics, Bloomberg takes the onus off Republicans and makes the Democrats look bad.
However, that is small potatoes, as they say, compared to the damage Bloomberg is doing by running for President. While he claims to be most concerned that socialist Bernie Sanders might actually get the Democrat nomination for President, Bloomberg’s campaign is making that prospect more and more likely every day.
Bloomberg clearly further splinters the anti-Sanders vote. Entering the race was bad enough. But Bloomberg brought to the campaign more than enough money to guarantee a bloc of delegates – despite skipping the first four primaries.
Bloomberg’s initial strategy was based on arrogance and hubris. It was to put so much money in the race that folks like Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar would immediately suspend their campaigns and yield the road to Milwaukee to Bloomberg.
That is a simplistic theory, and there is no assurance that all the Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar voters would go for Bloomberg. It is arguable that a large percentage – even a majority of black and Hispanic voters in the so-called moderate camp — could switch to Sanders.
Since the moderates have not dropped out, Bloomberg has initiated Plan Two – to force a brokered convention in which he could more secretively buy the nomination. That, of course, would make the Democrat presidential nomination a jump ball between him and Sanders.
That is how Bloomberg will destroy any chance Democrats have of beating Trump. Imagine a nation facing the prospect of four more years of President Trump – by all measure a fairly successful President despite his abrasive and pugnacious personality – and either the radical socialist or the American oligarch as the other option.
If Sanders was the nominee, he has already said that Bloomberg’s money would be unwelcomed – and even Bloomberg seems to believe that no amount of money would overcome Sanders’ political vulnerabilities. He is probably correct.
If Sanders is kicked to the side at the convention and Bloomberg emerges as the Democrat standard bearer, no amount of money would get all those angry and bitter Sanders’ supporters to the polling places. They would more likely be in the streets protesting. It could be 1968 all over again.
One young Sanders supporters told me that if the Democrat establishment rigs the race against Sanders again, she and her friends will vote FOR Trump to punish the Democrat establishment. That may be just be anecdotal – just talk — but it does sound credible. And if she and her friends did that, there definitely would be others.
Bloomberg has the reputation as an intelligent man – but you have to wonder. Is he clueless of the damage he is doing to the Democrats – maybe even irreparable at this point – and the benefit his candidacy is providing to Trump? The only explanation that makes sense is the blindness of arrogance.
So, there ‘tis.
The drama concerning political consultant and Trump crony Roger Stone took another decisive turn on Thursday as U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson sentenced the 67 year old lobbyist to 3-years in prison, for allegedly lying and witness tampering.
The sentence was considerably less, then the recommended 7 to 9 years sought by federal prosecutors, who apparently had a personal vendetta against the flamboyant GOP political pundit.
Moreover, the trial itself was marred by a number of improprieties; the most telling concerned the jury selection allowed by Judge Jackson, in which an individual with an obvious political bias was cleared to sit on the jury to decide whether Stone was innocent or guilty of the charges.
Prior to sentencing, Fox’s senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano weighed in on the controversy surrounding the case, reminding viewers how Judge Jackson presided over the trial by refusing a second request by the defense team, after it was discovered that a key juror had lied on the questionnaire regarding any political predispositions or biases.
Napolitano concluded that “only a pardon can fairly undo this mess.”
Adding, “This is not about politics and it’s not about friendship, it’s about the Constitution and human decency.”
When asked what should happen on Thursday, Napolitano said, “The judge should interrogate this foreperson about her biases against the President.”
The 69 year old senior judicial analyst also concluded that “The judge should interrogate the departed prosecutors about what they knew about this foreperson and when they knew it and why they quit. And then determine whether or not the integrity of Stone’s trial was adversely affected by this juror. It seems inconceivable that it was not.”
Napolitano was referring to the highly unusual mass resignations by the 4-DOJ prosecutors, who apparently became angry at having their putative sentencing of 87 to 108 months rejected by Attorney General Barr.
The outrageous recommendation by the prosecutors sparked a brief dust-up between the President and the Attorney General, who complained during an interview that the President was making his job difficult.
As for Tomeka Hart, a former Memphis City Schools Board President who acknowledged her dislike for the President through a series of anti-Trump social media posts, to be awarded a position of foreperson on the jury that convicted Stone is outrageous.
Even more mind-bogging Hart actually posted on social media specifics about the Stone case, before she was selected to sit on the jury, breaking every tenet of confidentiality imaginable. Moreover, once it was discovered she violated a court ruling, a “mistrial” should have immediately followed, along with the Democratic activist being held in contempt
The question of whether the President will pardon Stone is almost a certainty, during a brief Q&A session with reporters the day before Stone was sentenced; the President was asked if he intended to pardon his long time friend.
The President responded, “I think it’s very tough what they did to Roger Stone, compared to what they do to other people on their side. I think it’s very tough. I think it’s a very tough situation that they did something like that.
Adding, “I’ve known Roger over the years. He’s a nice guy. A lot of people like him. And he got very – he got hit very hard, as did former White House National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and as did a lot of other people. They got hit very, very hard. And now they’re finding out it was all a big hoax. They’re finding out it was a horrible thing. It was – we were spied on – my campaign was spied on.”
Don’t be surprised that before Stone actually sets foot in a jail cell, he’ll be pardoned, to the chagrin of the rabid left.
The sky is falling again. The wolf is at the gate. The American Republic is about to crash. President Trump is the greatest threat to American democracy since King George III tried to take back the colonies in the War of 1812.
At least in the latest fearmonger campaign concocted by the Democrats and implemented by the public relations agency of CNN, MSNBC & Co. Several previous attempts to bring down President Trump — with variations on mendacious narratives that Vladimir Putin is Trump’s number one backer – have failed. And now we have yet another. This one due to a claim by one of the intelligence bureaucrats that the Russians are helping Trump – for a second time according to the left’s pernicious narrative.
Before dealing with the current re-packaging of the old propaganda, we should look back down that twisted trail to see how it all evolved.
American intelligence agencies discovered that Russian operatives were using social media to meddle in the 2016 General Election. This was reported to then-President Obama – whose initial response was to privately tell Vlad not to do that anymore. The finger shaking diplomacy was to no avail.
In retrospect, even Obama aides later admitted that a public condemnation tied to sanctions would have been more appropriate and more effective. Obama did impose some mild sanctions and booted the Ruskies out of some facilities in Maryland where covert operations were said to be taking place.
In those early days, it was widely reported by the intelligence community – and by President Obama – that the Russian meddling did not affect the outcome of the election. In fact, some of the meddling was harmful to Trump. Some was just to cause grassroots friction – especially in the area of race relations.
While the Trump campaign was peripheral to Russian meddling, Democrats and their media pals slowly twisted the narrative to suggest that Russian meddling was not only SOLELY to secure the election of Donald Trump, but that Trump, his family and his campaign aides were actively conspiring with the Russians.
Democrats and biased bureaucrats subjected the nation to a two-year investigation in which the assured we the people that Special Counsel Robert Mueller would most certainly find that Trump had conspired with the Russians. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff even reported that he had seen conclusive evidence. Schiff’s lie was exposed when Mueller have Trump a clear and complete exoneration of the accusations.
Having failed in that effort, the #NeverTrump Resistance Movement put the nation through a divisive impeachment process that was the most partisan in American history — and the first in which there was no underlying statutory crime.
House Speaker Pelosi broke tradition by putting Schiff and his intelligence committee in the fore of the impeachment investigation – a departure from the role of the Judiciary Committee to conduct any impeachments. Pelosi did not trust Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler to do a good job. He was the bull in the china shop compared to the slick talking Schiff.
As expected, the impeachment was foredoomed in the Senate. The ending of that movie was already known. And as some had predicted, the impeachment appears to have increased Trump’s favorability rating.
The twice debunked narrative of Trump conspiring with the Russians is now being resurrected once again – with all the hyperbole and sensationalism that only the left-wing media can provide. They hope to ride that dead horse to victory in the upcoming election.
The news of the day that has gotten the media cabal all excited is a report in the New York Times (where else?) that Trump replaced the head of national intelligence supposedly because a member of the intel staff reported to Schiff’s committee that the Russians were now meddling in the 2020 election to get Trump re-elected.
What facts to support that theory are yet unknown. But Trump’s enemies are declaring that he replaced his intel chief with the current ambassador to Germany because he was enraged that such a communication would be presented to Schiff’s committee without his knowledge. Trump expressed concern that Schiff would weaponize that information – true or not – to be used against the President – and that seems to be exactly what is happening.
It is not an unreasonable concern. Traditionally, the Intelligence Committee has stayed away from partisanship. That ended when Pelosi made the Intelligence Committee the most politically partisan legislative body within Congress. She did so by assigning the impeachment to Schiff and his band of rabid Democrats.
While Democrats say that it is part of the process for the intel community to brief Congress, someone seemed to skip the interim step – telling the President of the United States. Remember it was Obama who got the word first about Russian meddling -– before Congress. In fact, Congress was never informed until Obama went public with the information.
The President has every right to distrust Schiff and the Democrats on the Intelligence Committee. After all, they are the ones that undertook that unjustified impeachment. It was shamefully carried out for no other reason than to damage Trump’s reputation and historic record.
Why Trump’s intelligence officials would run off to Congress without informing the boss first is yet to be explained. But that alone seems to be more than just cause for a few heads to roll.
As to what the Russians might be doing, only time will tell. But a healthy measure of skepticism would be well advised before we follow Schiff & Co. down another rabbit hole – or perhaps more appropriately, a rat hole.
The Democrats are looking very desperate these days. Like all the other obsessive and irrational attempts to take Trump down, this could – and should — also backfire.
So. There ‘tis.
The widely anticipated first appearance of Michael Bloomberg in a democratic debate was far from the bombastic performance the former New York Mayor needed. Instead, he stumbled through most of the debate, which didn’t get lost on one person in the audience who was probably most keyed in to Bloomberg’s performance – Donald Trump.
The president, in an early morning tweet after the former mayor’s dismal performance, mocked Bloomberg, calling the former New York City mayor “grossly incompetent.”
“Mini Mike Bloomberg’s debate performance tonight was perhaps the worst in the history of debates, and there have been some really bad ones,” Trump tweeted.
“He was stumbling, bumbling and grossly incompetent. If this doesn’t knock him out of the race, nothing will. Not so easy to do what I did!” he added
“Worst debate performance in history!” he added in a subsequent tweet.
Trump’s remarks about “Mini-Mike,” were nothing new. At a rally in Phoenix Wednesday night, while the debate was taking place, the president had this to say, “Now they have a new member of the crew, mini Mike,” Trump told the crowd of supporters. “We call him ‘no boxes.’ I hear he’s getting pounded tonight,” Trump went on. “I hear they’re pounding him.”
But, the president was not alone in his assessment of Bloomberg’s poor showing. Pundits on the right and left feel that he struggled to find his footing during his debut at the Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas. It was the ninth primary debate so far, and his fellow candidates’ experience on the stage shone through.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wasted no time going after Bloomberg after the debate began.
“Democrats are not going to win if we have a nominee who has a history of hiding his tax returns, of harassing women and of supporting racist policies like redlining and stop and frisk,” Warren said. “Democrats take a huge risk if we just substitute one arrogant billionaire for another.”
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) added later, “I don’t think you look at Donald Trump and say we need someone richer than Donald Trump in the White House.”
For the most part, Republicans and Democrats alike cheered as Harrison Ford’s President James Marshall kicked terrorists “the hell off of my plane,” in the classic action-adventure movie, Air Force One.
However, in the real world, Ford’s politics are decidedly a little more Hollywood one-sided. Ford seems to be dipping his toe into political waters, noting in a recent interview that talking about politics has become unavoidable.
Days after the 77-year-old actor appeared on Jimmy Kimmel Live and called President Donald Trump a “son of a b—-,” he was asked about his recent forays into talking politics in an interview with CBS News. The star responded by noting that politics has become too divisive and called for a return to “the middle ground.”
“I think it’s come to the point where we gotta start talking politics,” Ford said. “But we gotta talk about it in a positive way. We gotta regain the middle ground. We’re in these ideological enclaves. But the truth is in the middle. Progress is made in the middle.”
When asked if he thought it was possible to get back to the middle ground, the iconic actor’s response was blunt. “We damn well better,” he shot back.
Ford was on hand to promote his new film, “The Call of the Wild,” which he says spoke to his personal beliefs about climate change and human beings’ impact on the natural world.
“We’re in danger of losing the support of nature for our lives, for our economies, for our societies,” Ford added in the interview. “Because nature doesn’t need people, [but] people need nature.”
The actor has previously been critical of the United States’ decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord. In the CBS interview, he noted that he believes young people will help usher in an era of actually making progress on climate change.
“I’m now seeing that I think we’re coming close to being able to really commit the resources and energy to confronting the issue because it’s taken up on the highest level of politics,” he explained. “It’s taken up on the streets by young people.”
Ford’s comments come after an appearance in Mexico City earlier this month where he bashed America’s current leadership while praising young climate activist Greta Thunberg.
“Science is being ridiculed by people in ideological campgrounds. They are refusing the wisdom, the discipline of science in favor of a political point of view,” Ford continued. “And that has to stop. And I believe young people throughout the world have known it has to stop and are capable and willing to make the sacrifices to make that happen.”
Billionaire Democratic candidate for president, Michael Bloomberg will appear on the debate stage for the first time against fellow candidates in Nevada.
A new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll published Tuesday shows Bloomberg with 19% support nationally in the Democratic nominating contest. Under recently changed rules, he only needed one more poll above 10% to qualify for Nevada.
The former New York City mayor, who launched his presidential campaign in November, will appear in Wednesday’s debate in Las Vegas alongside former Vice President Joe Biden, Sens. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Fellow billionaire and philanthropist Tom Steyer is still hoping to qualify.
Bloomberg’s campaign said that it was seeing “a groundswell of support across the country” and that qualifying for Wednesday’s debate “is the latest sign that Mike’s plan and ability to defeat Donald Trump is resonating with more Americans.”
“Mike is looking forward to joining the other Democratic candidates on stage and making the case for why he’s the best candidate to defeat Donald Trump and unite the country,” Bloomberg campaign manager Kevin Sheekey said in a statement.
Even though he will participate in the debate on Wednesday, Bloomberg will not be on the ballot in Nevada. The former NYC mayor is skipping the first four primary states — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — to focus on saturating Super Tuesday states with ads and to campaign in the 14 states that will vote on that day while other candidates are grinding it out in the early states. This strategy has allowed him to pass other candidates in national polls despite their strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Bloomberg has not appeared in earlier debates, because his campaign is self-funded.
Until a recent change, one of the criteria for candidates to get on the debate stage was their number of donors, but the DNC changed those rules for the Nevada debate in late January, opening the door for Bloomberg to make the stage. That decision drew criticism from his Democratic competitors, who have previously characterized Bloomberg as trying to “buy” the presidency.
“The DNC didn’t change the rules to ensure good, diverse candidates could remain on the debate stage. They shouldn’t change the rules to let a billionaire on. Billionaires shouldn’t be allowed to play by different rules—on the debate stage, in our democracy, or in our government,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts tweeted at the time.
The fact that Bloomberg didn’t appear at the most recent debates, of course, drew ridicule from President Trump.
“Mini Mike Bloomberg doesn’t get on the Democrat Debate Stage because he doesn’t want to – he is a terrible debater and speaker. If he did, he would go down in the polls even more (if that is possible!),” Trump tweeted last month.
The other candidates who have qualified for Wednesday’s debate are former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.
Consider it another promise kept. President Trump has commuted the 14-year prison sentence of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
Trump, who seems to be focusing on correcting what he sees as miscarriages of justice lately, has long said that Blagojevich got a raw deal, and has been talking for months about commuting his sentence.
“Yes, we commuted the sentence of Rod Blagojevich. He served eight years in jail, a long time. He seems like a very nice person, don’t know him,” Trump told reporters on Tuesday.
A statement released by the White House revealed that Trump also pardoned former New York City Police Department Commissioner Bernie Kerik and financier Michael Milken. Kerik spent four years in prison from 2010 to 2013 after being found guilty of tax fraud and lying to government officials. Milken spent two years in prison from 1991 to 1993 and was fined $600 million on securities fraud charges.
Earlier in the day, it was announced that Trump granted a pardon to Edward DeBartolo Jr., the former owner of the San Francisco 49ers.
Blagojevich has served roughly eight years in prison after being convicted on corruption charges. He is expected to be set free from the Englewood Federal Correctional Institution in Colorado on Tuesday.
For many months now, the president signaled he might commute the former Democratic governor’s prison sentence. Trump said in August that he was “strongly” considering the move and that Blagojevich’s case was being reviewed.
The president appeared to back away from the idea about a week later after hearing strong opposition from a group of Illinois Republican legislators.
“It’s important that we take a strong stand against pay-to-play politics, especially in Illinois, where four of our last eight governors have gone to federal prison for public corruption,” Illinois Reps. Darin LaHood, John Shimkus, Adam Kinzinger, Rodney Davis, and Mike Bost said in a joint statement.
LaHood and Bost made the lawmakers’ case to Trump over the phone, and Trump appeared to be receptive to their argument, telling them, “I wish I had the perspective before.”
But, Trump has long thought that Blagojevich’s sentence was too harsh. In 2012, Trump called Blagojevich’s sentence “outrageous.”
Blagojevich, 63, was convicted on corruption charges in 2011 for attempting to extort campaign donations from a children’s hospital and for attempting to sell former President Barack Obama’s U.S. Senate seat. Blagojevich called Obama’s vacated Senate seat “f—ing golden” on a phone call recorded by the FBI.
His wife, Patricia Blagojevich, lobbied for her husband’s early release and made appearances on Fox News in 2018 to make her case in the hope that the president was watching. Patricia Blagojevich began her media circuit after the former governor lost his last appeal to the Supreme Court.
Trump and the former governor know each other from Trump’s NBC reality television show The Celebrity Apprentice. Blagojevich appeared on the ninth season of the show in 2010. Trump fired him from the show but said the former governor had “a hell of a lot of guts” for the fight he was then putting up in court against the corruption charges.
With everyone up in arms about the alleged influence President Trump has over AG Barr’s justice department, a new book has revealed some shocking new details of how former President Clinton “shook down, ” Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch, during their infamous “tarmac meeting,” in 2016.
“We knew something had occurred that was a bit unusual. It was a planned meeting. It was not a coincidence,” journalist Christopher Sign, and author of the book, “Secret on the Tarmac,” told “Fox & Friends” about the explosive meeting, which cast a negative light over the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.
At the time, then-candidate Donald Trump criticized Bill Clinton via Twitter for potentially trying to interfere with the investigation, twitting, “Does anybody really believe that Bill Clinton and the U.S.A.G. talked only about ‘grandkids’ and golf for 37 minutes in plane on tarmac?”
Trump had publicly questioned the meeting at Phoenix’s Sky Harbor Airport, after which Clinton and Lynch claimed the conversation centered around their grandchildren. The meeting occurred just days before the FBI decided it would not recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton.
Of his new book, Sign says, “[Secret on the Tarmac] details everything that they don’t want you to know and everything they think you forgot, but Bill Clinton was on that plane for 20 minutes and it wasn’t just about golf, grandkids, and Brexit. There’s so much that doesn’t add up.”
He said that his source who was there outlined that when Clinton arrived at the airport, he was waiting for Lynch.
“He then sat and waited in his car with the motorcade, her airstairs come down, most of her staff gets off, he then gets on as the Secret Service and FBI are figuring out ‘How in the world are we supposed to handle this? What are we supposed to do?’” Sign said.
He went on to say that when Lynch testified before the House Oversight Committee in December 2018, that “She mentioned that Bill Clinton flattered her, talked about Eric Holder, talked about how things were going at Justice, talked about her job performance, not this ‘golf-grandkids, Brexit.’”
According to Fox, Sign said that his family has received death threats for telling the story.
“This story isn’t about right or left, Republican or Democrat, it’s about right and wrong and journalism.”
In response, Bill Clinton said he was “offended” over the allegations of misconduct regarding the tarmac meeting.
“I thought, you know, I don’t know whether I’m more offended that they think I’m crooked or that they think I’m stupid,” Clinton told investigators, according to a 2018 report released by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz.
As a lifelong political analyst, I have had to deal with polls – all kinds of polls. I have even had to construct them for clients. Those years of experience have taught me that polls are merely events to give reporters something to report or to deceive the public. Yep! Deceive, not inform.
Polls only give an approximation of fact at best – or merely the APPEARANCE of facts that do not exist. They gain credibility because all those reporters and columnists report polling results as fact – as if the information is accurate. For example, they may say, “Today’s Gallup Poll shows that 49 percent of voters now approve of President Trump.”
That sounds convincing. But what about the Quinnipiac Poll of the same day that says, “Trumps popularity has declined to 42 percent.” That seven-point difference represents millions of voters. So, who is correct? Is either correct? We really do not know. Still, the polls are given maximum exposure and credibility in the media.
Then there is that “margin of error.” One might assume that the results of any elections should fall within that range – but they often do not. So what value is the “margin of error” when the “error” falls outside the “margin.”
To show just how inaccurate these polls can be, you should recall that, in the New Hampshire primary, the networks reported that 48 percent of the voters did not make up their mind until 24 hours before they voted. Almost half the voters were undecided before then.
Weeeeell … what about all those polls taken in the previous weeks in which 80-plus percent of the voters told their preference long before election day. By most polls, the “undecideds” leading into the primary were somewhere between 10 and 20 percent. Obviously those two reports could not have both been even remotely true.
You must also consider who is doing the polling. Polling firms, such as Gallup and Quinnipiac, are considered to be the most objective – but even then, it may depend on who pays for the poll. Biases get built in.
Campaigns often take two polls – a public-consumption poll to indicated that they are doing well and a private poll to see where they actually stand. On the surface, both polls look very legitimate, but subtle variations in the questions will influence public opinion.
Polls also have a very short shelf-life. They will mostly approximate an outcome on the eve of an election – and even then, they can be egregiously wrong. No political advisor or analyst would believe that polling done long before an election has any bearing on the ultimate results.
Polls that show President Trump behind his Democrat opponents mean nothing … yes, nothing … in predicting the outcome of the November election. Keep in mind that President Obama had polling numbers worse than Trump’s at around this time before his re-election.
One of the greatest examples of meaningless polling is the so-called national popularity poll. It is irrelevant to the outcome of a presidential election because it counts a lot of folks who will not be voting. Even worse. It does not take into consideration our Electoral College system. One only need recall that Hillary Clinton was consistently more popular than Trump in the 2016 election.
In many ways, polls are the opiate of politics. We are hooked on them even though they offer no real benefit other than to provide a desired alternate reality.
So. There ‘tis.