Polls a big part of West’s political problems

pollsters-wrongTrump won the US election when everyone said he would not. This has given rise to a surfeit of theorizing on the whys and wherefores. I think many have missed the point that polling and polsters are a large part to blame for the widespread misjudgment.

Politics before polling was much more aligned to principle. Politicians campaigned on ideas they owned. They pushed them on the public, and they argued passionately for those ideas. The public heard these ideas, and considered the arguments, and voted according to their agreement or disagreement.

The rise of polling as a political tool, in combination with the phenomenon of “advocacy journalism” has turned this around. Now politicians don’t bring any ideas or argue for them, apart from those most mild, for the ideas have already been put out there by the MSM and pollsters.

This reversal of traditional campaigning means potential politicians must agree with and be propelled by public perceptions that are largely driven by a fake phony politically partisan progressive media. (A fake progressive media that evolved from an education system itself perverted by politically active Frankfurt school Marxists posturing as professors, lecturers and teachers).

So instead of politicians, we have the fake media as the main source of political ideas, and this drives another factor that damages the accuracy of polling. Media bullying and petty tyranny in the field of ideas pushes citizens into concealing their real thoughts and preferences. For example, an army of left wing pro-Clinton journalists screeching anti-Trump rhetoric causes those who might support Trump to hesitate at expressing this support, in public or to pollsters.

Voters also deeply resent this intimidation, and will vote against the media as a means of some small display of defiance, or vengeance. Polling doesn’t pick this resentment up either.

Final election results by county. Maybe US pollsters should have rung a few more country people


Then we have the pollsters. Mostly inner city liberal/ progressives themselves, they subconsciously interfere with polls by means of their unfamiliarity with other political viewpoints. Very few of them have the slightest understanding of Conservatism for example. They may strive for objectivity, but their narrow political state means they cannot supply it. Questions and expected answers are all predicated on liberal progressive ideas.

Here’s pollster Mark Textor for example writing furiously to push Conservatism into a frame that suits his own progressive politics. Quote- “a shouting match is going on between a very few. Like many fights, most decent people are silently walking away to avoid it…. A modern alternative affirmation of conservatism is needed… We will ensure our Constitution; our “book of rules” is kept strong and just, but also relevant to contemporary values“. Contemporary values?? Pffft.. Mere left wing tosh.

Textor has been busy helping the left white ant the West for decades. His strategy, driven by his progressive political mindset, has always been to surrender, not fight like Trump did. These surrender strategies have converted Conservative parties into left wing parties and its this conversion that has driven the slow burning anger Textor and other pollsters failed to discern.

Popular NZ pollster David Farrar, who was credited by John Key as being a big help in the National Party’s 2014 election win, stated his preference for Hillary Clinton over Trump in the US election, and nominated pain in the arse liberal/ progressive Gary Johnson as his first preference.

Also in New Zealand,  same sex marriage provided an excellent example of a debate manipulated by the MSM and pollsters. The  true title of the act was the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013. The MSM conveniently shortened this to the “Marriage Equality Act”. Poll questions were framed in progressive speak like “Do you believe in Marriage Equality” or the like, a question that by its premises shames anyone who might want to answer “No” into answering “Yes”. What reasonable person would wish inequality on anyone?

A conservative pollster, if one could be found, might have framed the question this way- “Should the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman be retained?”.

(BTW, if any preferred outcome is required, its common knowledge among pollsters that a “yes” answer to a question is always the better option.)

Using celebrities to push causes is a similar tactic and the same sex marriage faction excelled at this, in reality just another form of bullying, and shaming of people into accepting the proposition. You’re just not “cool” if you don’t agree with the stars of whatever current hit TV show or movie.leaving-the-country

(Even so, the NZ public was not fully swayed by this intimidation, so the pro-same sex marriage faction was happy to see MPs decide the issue on the floor of parliament and not the people of NZ through a referendum. An event which is still a source of anger for many Conservatives.)

Same sex marriage is a stark example used to illustrate the point, but the same principle applied in the matter of Brexit and the US election. The MSM pilloried Trump and his ideas, but he prevailed not only for the reasons outlined above but because he had the courage to pursue his own convictions, and fight bravely for those convictions. This willingness to be brave and fight brought him even more votes.

The success of the Brexit movement owes a lot too to the courage and conviction of Nigel Farage, who also defied the media and the pollsters and trail blazed the way to the UK’s exit from the EU.

Again, celebrities were used in an attempt to discourage (bully, shame) Trump or Brexit voters,

On the other side of the coin we have the Australian Liberal party, who believed polls that told them Malcolm Turnbull was their key to victory. In fact Turnbull has become one of the most unpopular PMs in a while and has now fallen to the same level as his predecessor Tony Abbot. Instead of winning the next election in a landslide as was expected, Turnbull only just scraped home. The polls were wrong again, and I believe, made wrong by the same forces. (They’re still wrong. Turnbull is in my view far more unpopular than pollsters believe).

New Zealand PM John Key’s faith in polling has seen the country suffer from a dearth of good ideas. Politics here is largely defined by a far left progressive media framing the debate, and the lame obeisant Key only shows token resistance. The National Party has become the far left Labour Party, and the Labour Party has in turn become the far far left which thankfully the public, as badgered and bullied as they are, still see as too extreme to support.

New politicians need to divorce themselves from pollsters. They’ve not only been proven completely unreliable, they’re largely a destructive left wing political force working hand in hand with a partisan media. Upcoming politicians should seek out the people’s true inner voice, and not be fooled by the voice the brow beaten public use to gain relief from the bullying edicts of the progressive MSM.screenshot078

Trump is not any kind of perfect example, but he largely by-passed the media, showed scant regard for the pollsters, was not frightened to speak out, and took his message directly to the people. He actually did it the old fashioned way. Other politicians should learn from Trump’s success. Stand strong, speak your mind, sell what it is that you believe in, and most importantly, stop caving in to the left in the form of the MSM and pollsters.

15 thoughts on “Polls a big part of West’s political problems

  1. Ironic but future history may well judge the term ‘progressive’ as being synonymous with ‘deplorable’ or intolerant’. George Orwell in his novel 1984 presaged the twisting of the language so that the meaning of words was reversed. Now we are observing this happen in our lives. This is what happens when intolerant extremists (in this case left wing zealots) try to control events by force of will, because they lack the intellect to win arguments by means of reasonable debate.


  2. We have to stop using the name they WANT to be known by. Every time we use “progressives” we validate their claim to the gullible.

    These people want to take us back to one (1) World Govt based on the 1950s Communist style Govt.

    That is regression and therefore they should be known as REGRESSIVES.

    Their policies of Open Borders has led to absolute mayhem in Europe. Murdoch and Soros, through their PNAE Lobby group have been funding Senators in the USA to pass Bills that allow for the free flow of refugees world wide.

    We should, on every occasion, call them what they are REGRESSIVES.


  3. The polling probably back fired really in that the leading questions saw the inevitable answers that were desired but did not reveal the truth. The polls were therefore a waste of time and money. You need truth – lies may be comforting in the short term but if you are wrong and on a path to ruin its not short term comfort you need.


  4. Spot on red.

    The Pollsters got it wrong yet again.

    Most notably Brexit and Trump.

    The MSN, you could say got it wrong,but did they. I think rather than report the news they were trying to influence the results. 99% were anti trump.

    They must be wondering what happened. Why the great unwashed tuned out. The response in both cases was that it was “uneducated” people that voted for Brexit and Trump.

    The credit rating agencies got it wrong, perhaps. One day an investment or company was rated AAA the next it was junk. When questioned on how a AAA investment can turn to junk overnight and where is the accountability.

    The answer, for a very very large fee, we gave an opinion, it was just their opinions and as such they cannot be held accountable.

    Interest rates are manipulated, exchange rates are manipulated, something called the Libor rate are manipulated, precious metal prices are being manipulated. As a result markets are manipulated.

    Viva the free market.

    Waiting for UN exit, the UN is a closed shop run by 5 permanent members, with veto rights, nobody else really counts. As a result it has achieved nothing of any note.

    When MonKey addresses the UN he is speaking to a largely empty room.

    Mark my words this will all end very badly.


  5. Pingback: The Weekly Headlines – My Daily Musing

  6. I have lived in regional Australia for over 7 years already and have never been asked anything by any pollster in any field of industry! We don’t matter!
    It’s all about what cityfolk think and want first and foremost it seems… no wonder Trump won the next presidency of US. I feel for those folks in their “fly over” country. I know their anger!


  7. I just found your website and wanted to say that after reading your posts I agree with a lot of what you have said. The one issue I have an problem with is your stance on libertarians.

    Please don’t put all libertarians in to one basket, I don’t agree with open borders as it is an attack on the property rights. Lew Rockwell does a good job of explaining this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5wZjdEl9F8

    Libertarians are waking up to this, for example: Stefan Molyneux, Jason Stapleton, Doug Casey, etc.

    I also don’t believe in the “anti-war” doctrine many libertarians stand for. I stand for a well organized defense force who will fight in the case of invasion.


    • Thanks for your comments Cam.

      Intend to write a post on marijuana legalisation soon, and that might help you better understand my antipathy to Libertarians.


  8. There is definitely a lot of anger in Australia, thus the rise (re-birth?) of Pauline Hansen’s One Nation party. I think Palmer’s party was premature and he could have fashioned himself as a home-grown Trump, however was a bit early to the party and his party fractured pretty early on.
    The Labour party here has been on shaky ground both Federally and in State elections and I remember hearing that they haven’t had a majority win in any of the States in Australia in their respective last state elections except Victoria.
    I myself was out of work for six months and ended up in a lower paid job at a time when the government had my profession listed on the professional critical shortages list, meaning a company could easily employ a foreign worker over me. I asked a few people about getting it pulled from the critical shortages list and was told “it’s just a temporary slump, by the time it could be pulled from the list things will have picked up”.
    So it’s perfectly fine for fully qualified Australians to be unemployed whilst companies are flying in foreign professionals because reasons?


  9. There were few obvious benefits for the majority of the population; unemployment was high, and there was considerable pressure to restructure the economy away from labour intensive manufacturing for the domestic market to capital intensive export industries. Given this, and given concerns about the diseconomies of growth so clearly indicated in the Whitlam years, and, most especially, given the lack of any widespread popular support for immigration, how was it that the Fraser [Liberal] Government was able to pursue its growth policy?


Comments are closed.