Beware Public Opinion Polls

Those who follow the news have no doubt heard that, according to the latest Fox News Poll, if the 2020 election were held today, Donald Trump would be defeated by Joe Biden 49% to 39% and Bernie Sanders 46% to 40%.  Additionally, more Americans apparently disapprove of the way Trump is doing his job than approve, 51% to 46%, with 3% responding "I Don't Know".  All the "talking heads", particularly those representing the Democratic Party, have been quick to seize on these poll results as proof positive that Trump is in serious trouble seeking reelection.

One of the graduate school seminars I took for my Masters in Government was an in-depth study of public opinion polling.  The most fundamental point made was that, unless one obtains a copy of the poll, the poll results should not be taken seriously.  The way in which poll questions are written, as well as the order in which they are asked, will have a direct influence on the outcome.  The most important questions to be considered are whether the poll results reflect "informed" opinion, whether the poll was truly random, and whether the results have been controlled for possible bias.

When a poll taker calls a potential respondent, there is no way of knowing what that person is doing.  Perhaps they just sat down to dinner.  Perhaps he/she has just been watching a news cast or has been perusing their favorite "news" site on the Internet.  Their answer to the first few questions will reflect whatever has been most recently on their mind.  If the poll is intended to gauge political attitudes, the results will also be skewed in favor of their political affiliation.

 In the case of this latest Fox News Poll, Question #1 asks "Do you approve or disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as president? [If Approve/Disapprove: is that strongly (approve/disapprove), or only somewhat?]

Asking this as the very first question is problematic for a number of reasons.  It does not necessarily reflect an informed opinion.  The respondent may be someone who simply doesn't follow the news and has little or no knowledge about any of the national issues and what Trump is, or is NOT, doing regarding those issues.  The individual may simply provide a response based on what he/she heard their neighbor say, (i.e. Donald Trump is a racist/white supremacist, hates immigrants, etc.)  The respondent's political affiliation will definitely affect their answer.  If they've just watched a "news cast" on CNN or MSNBC, they will be more likely to answer that they disapprove.  Conversely, if they watch Fox News, their answer will likely be the opposite.

In this particular poll, the respondent's political affiliation is not ascertained until Question #17:  "In the presidential [primary election/caucus] in [state] next year, are you more likely to vote in the Democratic or Republican [primary election/caucus] for president, or are you unlikely to vote in either?"   Although the polling methodology is claimed to be random, in actuality the people who answered the phone and participated are skewed toward the Democratic Party by 8 percentage points.

This skews the entire poll, particularly regarding Questions #20 and 21.  "If the 2020 presidential election were held today, how would you vote if the candidates were:  [If Don't Know] Well, which way would you lean?"  For Question #20, Joe Biden is inserted.  Biden is preferred 49% to 39%.  Question 21 inserts Bernie Sanders - result Bernie 46%, Trump 40%.

These are the numbers being thrown around this week.  However, if one considers the 8% Democratic bias revealed by Question #17, Biden would only lead Trump by 2% and Trump would be ahead of Bernie.

In order for poll results to more accurately reflect informed opinion, respondents should be asked questions dealing specifically with various issues BEFORE being asked whether they favor one candidate over another.  This forces them to think not only about each issue, but also to consider where the different candidates stand on those issues.  Question #38 asks a very relevant question:

38. Do you think it would be a good thing or a bad thing for the United States to move away from capitalism and more toward socialism?

 Good thing            Bad thing             (Don’t know)

 34%                       54                             22 

Questions 39-43 represent examples of how questions can elicit information that answer the direct question posed, but do not reflect any serious knowledge of the complete issue:

39.-43. I am going to mention several policy proposals. For each one, please tell me if you favor or oppose the idea.   [IF FAVOR / OPPOSE:  Is that strongly (favor/oppose), or only somewhat?  [RANDOMIZE] 

                                     ----------------Favor-------------- ------------Oppose------------------- (Don’t  know)                                                                   TOTAL      Strongly       Somewhat        TOTAL     Strongly    Somewhat

Changing the health care                65%              34                  31                23%             9                 14           12 

system so that every 

American can buy into    

Medicare if they want to?

The above question tells us nothing because it is does not ask the respondent to even consider what the "buy in" would cost them.

Here is the next question in the sequence:

                                     ------------------Favor-------------- ------------Oppose------------------- (Don’t  know) 
Allowing refugees from      TOTAL      Strongly       Somewhat       TOTAL     Strongly    Somewhat

Central America to seek

political asylum in the           50%              24                    27              41%              18                 24                  9 

U.S.?

Here we have a number of problems.  In the preceding question, the TOTAL percentages were the sum of the Strongly and Somewhat categories (i.e. 65% = 34+31, 23% = 9+14).  Here, we have 24% as Strongly plus 27% as Somewhat.  Yet, the TOTAL is shown as 50% instead of the correct sum of 51%.  Likewise, 18 Strongly plus 24 Somewhat under the Oppose column should add up to 42% instead of 41%.  One is compelled to ask what's going on here?  Do the people at Fox News not know how to add?  Why would the TOTAL percentages be displayed differently?

The main problem with that question, as posed, is that it does not require the respondents to reflect on exactly what it is they understand by the word "asylum".  An individual truly seeking escape from a threat of violence for their political beliefs is one thing.  But, if they are simply seeking to enter the U.S. to escape poor economic conditions in their home country, it is something entirely different.  Are the respondents making such a distinction?  Of those coming to the southern border, what percentage fall into what group?  The distinction matters because those simply seeking to improve their economic condition do NOT qualify for asylum.

The next 3 questions, if asked BEFORE the question of which candidate the respondent would choose if the election were held today, would elicit completely different results.

                                     -----------------------Favor-------------- ------------Oppose------------------- (Don’t know)

Getting rid of private                   TOTAL      Strongly       Somewhat       TOTAL     Strongly    Somewhat

health insurance and 

moving to a government                43%            22                  22                  48%           17              31                   9 

run health care system

for everyone?

Here again, we have a math problem.  22% Strongly plus 22% Somewhat = 44%, not 43%.  Yet, under the Oppose column, they've added 17% and 31% correctly.  Why should anyone give this poll any credence when there are such inconsistencies in simple math?

                                 -----------------------Favor-------------- ------------Oppose------------------- (Don’t know)

  

Decriminalizing entering                   TOTAL      Strongly       Somewhat       TOTAL     Strongly    Somewhat

the U.S. without proper

documentation?                                    34%            18                  17                  57%           18              39             8 

                                   -----------------------Favor-------------- ------------Oppose--------------- (Don’t  know)

Providing health insurance               TOTAL      Strongly       Somewhat       TOTAL     Strongly    Somewhat

coverage to undocumented

immigrants?                                          32%            13                  19                 60%           16               44             8 

The last two questions show clear opposition to the positions being put forth by not only Biden and Sanders, but most of the other Democratic candidates, as compared with Trump's position.

Finally, there is Question #45, which is posed in this way:  "Do you approve or disapprove of the job  the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency or ICE is doing?  The answers are as follows:

           Approve         Disapprove             (Don’t know)

   45%                    49                                5 

This is an extremely loaded question because it does not ask the respondent whether he/she is aware that ICE is following the laws passed by Congress and is conducting business in exactly the same manner as it did during the previous administration, when Obama was characterized as the "Deporter-in-Chief".

As stated previously, for the results of a public opinion poll to be useful in any way, they must seek to reflect "informed" opinion, not simply "gut" reaction to a phone call.  If Questions #1, #20, and #21 were asked at the END of this poll, I have no doubt the results would be entirely different and would more properly reflect a more thoughtful response.

The most salient point is NOT to put any stock in the poll results touted in the media.  They called the 2016 election wrong.  It's likely they're equally wrong in stating current public opinion.

Red Flag Laws Must Be Carefully Crafted

In the wake of the shootings in El Paso and Dayton, the President has called for Gun Violence Restraining Orders or Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO), colloquially termed Red Flag Laws.  What exactly are these laws and what do they do?

The way the law is usually carried out is that someone requests a temporary gun restraining order against a person that lasts, generally, for a short period of time. A hearing is held at which the person can respond to the evidence against him or her, and then the judge issues a final order.  If the judge determines the person is a risk to himself or others, he can order the person to turn in his gun over to state authorities for a certain period of time.

In 2018, there were bills introduced in the Texas Legislature proposing such a law.  Both House Bill 131 and Senate Bill 157 were similar in that they both would allow a court to issue a TEMPORARY EX PARTE ORDER, allowing law enforcement to enter an individual's domicile and confiscate any firearms found without providing that person with due process.  In other words, simply on the basis of an allegation.

The NRA has been widely criticized for opposing Red Flag Laws.  However, the NRA does NOT oppose such laws per se.  It has simply stated some specific provisions that any such law should have to garner its support:

1) Anyone subject to an ERPO should have the opportunity to challenge the order with full due-process protections in place.

2) An order that confiscates firearms should only be granted when a judge makes the determination, by clear and convincing evidence, that the person poses a significant risk of danger to themselves or others.

3) If a person's mental health is questioned, the judge should concurrently make a determination of whether the person meets the state standard for involuntary commitment.

4) Whether or not the person meets the state standard for involuntary commitment, the person subject to the ERPO should receive mental health treatment.

5) The process should allow firearms to be retained by law-abiding third parties, local law enforcement or a federally licensed firearms dealer when an individual is ordered to relinquish such firearms.

6) There should be a mechanism in place for the return of firearms upon the termination of an ERPO.

7) The process should include criminal penalties for those who bring false or frivolous charges.

In the case of the proposed Texas laws, a person's guns could be confiscated based simply on an allegation made by a family member.  The "accused" would then be afforded a hearing within 14 days in which to disprove the allegations.  This turns our criminal justice system upside down, assuming guilt.  The accused is put in the position of having to prove innocence.

Take the hypothetical case of a messy divorce.  An angry spouse could walk into a District Attorney's office and file a complaint in ex parte fashion.  Simply on the basis of this allegation, a search warrant could be issued and the firearms of the other spouse taken.

The proposed penalty for filing a false complaint is stated as a Class B Misdemeanor, punishable by up to 6 months in jail and a $2,000 fine.  However, under Texas law, unlawful possession of a firearm is most often prosecuted as a Class A Misdemeanor, calling for up to 1 year in jail and a $4,000 fine.  Depending on the circumstances, it could also be prosecuted as a 3rd Degree Felony, punishable by 10 years in jail and a $10,000 fine.

Neither of the Texas bills passed and the NRA did, in fact, oppose both.  However, had lawmakers simply provided for due process protections, doing away with ex parte orders and providing the accused with normal due process protections, along with stiffer penalties for filing a false complaint, the NRA would most likely have withdrawn such opposition.

Voter ID – Blacks Are Suppressing Their Own Voting Strength

Perhaps because the Federal government has spread its tentacles into almost every aspect of life in America, most people fail to realize that the action (or inaction) of their local government has a much greater impact on their daily life than does the government in Washington.  The ongoing fight against Voter ID, particularly by black spokespersons is a case in point, exemplified by this March 2019 conversation between Candace Owens and Hawk Newsome of Black Lives Matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuhzDVlecKE

While it is true that one needs an ID to do just about everything today, Candace is making the wrong argument and Newsome is focusing on things that supposedly happened 50 years ago.  Instead, the black community should be thinking about the effect that illegal immigration is having on the black vote today.

While not necessarily a correct view, ethnic groups tend to believe that only someone of their tribe can properly represent them.  This has led to extreme gerrymandering of districts to ensure that only someone of a particular race or ethnic group will be elected.  At the local level, this is becoming more and more problematic for the black community because of illegal immigration.

Take the case of New York City, where the Hispanic population is 27.5% compared to blacks, who make up 25.1%.  These are just the “official” population figures.  When one factors in the illegals who are not counted, most of whom have come from Latin countries, blacks are seriously outnumbered.  This is becoming the case in many major cities which do a thriving business in producing fake Social Security cards so illegals can be hired.  In the absence of Voter ID, those illegals are allowed to just walk in and vote.  For every black vote cast, there are as many as 3 other votes that cancel them.

For Federal elections, this favors the Democrats and is why they favor open borders.  By offering "free stuff" to illegals, they are building a constituency that they believe will permanently vote Democratic.  At the local level, however, this pits ethnic groups against each other WITHIN the Democratic party.  Federal and State money that goes to cities is normally in the form of Block Grants.  The City Council then decides where that money will be spent.

Because humans are tribal by nature, they tend to settle in neighborhoods with others who share their tribal identity.  During the Jim Crow era in the South, the Democrats enshrined this into law.  Although the North did not segregate the races by law, there was de facto segregation that can still be seen to this day.  The races tended, and still tend, to settle in their own neighborhoods.

City Council districts are not drawn along neighborhood lines, but contain various neighborhoods.  Those of Hispanic descent do not necessarily share the same values and culture as those of African descent.  As the illegal immigrant population grows, black voting strength is further diluted in those cities.  Consequently, the money is going to flow to those areas represented by the majority of votes on the City Council. 

Candace Owens would do well to point out to the race baiters that, instead of harping on wrongs committed in the past, both real and imagined, blacks should be aware that they are rapidly losing whatever voting strength they may have once had.  They should not oppose Voter ID as a "Republican plot" against them.  By doing so, they are harming themselves.

Assume That Trump IS Racist - OK, So What?

Even Donald Trump's staunchest supporters will acknowledge that the wording in many of his Tweets is ill considered.  In the aftermath of his Tweets about Baltimore, the Left predictably erupted with the standard shouts of Racist.  Well, let's just assume for a moment that Trump IS racist.  In terms of Baltimore, that begs the very large question - So What?  What possible difference does it make to the thousands of black people suffering in that city?

Trump has been criticized, even by Fox News anchors, for not having presented his "plan" to fix the problems in Baltimore.  That, in itself, demonstrates how supposedly educated people don't really understand how our government works.  One anchor, Bill Hemmer, was interviewing the former governor of Maryland.  He said something to the effect of "But, Governor, you were the highest elected official in Maryland.  Why didn't you step in to fix those problems"?

No President or Governor can "fix" problems at the local level.  Anyone ever heard of Home Rule?  Cities have their own governments.  The only way for a President or Governor to "step in and fix" local problems would be to declare martial law and send in troops.

Let's assume that Trump called Dr. Ben Carson into the Oval Office and said, "Listen, Ben.  I really don't think those lazy black SOBs in Baltimore have the mental capacity to properly spend the $6.9 billion dollars we've given them this year, but I'm not going to stop it.  Go down there and see what you can do".

Is that any different than the statement made by Lyndon Johnson when asked why he was nominating Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court?  According to several Johnson biographies, he said, , “when I appoint a ni***r to the bench, I want everybody to know he’s a ni***r.”  The Democrats hail Johnson as a hero and say that he had a "change of heart" about blacks in his later years.  But, that statement was made 3 years AFTER Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Robert Parker, Johnson’s sometime chauffeur, described in his memoir Capitol Hill in Black and White a moment when Johnson asked Parker whether he’d prefer to be referred to by his name rather than “boy,” “ni***r” or “chief.” When Parker said he would, Johnson grew angry and said, “As long as you are black, and you’re gonna be black till the day you die, no one’s gonna call you by your goddamn name. So no matter what you are called, ni***r, you just let it roll off your back like water, and you’ll make it. Just pretend you’re a goddamn piece of furniture.”

Given what we experienced in the Kavanaugh hearings and with Judge Roy Moore in Alabama, Lyndon Johnson would not even be welcome in the Democratic Party today, simply because of statements he made 50 years ago.  The Left makes no allowances for youthful indiscretions or for someone to actually mature into a different point of view.

But, that brings us back to Trump.  There have been no white people in charge in Baltimore for decades.  And, there have certainly been no white people living in those blighted areas that Trump identified.  White people haven't done anything TO the black people in Baltimore.  Those people are living in misery despite what white America, in the form of billions in tax dollars, have tried to do FOR them.  Somewhere along the way, that money has been redirected SOMEWHERE.

The black "leaders" and elected officials in Baltimore are no different than the Somali warlords who stole all the food and let millions die of starvation.  If Trump WERE racist, he might point this out and say that there must be something biologically inferior with blacks because they are engaging in the same behavior as their "savage" counterparts in Africa.  But, even if he did so, it wouldn't make one iota of difference to those people suffering in those blighted neighborhoods.