The aware understand that free speech is required for freedom to reign. Our Framers understood it well, and that’s why it is enshrined in the First Amendment to the US Constitution in the Bill of Rights. But how does a free society protect free speech from nefarious charlatans who abuse that right for personal and ideological gain?
Such is the question we face today when we examine the partisan politics that have metastasized like cancer throughout the mainstream media complex and, to drill down into one aspect of that niche, the pollsters.
In an era of high political polarization, trust in polls has waned, particularly among certain voter groups. This distrust manifests in lower response rates and sometimes (and this is growing) dishonest responses, further skewing poll results. There has also been a trend where polls “herd” their respondents towards an expected result to avoid being an outlier, which can lead to a uniform but inaccurate picture.
The American Association of Public Opinion Research published a white paper on herding that read:
“Herding” specifically refers to the possibility that pollsters use existing poll results to help adjust the presentation of their own poll results. "Herding” strategies can range from making statistical adjustments to ensure that the released results appear similar to existing polls to deciding whether or not to release the poll depending on how the results compare to existing polls. By drawing upon information from previous polls, herding may appear to increase the perceived accuracy of an individual survey estimate…”
The white paper said that one troublesome consequence of herding is that pollsters who engage in the practice will produce artificially consistent results that don’t accurately reflect public attitudes. This perceived polling consistency instills false confidence about who will win an election, thereby artificially impacting how the media covers the race. The white paper’s author goes on to say that the faux consistency becomes a major factor in whether political campaigns and parties “devote resources to a campaign, and even if voters think it is worthwhile to turn out to vote. “
So, by the conscious decisions made by the polling companies and, most of the time, by the individual pollsters themselves, even the associations that champion their “science” admit that industry practices artificially affect elections.
In 2020, Maddy Weinberg, writing from the University of California at Berkeley, noted that data analyzing over 1,400 polls from 11 election cycles revealed that only 60 percent of polls conducted the week before an election included the actual outcome. This doesn't sound too bad to those defending the “science” of polling, but to the consumer, that result is a failing grade.
The defenders of this failure spin it this way:
“It’s really important to remember that these polls are not forecasting who’s going to win. They are an estimate of likely vote share. So this is about whether the truth falls inside the confidence interval, not whether the poll calls the eventual winner.”
And pollsters often use statistical models manufactured to adjust or “weight” their data to—as they see it—to better reflect the broader population. However, these adjustments often introduce errors if the assumptions or methods used are ideologically tainted, dishonest, or flawed. For instance, weighting by “recalled vote” or education level has been criticized for possibly skewing results. The 2020 election highlighted that national polling errors were among the highest in 40 years despite these adjustments.
So, it goes without saying (although it must be said) that the “science” of polling is inaccurate, to say the very least. Yet, the mainstream media complex and the political opportunists of all political parties routinely cite polling results as intently sincere and an accurate harbinger of the coming election results predicated on that snapshot in time.
This presents the action in question recently reported by TheHill.com. Ashleigh Fields reported:
“The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) announced on Tuesday their decision to represent an Iowa pollster entangled in a lawsuit with President-elect Trump stemming from a November poll from renowned pollster Ann Selzer that showed him losing to Vice President Harris.”
The group, in Selzer’s defense, claims the poll was an “outlier that projected inaccurate predictions unintentionally” and, therefore, did not violate the law.
The poll in question—Selzer’s poll, was published in The DesMoine Register just days before the November 2024 Presidential Election. Her poll results stated that the people of Iowa favored Kamala Harris by three percentage points over Donald Trump. In reality, Trump won in Iowa by 13 points—a 16-point deviation from Selzer’s results.
Yet FIRE maintains:
“Trump’s lawsuit, brought under an Iowa law against ‘consumer fraud,’ violates long-standing constitutional principles. It’s also entirely meritless under the Iowa law…The lawsuit is the very definition of a ‘SLAPP’ suit — a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Such tactical claims are filed purely for the purpose of imposing punishing litigation costs on perceived opponents, not because they have any merit or stand any chance of success. In other words, the lawsuit is the punishment.”
Let’s take a look at the past performance of Selzer and her company:
2008 Presidential Election: Selzer's final poll correctly predicted an influx of first-time caucusgoers would deliver Barack Obama a victory in the Iowa Democratic caucuses. Her poll had Obama leading by 3 points when he actually won by 10, which, while not exact, captured the trend correctly.
2012 Presidential Election: Her poll showed Obama leading by 5 points over Mitt Romney in Iowa, and he won by 5.6 points, which is a very close match.
2014 Senate Election: Selzer's poll predicted Joni Ernst would win by 7 points over Bruce Braley, and she won by 8.5 points, showcasing her poll's accuracy.
2016 Presidential Election: Selzer's polls were among the few that accurately anticipated Donald Trump's performance in Iowa. Her final poll had Trump leading by 7 points, and he won by 9.4 points, indicating a small but notable margin of error.
2020 Presidential Election: For the 2020 election, her final pre-election poll found Trump ahead by seven percentage points (48% to 41%), which was very close to the actual result where Trump won with a margin of 8.2 points (53.1% to 44.9%).
2022 Senate Election: Her poll predicted a Republican lead by 12 points, which was exactly what happened.
That makes her 16-point error in the 2024 Presidential Election a significant—and, quite frankly—unbelievable anomaly in her track record. Her last poll before the election predicted a 3-point lead for Kamala Harris in Iowa, but Trump won by 13 points, marking a 16-point miss, unprecedented for Selzer's polls.
Trump’s lawsuit alleges that Selzer’s poll—now proven to be a magnificent anomaly from her routine accuracy—was intended to “deceive” voters:
“Millions of Americans, including Plaintiff, residents of Iowa, and Iowans who contributed to President Trump’s Campaign and its affiliated entities, were deceived by the doctored Harris Poll…Selzer’s misconduct caused ‘great distrust and uncertainty at a very critical time.’”
Because the newspaper and associated media outlets portrayed Selzer’s poll as accurate using her reputation and polling accuracy as a selling point—and because that product was intrinsically defective, there must be some culpability for misleading voters given the industry’s acknowledgment of a 40 percent accuracy failure rate and industry standard practices that facilitate that inaccuracy.
It’s quite hard to believe, given Selzer’s history of extreme accuracy, that a nefarious intent wasn’t in play here. Certainly, because The DesMoines Register paid Selzer for her polling, the poll itself must be considered a product. By that fact alone—because Selzer was paid for her services—her product shouldn’t fall under the dominion of First Amendment free speech protection, simply because she wasn’t engaging in political free speech as an individual espousing her personal beliefs. She was facilitating a product for profit.
That FIRE is attempting to sully the judicial waters by arguing First Amendment protection—in the face of all of the evidence of malfeasance and nefarious intent, and in light of the fact that she was not exercising political free speech as a citizen redressing government, diminished its reputation as a protector of free speech in a time when it is needed the most.
How far the mighty have fallen. And I have no doubt a fair and honest jury will hold to that assertion.
Then, when we come back, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
A Post Script:
Before we go, I feel the need to further expose the insanity of the systemic wokeism that has infested the Los Angeles Fire Department’s administrative ranks.
If you recall, I mentioned a Deputy Fire Chief named Kristine Larson, the head of the department’s DEI Bureau, in my recent article Who Couldn’t See This Coming. Not that it makes a bit of difference, Larson is of the LGBTQ+ community. What does make a difference is this. That’s why she ascended to her rank. Her appointment was not due to merit.
As reported by Newsweek, of all places:
“Los Angeles Fire Department Deputy (LAFD) Chief Kristine Larson is facing widespread criticism online after comments surfaced in which she appeared to shift blame onto fire victims for their circumstances.
“Speaking as part of a video that aired during a commercial break for the FOX show 9-1-1 about firefighter capabilities, Larson said, “Am I able to carry your husband out of a fire? He got himself in the wrong place if I have to carry him out.”
This mindset is antithetical to the very reason the fire service—and, in fact, all public safety organizations—exist. The primary purpose of a firefighter, regardless of rank, is to save lives. Larson’s narcissistic approach to the fire service is a slap in the face to every firefighter who ever donned an MSA or Scott mask and put his life on the line to help someone in danger.
But this is the arrogance that permeates the woke movement. It’s an undeserved and unearned air of superiority that can only be defined as arrogance. And this arrogance comes out each and every time these assholes are put on the spot because their ineptitude and determination to force their dysfunctional ideology into the mainstream have ended in disaster and, many times, death. The response to the fires of Southern California—from Newsom to Bass to the DEI hire chiefs of the LA Fire Department—the fires of Southern California and proves this beyond argument.
To that end, those who exist inept in their positions who can be fired should be fired and immediately. I am certain there are a multitude of fireline battalion chiefs and even captains who would have managed the crisis better, especially in pre-planning preparation. So, to Deputy Chief Larson (and I just threw up a little bit having to say that), I say this: Go fuck yourself. You don’t deserve to wear the uniform, anywhere.
But the scourge of the imbecile among the ranks of California’s elected officials, well, that has to rest on the shoulders of the people who vote in California. They ascended them to power and did so because these idiots promoted and pandered to the ideologically woke. They got the government they deserve. And now their homes are ashes.
The question is this. From the ashes, will a new, more sensical mindset emerge in Califonia’s electorate? Or will they just return to being the ideological dupes that people like Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass believe them to be. Only time will tell.
Share this post