House Debates Protections for Babies Born Alive After Attempted Abortions

/0 Comments/in , /by

An abortion survivor urged Americans to “wake up” to the reality that some babies born alive after an attempted abortion are left to die, the survivor testified at a hearing on Capitol Hill last week.

“Many Americans have no idea that babies can even live through abortions and are often left to die, but this does happen,” Gianna Jessen, 39, said at the hearing. “I know this, because I was born alive in an abortion clinic after being burned in my mother’s womb for 18 hours.”

Jessen, who has cerebral palsy due to her attempted abortion, added at a House Judiciary Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee hearing on Sept. 23:

My medical records clearly state the following: Born during saline abortion … Apart from Jesus himself, the only reason I am alive is the fact that the abortionist had not yet arrived at work that morning. Had he been there, he would have ended my life by strangulation, suffocation, or simply leaving me there to die.

“Often when I’m in the midst of abortion advocates, they never can answer this one question and it is this: If abortion is merely about women’s rights, then what were mine?” Jessen said.

In 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, making it illegal to kill any babies born alive.

“Unfortunately, incidents involving born-alive children being killed after an attempted abortion have continued after this law [was passed] and into the present,” Arina Grossu, director for the Center of Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, testified at the hearing. Grossu’s written testimony says:

Abortionist Kermit Gosnell operated his dirty and dangerous Philadelphia abortion business and committed horrendous crimes in Philadelphia for over three decades. … His heinous and murderous practices of snipping the spines of born-alive children were only discovered by accident when federal and state authorities raided his facility in 2010, not because he was illegally killing born-alive infants, but because of his illegal prescription drug activity.

Grossu says Gosnell is “not an outlier.”

“Not one person to date has been charged or convicted under the current federal [Born-Alive Infants Protection Act] law,” Grossu testified.

The House passed the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, introduced by Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., in September 2015. An identical bill in the Senate, introduced by Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

“The abortion industry has labored for all of these decades to convince the world that unborn children and born children should be completely separated in our minds, that while born children are persons worthy of protection, unborn children are not persons and are not worthy of protection,” Franks, chairman of the subcommittee, said at the hearing.

Franks’ legislation would protect the rights of infants born alive after an abortion and leave criminal consequences for health care professionals who violate the law. The legislation would also require proper medical care be given by the health care practitioner present when an infant is born alive.

The legislation “explicitly requires health care practitioners to treat born-alive abortion survivors with the same care they would treat any other born-alive baby and admit such babies immediately to a hospital.” The law would also hold abortionists accountable for killing born-alive infants, Grossu testified.

President Barack Obama’s administration “strongly opposes” the passage of this bill, according to a statement from September 2015.

“The White House has promised that it would veto the born-alive legislation, citing it would have a ‘chilling’ effect,” Grossu testified. “I cannot think of a more chilling effect than continuing to let U.S. abortionists commit infanticide.”

Grossu urged support for the legislation to stop infanticide, or intentionally killing an infant child, in the United States.

The Hyde Amendment, also under examination at the hearing, prohibits the use of certain taxpayer dollars in abortion cases, except in rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life.

“Today we will hear testimony on existing statutory language prohibiting taxpayer funding from paying for the taking of the lives of preborn children through abortion,” Franks said. “There is concern that the Obama administration or a potential Clinton administration may intend to reinterpret the plain and longstanding meaning of the Hyde Amendment.”

The Hyde Amendment, an appropriations policy rider that has been passed each year since 1976, has its 40th anniversary this week.

“As a black woman, I am outraged that the morally bankrupt Hyde Amendment has been permitted to persist for so long,” Kierra Johnson, executive director of Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity, testified. “It is a source of pain for many women and should be a source of shame for those who support it.”

“The Hyde Amendment prevents women from even being able to make a decision about their health care,” Johnson said.

While Genevieve Plaster, a senior policy analyst at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a pro-life nonprofit organization, testified that the Hyde Amendment has saved over 2 million lives since 1976, or approximately 60,000 lives per year.

“America was founded on the concept that our rights come from God,” Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said at the hearing. “When our rights come from God, how would it be possible that those rights would confer a right to kill a baby?” (For more from the author of “House Debates Protections for Babies Born Alive After Attempted Abortions” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Miller: Murkowski Trying To Rig Debate Schedule

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Anchorage, Alaska. September 26, 2016 — U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller called out Lisa Murkowski on Monday following the release of her “debate” schedule, saying she is hiding from the people of Alaska and the media.

Murkowski stated that she plans to participate in four debates in the lead up to the election: Oct. 12 – Senate Fisheries Debate, hosted by Kodiak Chamber of Commerce; Oct. 21 – Alaska Federation of Natives’ Candidate Forum in Fairbanks; Oct. 26 – Senate Debate on the Arctic, hosted by Iñuit Arctic Business Alliance (IABA) in Barrow; Nov. 3 – Debate for the State, hosted by Alaska Public Media in Anchorage.

Only one of those debates will be televised statewide, the Public Television debate, which takes place just five days before the election, well after early voting and absentee ballot voting are underway.

“There she goes again, trying to rig the game,” said Miller. “Senator Murkowski’s objective is clear: avoid answering tough questions and deprive Alaskan voters of an informed choice.”

During the general election of 2010, Miller appeared in multiple debates with Murkowski, though her name did not even appear on the ballot, including on the state’s most watched news station, the NBC affiliate KTUU.

KTUU, which garners over 80 percent of the news viewing audience in Alaska, wants to host a debate this time, even offering to pre-record it, but Murkowski apparently stonewalled the station.

It also should be noted the commercial fishing industry, the Alaska Federation of Natives, and the Iñuit Arctic Business Alliance all backed Murkowski strongly in 2010, both directly and indirectly.

“The debate schedule Murkowski is offering is not fair to Alaskan voters, who are trying to make an informed decision about who will best represent their views in the next Congress,” said Miller. “I am calling on Lisa Murkowski to do the right thing and participate in televised, open and fair debates.”

Joe Miller is a limited government Constitutionalist who believes government exists to protect our liberties, not to take them away. He supports free people, free markets, federalism, the Constitutional right to life, the 2nd Amendment, religious liberty, American sovereignty, and a strong national defense.

Mark Levin Endorses Joe Miller For U.S. Senate

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Anchorage, Alaska. September 26, 2016 — Conservative radio talk show host Mark Levin endorsed Libertarian U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller on his program Friday evening against incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

Levin described himself as a “big fan” of Miller, while observing, “Murkowski is a leftist” and the “right-hand person” of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

The talk show host also pointed out that Murkowski earned an “F” on the Conservative Review scorecard, based on her voting record.

Despite being from the Last Frontier, “Murkowski acts like a Republican from New Jersey,” said Levin.

Miller agreed, noting that her votes are “Not at all representative of Alaska values.” He highlighted that the senator voted with President Obama 72 percent of the time during the last Congress, and his other rivals for the seat are left of center, as well.

“So we have a clear path to victory, and the grassroots are excited as can be that I’m in,” said Miller.

Levin wondered if Miller’s entry created the possibility for a Democrat to take the seat.

“No risk at all,” the candidate replied. “We have a Democrat who will probably get less votes than the Democrat-leaning Independent who has raised over a half a million dollars and has the Democratic Party’s support.”

Though no public polling exists following Miller’s entry, the Murkowski campaign released a poll in early September, which showed the Democrat and independent candidates taking a combined 17 percent. Therefore, it seems very likely Murkowski and Miller will be vying for the top spot in the race, once again.

“This is a beautiful race where a true conservative has the opportunity to win, as long as everybody activates,” said Miller.

Despite entering the race in mid-September, Miller has already garnered the endorsements of Gun Owners of America, Alaska Right to Life, and the support of the Alaska Republican Assembly. Additionally, five members of the Alaska GOP’s Central Committee stepped down to back Miller and one was voted out for doing so.

Miller also has the support of the co-chair of Donald Trump’s campaign in Alaska and the former co-chair of Sen. Ted Cruz’s campaign. Cruz won the state’s presidential primary with 36 percent of the vote to Trump’s 33.5. In total, non-establishment candidates took over 80 percent of that vote.

Joe Miller is a limited government Constitutionalist who believes government exists to protect our liberties, not to take them away. He supports free people, free markets, federalism, the Constitutional right to life, the Second Amendment, religious liberty, American sovereignty, and a strong national defense.

Trump-Clinton I: What to Expect From the First Presidential Debate Showdown

/0 Comments/in , /by

The first presidential debate between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton kicks off Monday evening, at 9 p.m. EST. It will last 90 minutes and take place at Hofstra University on Long Island. Over 100 million are expected to watch, close to Super Bowl level of viewership. This would make it the most-watched presidential debate in history, topping the 80 million who watched the lone presidential debate between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Lester Holt, host of NBC’s Nightly News, is the moderator. According to New York voter registration records, he has been a Republican since 2003. He is also a Christian, but says as a journalist ” I jealously guard my personal opinion.” The topics are “America’s Direction,” “Achieving Prosperity” and “Securing America.” Holt will select the questions. It is a traditional debate format, with six 15-minute time segments, and each of the topics will take up two of the six time slots.

None of the third party candidates achieved the 15 percent required in polls in order to participate. There are six weeks left until the election, and early ballots are already being mailed out in parts of the country.

Presidential debates tend to be more about who can deliver the best zingers, since by this stage the candidates have made their positions widely known. But the slug fests still influence voters. “You can’t really win an election in a debate, but you can lose one,” Brett O’Donnell, a communications consultant with long experience coaching GOP presidential candidates, told The Washington Post.

Both Candidates Will Tone it Down

Trump is expected to continue his style as an entertainer, which works to his advantage since people find it appealing. He has plenty of experience doing live TV as the reality show host of The Apprentice. However, it could also work to his disadvantage. Trump has deliberately become more scripted giving speeches lately, using a teleprompter in order to circumvent his tendency to make reckless statements, but he won’t have that aid at the debate. Expect Clinton to take a few jabs at Trump specifically designed to entice him to say something careless.

Voters like Trump because he is an outsider inexperienced in politics, so he has the advantage of lower expectations. Clinton is widely considered the front runner, currently leading in most polls, so has more to lose with a poor performance.

Lacking energy lately from her health problems, Clinton will be trying to play it low-key and safe. Standing, doing battle for an intense 90 minutes with barely a break may prove difficult for her, and will look even worse if she has a coughing fit. In contrast, expect Trump to show off his mastery of one-liner counter punches, which he effectively used during the GOP primary debates to devastate his opponents.

Vulnerabilities

Clinton is vulnerable on the issue of her moral character and the chaos around the world from ISIS and terrorism. Trump told Fox News on Monday, “I can talk about her deleting emails after she gets a subpoena from Congress and lots of other things. I can talk about her record, which is a disaster. I can talk about all she’s done to help ISIS become the terror that they’ve become, and I will be doing that.” Clinton will have difficulty separating herself from the spread of ISIS, due to her position as secretary of state from 2009 to early 2013 under President Obama.

Trump can also attack her for being part of the establishment and continuing to follow in Obama’s footsteps, taking the country further in the wrong direction. Clinton has lost her temper in public a few times recently when faced with criticism, so expect Trump to deliberately try to upset her.

Trump is vulnerable on his political inexperience, lacking years of developing public policy proposals. And, of course, there’s his mouth. The bombastic billionaire needs to look presidential and demonstrate that he has the temperament and maturity to hold the highest position in the country. Additionally, he has repeatedly been inconsistent with his previous statements on issues, and with fact-checkers closely analyzing his every word, he cannot risk many mistakes. A strategy Clinton has taken lately is using Trump’s own words against him.

The Experts Weigh in

Alex Conant, Marco Rubio’s spokesman during the primary, summarized in an interview with NPR what he expects to happen: “If Donald Trump can stand on the debate stage for two hours and not lose his temper and come across as a reasonable person, he’ll have a good night. If Hillary Clinton can stand on the debate stage and convince people that she’s not a liar, she’ll have a great night. But clearly, the former is easier than the latter.”

Joel Pollak of Breitbart warns of one disadvantage Trump faces, “[T]here is one larger reason that Clinton will win the first debate: the media will tell everyone she has won, regardless.”

Regardless of the media spin, Trump appears the favorite to prevail in the first debate. Unless he makes one or more large, glaring mistake, his charismatic, clever, energetic style should outmaneuver Clinton’s low-energy, defensive posturing.

The second debate will take place on October 9 at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, and will be co-moderated by Anderson Cooper of CNN and Martha Raddatz of ABC. It will be a town hall meeting format, with half the questions coming from the audience of undecided voters. The third and final debate will be held October 19 at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas, moderated by Chris Wallace of Fox News. (For more from the author of “Trump-Clinton I: What to Expect From the First Presidential Debate Showdown” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Dead People Voting in Colorado

/0 Comments/in , /by

Local officials in Colorado acknowledged “very serious” voter fraud after learning of votes cast in multiple elections under the named of recently-deceased residents.

A local media outlet uncovered the fraud by comparing voting history databases in the state with federal government death records. “Somebody was able to cast a vote that was not theirs to cast,” El Paso County Clerk and Recorder Chuck Broerman told CBS4 while discussing what he called a “very serious” pattern of people mailing in ballots on behalf of the dead.

It’s not clear how many fraudulent ballots have been submitted in recent years. CBS4 reported that it “found multiple cases” of dead people voting around the state, revelations that have provoked state criminal investigations.

“We do believe there were several instances of potential vote fraud that occurred,” said Colorado Secretary of State Wayne Williams. “It shows there is the potential for fraud.”

Colorado is a perennial battleground state in presidential battleground states. President Obama beat Republican nominee Mitt Romney by 51-46 in 2012. Clinton leads Trump by 2.5 points in the RealClearPolitics polling average, although there is wide variance in the three most recent surveys. One shows Trump leading by four, another shows them tied, and the third shows Clinton up nine points. (Read more from “Dead People Voting in Colorado” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Harbinger of Baal Appears in U.S. City!

/0 Comments/in , /by

Another harbinger has appeared in the land – and this one in New York City.

In the last days of ancient Israel, warnings, prophetic signs and harbingers appeared in the land, foreshadowing the judgment to come. The nation ignored these harbingers and headed to destruction.

In “The Harbinger,” the mystery is revealed that those same harbingers and warnings of national judgment have now appeared on American soil. But in the ancient case, Israel ignored the warnings and plunged even deeper into apostasy, immorality, ungodliness and brazen defiance of God. America is following the exact same template of judgment, the same course and the same progression.

But Israel’s defiance of God was linked to a specific entity – the god Baal. Baal was the god to whom they sacrificed their children, before whom they practiced sexual immorality and called good “evil” and evil “good.” Baal was the god in whose name Israel persecuted the prophets and the righteous of their day.

Baal was their anti-god, their substitute for the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the god of their apostasy and the god of their destruction. Baal was their devil god. In fact the name for satan, Beelzebul and Beelzebub, is derived from Baal – meaning “Baal of the flies” and “Baal of dung.” (Read more from “The Harbinger of Baal Appears in U.S. City!” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Magnificent Seven Actor Martin Sensmeier on Getting Chewed out by an Oscar-Nominee

/0 Comments/in , /by

Martin Sensmeier is an American actor of Tlingit, Koyukon-Athabascan and Irish descent. Raised in a Tlingit Coastal Community in Southeast Alaska, Martin moved to Los Angeles in 2007 to pursue acting and modeling . . .

He recently finished filming the remake of The Magnificent Seven, directed by Antoine Fuqua. He is starring alongside Denzel Washington, Chris Pratt, Ethan Hawke, and Vincent D’onofrio.

In an interview with ICTMN’s Vincent Schilling, Sensmeier spoke about his journey to become one of Hollywood’s hottest actors, as well as discussing an amazing memorable moment with an Oscar-nominated actor . . .

Any memorable moments for you in your career?

One morning, my clock was off by six minutes and I was one minute late for the van to take us to the set. I won’t say his name, but an Oscar-nominated actor tore into me – he said I was blessed to be in my situation, and tore into me for being late. I thought, Wow, what an experience to be chewed out by an Oscar nominee!

(Read more from “Magnificent Seven Actor Martin Sensmeier on Getting Chewed out by an Oscar-Nominee” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Former Bill Clinton Paramour Accepts Ringside Seat for Monday Night’s Presidential Debate

/0 Comments/in , /by

Whether Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump uses Monday night’s presidential debate to talk about the extramarital affairs of former President Bill Clinton remains uncertain in the days leading up to the Monday night debate.

However, the millions of viewers watching will be reminded of them, even if Trump never says a word.

Gennifer Flowers, with whom Bill Clinton had an affair he admitted to under oath, on Saturday tweeted that she will be accepting an invitation Trump issued her earlier in the day to have a front-row seat when Trump debates Democratic presidential nominee and former first lady Hillary Clinton.

“Hi Donald. You know I’m in your corner and will definitely be at the debate!,” read a tweet from what appears to be Flowers’s account.

The tweet came in the wake of a comment from Judy Stell, Flowers’s assistant, who told Buzzfeed that Flowers would attend.

“Ms. Flowers has agreed to join Donald at the debate,” she said.

Clinton, in fact, had started the ball rolling by inviting billionaire Mark Cuban to have a front-row seat for the debate. Cuban has relentlessly needled Trump throughout the general election campaign and derided Trump’s business success with a series of caustic interviews.

Cuban announced Thursday he has accepted the invitation.

Trump, a premier political counter-puncher trained in the art of one-upmanship by decades spent in the New York City corporate wars, responded on Saturday by mentioning Flowers.

In an October interview, Flowers spoke candidly about the past.

“You know, people criticize me for talking about her because I had an affair with her husband. And I don’t blame them for that,” she said.

But Hillary Clinton “never accepted her responsibility at being an enabler. She’s been an enabler that has encouraged him to go out and do whatever he does with women,” Flowers said.

“Women’s rights, ha”, she added. (For more from the author of “Former Bill Clinton Paramour Accepts Ringside Seat for Monday Night’s Presidential Debate” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Charlotte Releases Police Video of Fatal Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott

/0 Comments/in , /by

The city of Charlotte has released some video of Tuesday’s fatal shooting of Keith Scott by a Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officer.

“What we are releasing are the objective facts,” Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Kerr Putney said Saturday, calling the shooting “a complex case.” He said the videos to be released will show Smith had a gun with him when he was shot.

As of Saturday evening, one video had been released.

“The footage itself will not create in anyone’s mind as to what this case represents… the footage only supports the other information” including forensic evidence and witness statements, Putney said.

Putney said that Scott was “absolutely in possession of a handgun.” He said that officers spotted marijuana in Scott’s car, which is what caused them to confront Scott.

Release of the videos had been a point of contention between police and Scott’s family, each of which have offered a differing version of events surrounding Tuesday’s fatal shooting of the 43-year-old father of seven.

In a Facebook post, North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory supported the decision.

“I have been assured by the State Bureau of Investigation that the release will have no material impact on the independent investigation since most of the known witnesses have been interviewed,” he wrote.

Release of the video followed another day of protests in which demonstrators gathered in Charlotte’s Marshall Park to demand release of the video.

North Carolina’s State Bureau of Investigation said Friday the city was free to release the video whenever it chose to do so.

On Friday, Scott’s wife released a cell phone video in which she is heard both trying to dissuade her husband from taking an unspecified action while also pleading with police not to shoot her husband.

Two different narratives of the incident have emerged.

Scott’s family has said that he was sitting in a parked car when confronted by police and that he had been reading a book. The family insists he was obeying police commands and was not acting in an aggressive manner when he was shot and killed by a black police officer.

Police have said Scott was in possession of a gun, and that he was acting in a manner that was threatening to the officers. Police said no book was recovered from the scene. A gun that was recovered reportedly has Scott’s fingerprints and DNA upon it.

Putney, who has said the video supported the police version of events but is not definitive on its own, has said the video “when taken in the totality of all the other evidence … supports what we’ve heard and the version of the truth that we gave about the circumstances that happened that led to the death of Mr. Scott.”

Putney emphasized that although the video was “compelling,” police cannot make their case based solely upon it.

Putney said the officers heard in the videos gave Scott “loud, clear, verbal commands.”

“Mr. Scott exited his vehicle armed with a handgun as the officers continued to yell at him to drop it,” Putney has said (For more from the author of “Charlotte Releases Police Video of Fatal Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Are Polls Underestimating Trump’s True Support?

/0 Comments/in , /by

The press in 1980 did their best to scupper Ronald Reagan. They said he was an “extremist” and that he would “would divide America along racial, religious, and regional lines”. They said Reagan was a “dangerous cowboy” with his finger on the nuclear button. They seethed, raged, insinuated.

The Republican establishment joined in the calumnies. The strain on party brotherhood was so bad that after the primaries, one-time Republican candidate John Anderson split from the party and ran as a NeverReagan.

It was thus unfashionable to admit liking Reagan, and so not a few kept their mouths shut.

Presidential polls might have reflected this Reagan shyness. In the month before the election, polls had Carter up an average 44% to Reagan’s 40%. Anderson hovered around 9%, which left about 7% of voters unaccounted for. Were some of these 7% shy Reagan voters?

The final averages right before the election gave Reagan the edge, 47% to Carter’s 44% and Anderson’s 8%. That left only 1% unaccounted for.

The final tallies gave Reagan 51% of the popular vote, Carter 41%, and Anderson 7%, with the remaining 1% spread over novelty candidates.

There is a huge discrepancy here. Polls showed Reagan with 4% less support than he actually had, and Carter with 3% more and Anderson 1% more. These errors could have been caused by Reagan supporters unwilling to tell pollsters their true preference, but they also could have been because of built-in biases of the polls themselves. These biases should not surprise given that many polls are conducted or commissioned by mainstream media outlets, whose sins and biases do not need recounting.

Shy Trump Voters?

At this writing most polls show Hillary nearly tied with Trump, yet there is a suspicion that, like in 1980, some voters are shy about admitting that they like Trump. If this is so, the polls exaggerate Hillary’s true support.

Is anybody who is for Trump coy? If so, how many secret supporters are there? Or are the polls biased?

It’s easy to imagine scenarios where a pollster queries a citizen who is reluctant to say he’s voting for Trump. The college professor or student called on campus, an employee polled at any company in San Francisco or Los Angeles, a canvasser knocking at the door at a certain address in Chappaqua, New York when the lady of the house is in residence, and so on.

Hillary said half of Trump’s supporters are a “basket of deplorable.” Many on the left agree with these harsh words; deviation from leftist ideology is not countenanced.

So rather than trigger a social justice warrior by announcing their Trump preference, some surely keep their mouths shut.

On the other hand, as the election nears and, for instance, the NeverTrump camp realize how horrible the alternative is, and adding in the common knowledge that Americans like a winner, liking Trump grows easier. The polls, as in 1980, are tightening. Even so, there is still a sense polls under-count Trump’s true base.

Shy Brexit Voters

Disentangling voter shyness from poll biases is not easy. Modern polls over emotionally contentious questions suggest shyness is not negligible. Journalist Michael Tracey reminds us that six weeks before the Brexit vote, which the media and majority of the establishment hysterically disfavored, “Remain” led by 4% with “Undecideds” at 14%. But the final tally was 52% for “Leave,” a huge discrepancy and 8-point swing.

In the Brexit case, poll bias is not a likely explanation because Brexit polls were not sampled in the complex way presidential polls are. The results of the Brexit polls were also simple, in the sense that the numbers released were close to the actual numbers received in the polling process. By these comments I mean that the numbers released to the public in presidential polls are not in their raw form; they have been manipulated by various statistical models (this article explains how).

Scientific Polls? Nah

Now, despite what you might have heard, there is no such thing as a “scientific poll.” Or, rather, all polls are equally scientific. But not all polls are equally good. That public poll numbers are actually the result of statistical models means there is plenty of opportunity for bias and error to creep in.

This is well illustrated by no less than the New York Times, which recently gave four polling groups the same raw data. If polling were a rigid science, the answers should have been the same. But they weren’t. Results ran from Hillary +3 to Trump +1, a 4-point swing, a discrepancy more than large enough to change the outcome of the election (especially considering details about the Electoral College which needn’t detain us here).

There is also the possibility that some biases are intentional, as in so-called push polls, or because the samples are finagled in a preferred direction. Unscrupulous pollsters know that simply showing a candidate is ahead causes some people to favor that candidate (Americans like a winner). And if that candidate is shown to be well ahead of her true support, others will be discouraged from voting (why bother?). But surely the mainstream media would never lie to us, right?

Whatever the polls show, there is no certain way to say anything about their performance until after the election. See you on the other side. (For more from the author of “Are Polls Underestimating Trump’s True Support?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.