Common Sense

A book first published anonymously on January 10, 1776, during the American Revolution. Common Sense was signed “Written by an Englishman”, and the pamphlet became an immediate success. In relation to the population of the Colonies at that time, it had the largest sale and circulation of any book in American history. Common Sense presented the American colonists with a powerful argument for independence from British rule at a time when the question of independence was still undecided. Paine wrote and reasoned in a style that common people understood; forgoing the philosophy and Latin references used by Enlightenment era writers, Paine structured Common Sense like a sermon and relied on Biblical references to make his case to the people.

Small islands not capable of protecting themselves are the proper objects for kingdoms to take under their care; but there is something very absurd in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island.” – Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine wanted people to think about what was really happening. He explained that the people must fight against the unfair and unjust ways of King George III and the British Parliament. He used plain, simple common sense in his writing to show the Colonists that there was no other way to protect their rights, but to declare independence from their mother country who was treating them poorly. He talked about government being a necessary evil which could be made better through frequent elections for leadership. He didn’t think that government should control people who did not have a voice in what was being done.

In the early months of 1776, the mood in the colonies was to try to continue negotiating with the British to resolve the main problem of taxation without representation. Many of the colonists felt that the King and the Queen of England were appointed by God and any direct challenge to their authority would be a violation of Godly principles.

The British who lived in England had many rights. They had a say in whether they would be taxed. The Colonists, though, had no rights or any say in what laws Parliament made. Thomas Paine in lots of ways educated the world about the problems of the colonies.

In just a few months more than 500,000 copies were sold. That works out to be about one for every eight people living in the colonies at that time. Even though the colonists knew Thomas Paine, an Englishman, had been condemned in England and was probably prejudice, his arguments went right to their hearts. People saw the “common sense he made and started to show more desire to fight for their freedom from the severe laws King George III was making in the colonies.

The last line, “A government of our own is our natural right, ‘TIS TIME TO PART,” was probably the most convincing in his write.

Read the entire document ‘Common Sense’ here.

Summary below:

In Common Sense, Thomas Paine argues for American independence. His argument begins with more general, theoretical reflections about government and religion, then progresses onto the specifics of the colonial situation.

Paine begins by distinguishing between government and society. Society, according to Paine, is everything constructive and good that people join together to accomplish. Government, on the other hand, is an institution whose sole purpose is to protect us from our own vices. Government has its origins in the evil of man and is therefore a necessary evil at best. Paine says that government’s sole purpose is to protect life, liberty and property, and that a government should be judged solely on the basis of the extent to which it accomplishes this goal.

Paine then considers an imagined scenario in which a small group of people has been placed on an island, and cut off from the rest of society. In time, these people develop ties with one another, and lawmaking becomes inevitable. Paine says the people will be much happier if they are responsible for the creation of the laws that rule them. Paine is also implicitly arguing that such a system of representation is also better for the American colonists. Having expressed his disagreement with British reign in America, Paine proceeds to launch a general attack on the British system of government. Paine says the British system is too complex and rife with contradictions, and that the monarchy is granted far too much power. The British system pretends to offer a reasonable system of checks and balances, but in fact, it does not.

From here Paine moves on to discuss, in general, the notions of monarchy and hereditary succession. Man, Pain argues, was born into a state of equality, and the distinction that has arisen between king and subject is an unnatural one. At first, Paine says, the world was without kings, but the ancient Jews decided they wanted a king. This angered God, but he allowed them to have one. Paine presents pages of biblical evidence detailing God’s wrath at the idea of the Jews having a king. The conclusion Paine reaches is that the practice of monarchy originates from sin, and is an institution that the Bible and God condemn. Paine calls hereditary succession an abominable practice. He says that even if people were to choose to have a king, that does not legitimize that King’s child acting as a future ruler. Furthermore, hereditary succession has brought with it innumerable evils, such as incompetent kings, corruption, and civil war.

Having dispensed with the preliminary theoretical issues, Paine sets in to discuss the details of the American situation. In response to the argument that America has flourished under British rule, and therefore ought to stay under the king, Paine says that such an argument fails to realize that America has evolved and no longer needs Britain’s help. Some say that Britain has protected America, and therefore deserves allegiance, but Paine responds that Britain has only watched over America in order to secure its own economic well-being. Paine adds that most recently, instead of watching over the colonies, the British have been attacking them, and are therefore undeserving of American loyalty.

Paine says that the colonies have little to gain from remaining attached to Britain. Commerce can be better conducted with the rest of Europe, but only after America becomes independent. Paine also asserts that if the colonies remain attached to Britain, the same problems that have arisen in the past will arise in the future. Paine argues that it is necessary to seek independence now, as to do otherwise would only briefly cover up problems that will surely reemerge.

Paine even proposes the form of government that the independent colonies should adopt. His recommendation is for a representative democracy that gives roughly equal weight to each of the colonies.

Paine explains why the current time is a good time to break free of Britain. Primarily, Paine focuses on the present size of the colonies, and on their current capabilities. He presents an inventory of the British Navy and gives calculations revealing how America could build a navy of comparable size. Paine recommends this as a way of ensuring America’s security and prosperity in trade. Paine also argues that America is sufficiently small as to be united now. If time were to elapse, and the population of the colonies to grow, the same feeling of unity would not be present. Paine adds that if the Americans revolt now, they can use the vast expanses of uncharted land to the West in order to pay down some of the debt they will incur.

Paine says that as a colony of Britain, America lacks respectability on the international scene. They are seen simply as rebels, and cannot form substantial alliances with other nations. In order to prosper in the long term, the colonies need to be independent. Paine says that, by declaring independence, America will be able to ask for the help of other countries in its struggle for freedom. For all of these reasons, Paine says it is imperative and urgent that the colonies declare independence.

(Source)

Common Sense – Full Text


Recommended Books:

Among the most influential authors and reformers of his age, Thomas Paine (1737–1809) was born in England but went on to play an important role in both the American and French Revolutions. In 1774, he emigrated to America where, for a time, he helped to edit the Pennsylvania Magazine. On January 10, 1776, he published his pamphlet Common Sense, a persuasive argument for the colonies’ political and economic separation from Britain.
Common Sense cites the evils of monarchy, accuses the British government of inflicting economic and social injustices upon the colonies, and points to the absurdity of an island attempting to rule a continent. Credited by George Washington as having changed the minds of many of his countrymen, the document sold over 500,000 copies within a few months.
Today, Common Sense remains a landmark document in the struggle for freedom, distinguished not only by Paine’s ideas but also by its clear and passionate presentation. Designed to ignite public opinion against autocratic rule, the pamphlet offered a careful balance between imagination and judgment, and appropriate language and expression to fit the subject. It immediately found a receptive audience, heartened Washington’s despondent army, and foreshadowed much of the phrasing and substance of the Declaration of Independence.

 

Republicanism

A political ideology in opposition to monarchy and tyranny. Republicans hold that a political system must be founded upon the rule of law, the rights of individuals, and the sovereignty of the people. It is also closely connected to the idea of civic virtue, the responsibility citizens owe to their republic, and to opposition to corruption, or the use of public power to benefit the politician.

Republican emerged first in Ancient Greece, particularly Athens. It flourished during the Roman Republic aboutt a century before Christ, led by such statesmen as Cicero and Cato the Younger.

Machiavelli

Republicanism was revived during the Renaissance, especially by political thinkers who promoted Civic Humanism in Florence such as Niccolò Machiavelli.

Was Machiavelli a Machiavellian? In The Prince he showed how an absolute monarch can use tyranny and deceit to get his way. But in other books he took an opposite view, emphasizing that when a state does not have a prince (a powerful king), the people rule in a “republic” and they must have civic virtue for the republic to survive. Through his book on Roman history Discourses on Livy Machiavelli has been a major positive influence of modern conservative thought. He took the lead in defining what civic virtue means for a citizen of a republic—a state where the people are sovereign and not some king. For example, a citizen has the duty to oppose corruption and when called upon fight for his country. His ideas on republicanism strongly influenced British, French and American thought on the duties of the good citizen, and can be traced through American history from the days of Benjamin Franklin and James Madison down to the 21st century.[1]

Britain

The British overthrew and executed King Charles I in 1649, and established a republican government under Oliver Cromwell. After Cromwell died in 1658 the republic collapsed, the monarchy was restored, and republican ideas were driven out of the mainstream of British political thought. They did not disappear, but were promulgated by the Whigs Country Party, whose pamphlets were eagerly read by the American colonists. Thus English political journalists John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon published anonymously Cato’s Letters (1720–23). These were 138 letters or short essays that expounded on liberty and republicanism and which greatly influenced the American Founding Fathers and libertarian thought into the 21st century.[2]

United States

Republicanism is the political value system that has dominated American political thought since the American Revolution. It stresses liberty and rights as central values, makes the people as a whole sovereign, rejects aristocracy and inherited political power, expects citizens to be independent and calls on them to perform civic duties, and is strongly opposed to corruption. The American version of republicanism was formed by the Founding Fathers in the 18th century and was based on English models as well as Roman and European ideas. It formed the basis for the fighting the British in 1775, the declaring independence (1776) and creating a powerful written Constitution (1787); it appears in highly influential statements from Abraham Lincoln and others.

Republicanism is not the same as democracy, for republicanism asserts that people have inalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters. In a true democracy, the voters have no limits. Republicanism and democracy are two political philosophies (along with classical liberalism) that have dominated all American politics. Indeed, the terms are enshrined in the names of the two major parties, but both parties in practice combine both republicanism and democracy. The United States is not a democracy and was never intended to be one.[3]

The republican ideal of civic duty was succinctly expressed in 1961 by the Democrat John F. Kennedy: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

The American Revolution

Republican opposition to corruption

The intellectual and political leaders in the 1760s–1770s closely read history to compare governments and their effectiveness of rule.[4] They were especially concerned with the history of liberty in England, and were primarily influenced by the “country” party in British politics, which roundly denounced the corruption surrounding the “court” party in London. This approach produced a political ideology called “republicanism”, which was widespread in America by 1775. “Republicanism was the distinctive political consciousness of the entire Revolutionary generation.”[5]

Continue Reading at Conservapedia…

Plutocracy

A form of government in which political power is held by the wealthy. As with the root of many other forms of government, it is a Greek term, in this case, from plutos-rich. It is a type of oligarchy. (Conservapedia)

WATCH: Plutocracy Part 1 – Divide and Rule

Republican Party

One of the oldest functioning political parties in the world, the moment of the creation of what would later be nicknamed the Grand Old Party can be traced back to March 20, 1854 in Ripon, Wisc., where a group of men came together to establish an anti-slavery coalition to meet the growing danger that slavery posed to the country. (Some say that Michigan is actually the birthplace of the Republican Party, and it was there that the first statewide Republican convention took place, but that wasn’t until July 6 of the same year.)

For decades, the precarious political balance between free and slave states was held together by the Missouri Compromise. Slavery would not be allowed to expand above a certain latitude, which was just fine with politicians in the North. Southerners, however, believed that they were being unfairly hemmed in, and they wanted change.

On Jan. 4, 1854, Democratic Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois gave the South what it wanted and upset the established order by introducing the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This bill essentially nullified the Missouri Compromise and would allow for states entering the union the power to decide on whether to allow slavery by popular sovereignty.

The bill set off a political firestorm, but opponents of slavery found they had little recourse against the Democrats. The once powerful Whig Party had long been a champion of the anti-slavery cause, but by 1854 it was a shadow of its former self. Its lackluster performance in recent elections signified that the Whigs did not hold a strong enough national coalition to beat back the pro-slavery forces. A new coalition would be needed to turn the tide.

A motley group of anti-slavery Democrats, northern Whigs, Free-Soilers, and Know-Nothings gathered in Wisconsin in March to assemble a new party. They called themselves Republicans, hoping the term would remind voters of Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans. “In the broader context,” writes Lewis L. Gould, author of Grand Old Party: A History of the Republicans, “‘Republicanism’ tapped into a rich historical tradition dating back to the Italian renaissance and the English revolution that saw republics as embodying public-spirited citizens acting in the political sphere to preserve civic virtue and welfare for all.”

The new Republican party was certainly capable of establishing a new party organization as an institution. Many of its members were already politicians schooled in the mechanics of running a political party. The problem was putting together a coalition that could face the Democrats on a national scale.

The major hurdle for Republicans to overcome in achieving national prominence was the nativist sentiments of the Know-Nothings. This secretive organization believed that Catholics and immigrants would be the death of the republic. The Know-Nothings were so skillful at translating these fears into votes, that their anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic platform trumped anti-slavery, and in 1855, they won more local races than the Republicans.

Republicans were able to persevere, however, by partnering with the Know-Nothings to get Nathaniel Banks elected Speaker of the House in February 1856. For the first time, the Republicans had a seat on the national political stage. Other events worked in Republicans’ favor to convince voters that slavery was indeed the issue of gravest concern. Kansas erupted in violence as pro-slavery mobs rioted in Lawrence on May 21, and the next day Republican Senator Charles Sumner was savagely beaten by South Carolina Congressman Preston Brooks in the Senate chamber.

Later that year, the Republicans would field their first presidential candidate, John C. Frémont of California. Frémont lost the election to Democrat James Buchanan. Former president Millard Fillmore’s Know-Nothing/Whig campaign syphoned off votes that probably cost Frémont the election. But Republicans were emboldened by their strong showing. The final disintegration of the Know-Nothings and the Whigs after the election led many of their supporters into the Republican camp.

Even in 1856, the Democrats were saying that a Republican presidency would lead to the end of slavery and civil war. And, of course that is what happened with the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln in 1860. But Lincoln’s election also led to an extended period of Republican dominance. For the next 72 years, only three Democrats would go on to win the White House.

Party of Freedom

Though popularized in a Thomas Nast cartoon, the GOP’s elephant symbol originated during the 1860 campaign, as a symbol of Republican strength. Republicans envisioned “free soil, free speech, free labor.” Under the leadership of President Abraham Lincoln, the GOP became the Party of the Union as well.

President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, but it was the entire Republican Party who freed the slaves. The 1864 Republican National Convention called for the abolition of slavery, and Congressional Republicans passed the 13th Amendment unanimously, with only a few Democrat votes.

The early women’s rights movement was solidly Republican, as it was a continuation of abolitionism. They were careful not to be overly partisan, but as did Susan B. Anthony, most suffragists favored the GOP. The 19th Amendment was written by a Republican senator and garnered greater support from Republicans than from Democrats.

Party of Prosperity

Low taxes, sound money, regulatory restraint: these were among the commonsense economic policies established by the GOP that brought about decades of prosperity after the Civil War. Republicans encouraged innovation and rule of law. Buttressed by Republican control in Congress, the McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt and Taft administrations cleared away obstacles to economic growth.

President Dwight Eisenhower and congressional Republicans appreciated the fact that the private sector, not government, is the engine of wealth creation. With his bold tax-cutting agenda, President Ronald Reagan revived the economy after years of Democrat malaise.

Ronald Reagan explained the difference between Democrats and Republicans in a way that cannot be improved upon: “Two visions of the future, two fundamentally different ways of governing – their government of pessimism, fear, and limits, or ours of hope, confidence, and growth. Their government sees people only as members of groups. Ours serves all the people of America as individuals.”

Some key highlights in Republican history:

  • March 20, 1954First Republican Party meeting in Ripon, Wisconsin.
  • July 6, 1954Under the Oaks Convention.
  • September 22, 1862 Republican President Abraham Lincoln issues preliminary Emancipation Proclamation
  • January 1, 1863 – President Abraham Lincoln issues Emancipation Proclamation.
  • February 9, 1864 Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton deliver over 100,000 signatures to U.S. Senate supporting Republicans’ plans for constitutional amendment to ban slavery
  • June 15, 1864  Republican Congress votes equal pay for African-American troops serving in U.S. Army during Civil War
  • June 28, 1864 Republican majority in Congress repeals Fugitive Slave Acts
  • October 29, 1864 African-American abolitionist Sojourner Truth says of President Lincoln: “I never was treated by anyone with more kindness and cordiality than were shown to me by that great and good man”
  • January 31, 1865 – Republican-controlled 38th House of Representatives passes the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.
  • March 3, 1865 Republican Congress establishes Freedmen’s Bureau to provide health care, education, and technical assistance to emancipated slaves
  • April 8, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate, also w/ 100% Republican support
  • April 14, 1865Lincoln is assassinated. Lincoln’s VP, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrat support. After he was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a century.
  • June 19, 1865 On “Juneteenth,” U.S. troops land in Galveston, TX to enforce ban on slavery that had been declared more than two years before by the Emancipation Proclamation
  • November 22, 1865 – Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination
  • December 6, 1865 – Republican Party’s 13th Amendment, banning slavery, is ratified.
  • January 13, 1866 – With unanimous Republican support and against intense Democrat opposition, Congress passes the 14th Amendment giving full citizenship to freed slaves with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.
  • February 5, 1866 U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves
  • April 9, 1866  Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law
  • April 19, 1866 Thousands assemble in Washington, DC to celebrate Republican Party’s abolition of slavery
  • May 10, 1866 U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no
  • June 8, 1866 U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no
  • July 16, 1866 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of Freedman’s Bureau Act, which protected former slaves from “black codes” denying their rights
  • July 28, 1866 Republican Congress authorizes formation of the Buffalo Soldiers, two regiments of African-American cavalrymen
  • July 30, 1866 Democrat-controlled City of New Orleans orders police to storm racially-integrated Republican meeting; raid kills 40 and wounds more than 150
  • January 8, 1867 Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.
  • July 19, 1867 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans
  • March 30, 1868 Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”
  • May 20, 1868 Republican National Convention marks debut of African-American politicians on national stage; two – Pinckney Pinchback and James Harris – attend as delegates, and several serve as presidential electors
  • 1868 (July 9)  14th Amendment passes and recognizes newly freed slaves as U.S. Citizens
  • Republican Party Support: 94% Democratic Party Support: 0%
  • September 3, 1868 25 African-Americans in Georgia legislature, all Republicans, expelled by Democrat majority; later reinstated by Republican Congress
  • September 12, 1868 Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and all other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress
  • September 28, 1868 Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana murder nearly 300 African-Americans who tried to prevent an assault against a Republican newspaper editor
  • October 7, 1868 Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”
  • October 22, 1868 While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan
  • November 3, 1868 Republican Ulysses Grant defeats Democrat Horatio Seymour in presidential election; Seymour had denounced Emancipation Proclamation
  • December 10, 1869  Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office
  • February 3, 1870 The US House ratifies the 15th Amendment granting voting rights to all Americans regardless of race. Republican support: 98% House, 68% Senate (39 Yea, 5 Nay, 13 no votes),  Democrat support: 0 from House, 0 from Senate
  • February 25, 1870 Hiram Rhodes Revels becomes the first Black seated in the US Senate, becoming the First Black in Congress and the first Black Senator.
  • May 19, 1870 African American John Langston, law professor and future Republican Congressman from Virginia, delivers influential speech supporting President Ulysses Grant’s civil rights policies
  • May 31, 1870 President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights
  • June 22, 1870 Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South
  • September 6, 1870Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell
  • December 12, 1870Republican Joseph Hayne Rainey becomes the first Black duly elected by the people and the first Black in the US House of Representatives
  • In 1870 and 1871, along with Revels (R-Miss) and Rainey (R-SC), other Blacks were elected to Congress from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina and Virginia – all Republicans.
  • A Black Democrat Senator didn’t show up on Capitol Hill until 1993. The first Black Congressman was not elected until 1935.
  • February 28, 1871 Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters
  • March 22, 1871 Spartansburg Republican newspaper denounces Ku Klux Klan campaign to eradicate the Republican Party in South Carolina
  • April 20, 1871Republican Congress enacts the (anti) Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans
  • March 1, 1872 – Republican-controlled 42nd Congress establishes Yellowstone as first national park.
  • December 9, 1872First African-American governor, Pinckney Pinchback (R-LA), inaugurated.
  • April 2, 1917First woman in Congress, Rep. Jeannette Rankin (R-MT), sworn in.
  • May 21, 1919 – Republican-controlled 66th Congress passes the 19th Amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote.
  • June 2, 1924 – Republican-controlled 68th Congress and President Calvin Coolidge grant citizenship to Native Americans.
  • December 7, 1928First Hispanic U.S. Senator, Senator Octaviano Larrazolo (R-NM), sworn in.
  • January 3, 1949 – Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME) becomes the first woman to serve in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
  • May 17, 1954Brown v Board of Education strikes down racial segregation in public schools; majority decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, former governor (R-CA) and vice presidential nominee.
  • September 9, 1957 – President Dwight Eisenhower signs the 1957 Civil Rights Act. One of Eisenhower’s primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.
  • August 21, 1959First Asian-American U.S. Senator, Hiram Fong (R-HI), is seated.
  • June 10, 1964 – Senate passes the 1964 Civil Rights Act when the Republican leader, Everett Dirksen (R-IL), defeats Democrat filibuster.  The historic Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.
  • September 25, 1981 – Sandra Day O’Connor, appointed by President Reagan, becomes first woman on the Supreme Court.
  • June 12, 1987 – President Ronald Reagan calls for liberation of East Europeans from Communism with “Tear Down This Wall” speech.

Sources:

Polls

Most of the polls reported by the mainstream media are carefully crafted lies designed to manipulate and shape voter opinion, not report it. There was a time when public electoral polls actually attempted to determine which candidate was going to win an election. They weren’t infallible, but they were, at least, conducted honestly. Today, almost all publicly available polling comes from media companies or universities in partnership with media companies.

The media company that pays for a poll establishes the methodology of the poll. They determine how many people will be included in the polling sample. Who will be polled, such as likely voters, registered voters, or just adults, men or women, Republicans or Democrats. They also determine what questions will be asked by the polling company. The results can be manipulated by the questions that are asked, how they are asked, or even in what order they are asked. In short, media companies determine so many of the factors that underpin the veracity of the poll, they can significantly affect the results of a poll before it is even conducted.

Considering that the Media Research Center recently reported that the mainstream media has slanted their evening news broadcasts to report on Trump unfavorably 95% of the time, compared to 5% favorable coverage. With a 19 to 1 reporting bias, is there any doubt that the media would slant polling results in the same manner?

With the most important election in America’s history to be determined (with Trump wanting to put power back into the hands of the people vs. the globalist at risk of losing many years of progress towards the New World Order), polls once again become an important component of the mainstream media political reporting. But only if the poll results support the media’s agenda. If poll results run contrary to the goals and desires of the leftist media, the results of polls that run counter to approved doctrine are buried deep, if they are reported at all. Presidential poll results favorable to the democrats are woven into high profile stories designed to discourage Trump supporters into believing that resistance is futile, Trump can’t win, so don’t waste your time voting.

Presidential election polls are expensive and media companies usually promote new poll results every way possible to attract more readers and viewers, so it’s always fascinating when media companies don’t report their own polls. Last week CNN buried the results of a large-scale, 2020 Presidential election poll so deep in their website it was hard to find.

So, why in the world would CNN spend all that money and then hide the results of their own poll? It’s simple, the poll must have been favorable to Trump and detrimental to Biden. The more favorable a story is for Trump, the deeper CNN buries it. For them to bury their own poll, it must have been pretty good for the President. The headline for the CNN poll, if you could find it, was “Biden tops Trump nationwide, but battlegrounds tilt Trump.” The Townhall article on the same data came through with “New CNN poll shows Trump crushing Biden in swing states.”

When polls show a majority of folks favor a policy or candidate, it marginalizes those who disagree with the poll, peer-pressuring them into conformity. The mainstream polling companies do not want to correct their polling because they know the skewed polls work to influence people. Republicans in Congress used skewed polls on repealing Obamacare to justify their lack of action.

A nationwide poll of the type that CNN claims Biden is leading is actually irrelevant in a Presidential Election because of the Electoral College. It’s not a national popular vote, much to the consternation of many on the left, it’s 50 state elections, And by no means are all 50 states in play. Barring a massive event, 35 of those states are pre-determined, not competitive, not changing for anything. An opinion poll in New York or California is irrelevant as it’s a foregone conclusion that the Democrat will win. The margin doesn’t matter as the electoral votes will be the same.

Due to the winner-take-all state laws allocating electors to the electoral college, the national polls aren’t what people should be looking at. It’s not a national popular vote, much to the consternation of many on the left, it’s 50 state elections, and by no means are all 50 states in play. Only the handful of states that decide elections should be taken into account (and if you don’t like that, then change it). Polls in those states from Rasmussen Reports, as well as from the reputable Investor’s Business Daily, will provide the most accurate predictions in a presidential race. Rasmussen found that Trump was beating Biden by 52 to 45 percent in those states – with oversampling! The poll noted that if equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans were polled, Trump’s lead jumped to 15 percent.

The Power of Manipulating the Data

Argumentum ad populum is Latin for the idea that because many people believe something to be true, it is true. Closely related is the bandwagon effect in marketing, where marketers attempt to persuade people to purchase their goods and services by claiming “everyone else is doing it.” These strategies aren’t just used to sell goods and services—they are also used to sell politicians and policies.

What’s the best way to show that “everyone else” supports the candidate or legislation? Polling. When polls show a majority of folks favor a policy or candidate, it marginalizes those who disagree with the poll, peer-pressuring them into conformity by making them think their opinions are unpopular, invalid, or irrelevant.

The problem, however, is that polling seems to be increasingly skewed in favor of a particular agenda. Can you remember the last time the mainstream media reported a poll on social issues showing a conservative idea winning?

In 2016, they skewed their polls to make it look like Hillary Clinton was going to win the presidential election. The Drudge Report, which used to favor the right, is now linking to these biased polls with headlines that shriek “Shock Poll!” Because they really are shocking; no one believes that Joe Biden is significantly ahead of Donald Trump in the polls. As one writer described it, “Biden can’t get through a fawning five-minute interview from his basement, with notes and a teleprompter, without losing his train of thought or saying something absurd.”

One of the most popular polling companies (though not above manipulating data) in recent years is Rasmussen Reports. Notably, of all the recent major presidential polls, Rasmussen showed Trump trailing Biden by twelve points in October, a month before the election. The poll surveyed likely voters, and did not break down Republicans v. Democrats. Four years earlier, the media was singing the same tune. On June 26, 2016, Time reported, “Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton holds a double-digit lead over presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump.” How did that turn out?

Tricks are for Kids… and Polling Companies

Oversampling Democrats

Oversampling is not an accident or an error, it is media manipulation of the poll in order to ensure a desired result. John Tantillo, writing for Newsmax, looked at some polls compiled at Real Clear Politics earlier this year and found that every single one of them had a bias of at least six points toward Democrats — polling more Democrats than Republicans. The only reason to oversample is to get a specific desired result. The Independents polled were underrepresented and leaned toward the Democrats. This is not an accurate representation. A December Gallup poll of party affiliation found that 28 percent identify as Democrats, 28 percent as Republicans, and 41 percent as Independents.

Wayne Allan Root, also writing at Newsmaxidentified a Fox News poll last fall that surveyed a whopping 48 percent of Democrats. Similarly, an analyst who looked at polls in 2017 found that by oversampling Democrats, they robbed Trump of 8 points. According to National Review, the major polling company Pew Research Center started oversampling Democrats back in 1992 and hasn’t stopped. Unfortunately, most polls don’t show the breakdown of those surveyed.

Choosing ‘Iffy’ Republicans to Poll

The other polling bias against Republicans involves surveying voters who aren’t likely to vote. Sometimes this involves surveying “registered voters.” Well, a lot of registered voters have no intention of voting in the next election. And those less likely to vote tend to lean more to the left. Polls are a little more accurate when they survey “likely voters.” These may be people who have voted in the last presidential election. But it’s still not as accurate as surveying “likely likely voters,” as one polling company labeled them. These voters consist of those who vote in every election — which contain a higher percentage of conservatives. You may really hate Trump, but if you don’t vote you’re not going to have an effect on the election.

Rush Limbaugh recently shared on the recent polls coming out that are outrageous if not fraudulent.  Townhall reported:

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh zeroed-in on how these pollsters are picking their GOP samples. To no one’s shock, they’re skewing these surveys by overloading it with suburban Republican voters who are more hostile to Trump. And of course, they averse to sampling rural Republicans who are die-hard Trump supporters. In essence, the ‘R-split’ are pretty much soft Democrats at this point, as suburban voters are notoriously squishy with zero backbone.

Political commentator Larry Schweikart believes that the polls used by some of the extreme polling companies are so extreme when compared to more reasonable polling because they are selecting locations unfavorable to the President in their Republican samples. Schweikart summarizes that the polling companies can get away with fraudulent polling again because the media will never call them out for their corrupt representations.

Polls can ask Leading Questions

Questions can be worded in a way that leads a respondent to an answer that may or may not reflect his true feelings. For example, I could ask the question “Do you want to stop the war in Iraq so the lives of innocent civilians can be spared?” Virtually every American wants to prevent innocent loss of life, so many respondents may answer yes to this question, even if they think the war is morally just. But reporters summarizing the results may say “…95 percent of respondents answered yes when asked if they wanted to stop the war“. The questioner can also surround the question with information that biases the answer. For example, “Seventy percent of homeless shelter residents are single mothers and their children. Should the next fiscal budget include an increase in funds to local shelters?” Respondents may believe the money is better spent on other areas, but the extra information points people in the direction of one answer.

Answers to poll questions are often more complicated that yes-no or among a small list of choices. For example, a poll may ask “Do you support a war with Iran?” The only choices may be yes or no. But many people may say “Yes, but only if they are making nuclear weapons” or “Yes, but only if it is sanctioned by the U.N.” Another example is a consumer confidence question that asks, “Do you consider yourself rich or poor?” Many people will want to answer something in between, but that isn’t a choice.

Sample Size

It’s normally too expensive or time-consuming to survey everyone in population; thus, we must rely on samples to gauge the opinions of everyone. A reliable, scientific poll questions a large enough sample of people to ensure statistical accuracy and includes a representative selection of respondents. Thus, a poll designed to represent American public opinion wouldn’t be very reliable if it only included 10 people or included only white males. It’s rare that news reports will mention details of the information sample or how the survey was conducted. Viewers and readers usually just take the poll results as fact.

Human Error or Manipulation of Results

Whether the poll is done in person, by phone, by mail, or by web, a human being usually has to eventually tally & report the results. That causes problems for two reasons. One, a human is prone to mistakes. If you’re tallying thousands of responses, you’re bound to make mistakes. Even if a computer handles the tally, computers are still programmed by humans. Second, the person may be dishonest and wants to achieve a certain result. For example, assume I’m a passionate advocate for banning the death penalty and am taking a phone survey. A strong poll result showing the public in favor of a death-penalty ban may convince some politicians to take action. When taking a poll, it’s easy for me to put some extra chalk marks in the anti-death penalty column even when people are answering pro-death penalty in the phone calls. Eventually, I may just achieve the poll result that I want.

A Major Problem – Contacting the Sample

A new problem that affects poll sample is the process of contacting the sample voters. People are no longer interested in participating in polls. They simply refuse to answer the phone, or else tell the pollster that they will not participate.

To best illustrate this, wired.com writes:

The classic pollster’s technique known as random digit dialing, in which firms robo-dial phone after phone, is failing, because an ever-dwindling number of people have landlines. By 2014, 60 percent of Americans used cell phones either most or all of the time, making it difficult or impossible for polling firms to reach three out of five Americans. (Government regulations make it prohibitively expensive for pollsters to call cell phones.) And even when you can dial people at home, they don’t answer; whereas a survey in the 1970s or 1980s might have achieved a 70 percent response rate, by 2012 that number had fallen to 5.5 percent, and in 2016 it’s headed toward an infinitesimal 0.9 percent. And finally, the demographics of participants are narrowing: An elderly white woman is 21 times more likely to answer a phone poll than a young Hispanic male. So polling samples are often inherently misrepresentative.

Many who do participate in polls now lie to the pollster about who they are supporting. Since there is little possibility in determining who is lying or not, this presents another bias into the poll.

The type of contact is also problematic. The younger voters have cell phones, so they are more difficult to contact. And with the ability to screen calls, contacting them becomes all the more difficult in getting a representative sample.

Countering the difficulty in obtaining a representative sample, pollsters have turned to the Internet to try and achieve representative samples. This imposes its own standard of difficulty since those willing to participate in on-line polling will tend to have a different “mind-set” than someone who is contacted by phone who would otherwise not participate in polls.

Poll results can be presented in a misleading way

Even if polls are scientifically accurate and are done by unbiased, profession polling organizations, there are still other problems that make polls unreliable. Most news stories don’t present the raw data behind a poll and let you draw your own conclusion. Instead, the results will be presented in summary format as part of an analysis article. For example, a poll question may ask “Do you support military action to unseat the Islamic fundamentalist regime of Iran (Yes | No | Unsure)?” The raw data result may be: 29 percent support, 28 percent oppose, 43 percent unsure. The correct conclusion to draw from this poll is that the public generally hasn’t made up its mind or needs more information. However, a biased reporter may selectively draw from the results and give the wrong impression.

Examples

  1. 2016 Presidential Election – Trump vs. Hillary: Pollsters and statisticians gave Hillary Clinton odds of between 75 and 99 percent of winning the U.S. presidential election. How did so many get it so wrong? These polls were oversampled with democrats. The article linked also shows that the President of Hart Research and Associates, Mr. Geoff Garin, who conducted a fequently cited poll, had Hillary in the lead by 11 points  and soon afterbecame “a strategic adviser for Priorities USA in support of Hillary Clinton’s election“. Hart recieved $220,000 from Clinton’s campaign in September 2016 alone. See HERE also…
  2. A Gallup poll in the fall of 2019 claimed that 52 percent of Americans supported impeaching Trump and removing him from office. But they didn’t even bother to survey registered voters; they surveyed just anyone who picked up their phone — which could include illegal immigrants and felons who aren’t permitted to vote in most elections. The poll also over-surveyed Democrats. Most of the major liberal news and polling organizations, including Reuters, CBS, CNN, Gallup and CNBC are like this, not bothering to even survey registered voters.
  3. Biden’s campaign manager, also known as CNN, has their “poll of polls” described as, “the five most recent national telephone polls measuring the view of registered voters.” Considering that only 58 percent of eligible voters went to the polls in 2016, CNN’s “poll of polls” may not be particularly representative of the electorate.
  4. The Washington Post – ABC News poll sampled 1,000 adults. Not likely voters, not registered voters, not even eligible voters, just whoever answered the phone from their already biased database. They also oversampled Democrats by 6 percentage points and their sample contained 399 Trump supporters compared to 522 Biden supporters, over a 25 percent advantage for Biden. It’s no wonder their survey found Biden favored over Trump 54 to 39 percent, reflecting the sample. Is this designed to inform or influence the electorate?
  5. The Quinnipiac University poll of registered voters, oversampled Democrats by 10 points, 34 to 24 percent. Their poll favored Biden over Trump 52 to 37 percent, a 15-point margin, two-thirds of which is negated by the skewed poll sample.
  6. The Fox News poll oversampled Democrats by 4 points with Biden winning by an 8-point margin. Despite the voting preference for Biden, the poll was split evenly on whether Trump would be reelected.
  7. A 2020 CNN poll surveyed registered voters, instead of likely voters, which is a much more reliable cohort. After all, we know for a fact that half of the registered voters don’t even bother to vote. That makes them remarkably unreliable and the polling is not a representative sample. 34 percent of those polled identified as Democrats while only 26 percent described themselves as Republicans, an eight-point difference.
  8. In Houston, Texas, a proposition that would allow men to use women’s bathrooms failed by nearly 2 to 1 (61 percent to 39 percent). This is despite the fact that polls reported significant support for the proposition in the weeks and months leading up to the vote. In fact, a Houston Association of Realtors poll showed 15 percent more Houston voters supported the proposition than opposed it. Obviously, these polls were grossly inaccurate and skewed to manipulate people to vote in favor of the proposition.
  9. in 2012, North Carolinians voted on a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Prior to that vote, polls had showed a majority of North Carolinians opposing the amendment, and some polls showed same-sex marriage support by upwards of a 25 percent margin. However, on election day, the amendment passed 61 to 39 percent, by a 22-point margin!
  10. All of the Brexit polls were wrong on the UK as the people voted to exit the EU in spite of the poll manipulation that showed most were against it.
  11. A race for Kentucky governor also reflected the same inaccurate polling. The Huffington Post, which unapologetically leans liberal, showed the liberal leading the conservative, who vocally supported Kim Davis, the clerk who declined to issue same-sex marriage licenses, by about 2.1 percent. Other polling showed the liberal leading by as much as 5 percent. While the race was tight, the conservative ended up with the support of 53 percent of Kentucky voters, while the liberal only secured 44 percent. The conservative candidate won by 9 points.

Data from Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc. gives polling companies a very good idea of how a person will likely vote. They obtain this information and include the high probability democrats and low probability republicans into their own database to manipulate the data to sell you a policy or politician and the peer-pressure to conform or the herd mentality to ‘go with the crowd’ will certainly have a profound effect tens of thousands of undecided voters. That is the objective.

Voter Enthusiasm Matters

Voter enthusiasm also matters a great deal, and an ABC News poll prior to the 2020 election to gauge voter enthusiasm found that only 24% of Democrats to be enthusiastic about voting for Joe Biden. That’s probably skewed as well. How can anyone be excited to vote for a career criminal that’s done nothing but line the pockets of his family and cannot give a campaign speach without a fe gaffes, wearing an earpiece, and needs performance enhancing drugs to maintain decent health. The fake polls are manipulated to show fake momentum, but while this manipulation can go either way, let there be no question as to the globalist control over the media and their efforts to use poll manipulation to get their policies and candidates passed or elected.

Polls show a trend towards whatever agenda the globalists are pushing such as anti-police views and approval of such racist groups as Black Lives Matter. Truth is: these views are very unpopular, even among black people.

On the other hand, if enthusiasm is any indication, then President Trump should win by a landslide. Thousands attended lakes and rivers all over the US in support of Trump with Trump and America flags flying high and MAGA hats dotting the water like a bad case of acne. Latinos also turned out by the thousands for car parades. Biden boat parades? Notta! The closest parade for a democrat would be those who turned up in Michigan to protest the tyrannical lockdown rules of Governor Whitmer, who was one of Biden’s finalists for VP.

Sources: