I’ve long suspected that “mainstream” media polling was biased. But until recently, I had no idea how much their polls are blatantly rigged. A case in point: a Washington Post-ABC poll purporting to show support for an Obamacare public option – a convenient conclusion to help their Dear Leader cram socialized healthcare down our throats.
But look at the sampling. 33% were Democrats; only 20% were Republicans. 20%.
Just how absurd is that rigging? The 33%-20% spread is larger than ABC-WashPost’s Election Day sample, not exactly a great Republican day. And numerous polls indicate that the spread between the two parties’ support has dramatically narrowed since then.
As if that is not bad enough . . .
The public-option question gets asked in this manner:
8. Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?
I’d call that more than a little biased. The “compete with private insurance” is a political claim by ObamaCare advocates.
Not to mention that there is no mention of “public” or “federal” or “government-funded” or even “government-backed” in the question. It’s just a shiny “new health insurance plan” that would be "created."
And people think I’m biased.
This leads me to one of two conclusions:
1. Those behind the poll are so stupid and out of touch and downright incompetent that they did not realize their methods render their poll unreliable (to put it nicely). Or . . .
2. They knew what they were doing. During a crucial time for Obamacare, the Washington Post and ABC conveniently rigged their poll.
I choose #2.