Quinnipiac’s Propaganda Polls – 95% Support Background Checks? Yeah Right…

By Jeff Knox : Opinion

Quinnipiac's Propaganda Polls
Quinnipiac's Propaganda Polls – 95% Support Background Checks? Yeah Right…
Firearms Coalition
Firearms Coalition

Buckeye, AZ –-(Ammoland.com)-  Quinnipiac University recently released results for a major poll they conducted on hot political topics. The headline of their June 28 press release announcing the poll results read:

“U.S. VOTERS REJECT GOP HEALTH PLAN MORE THAN 3-1, QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY NATIONAL POLL FINDS; VOTERS SUPPORT GUN BACKGROUND CHECKS 94 – 5 PERCENT.”

Anyone who follows firearm issues knows the “background check” results are totally bogus, and that inaccuracy should cast serious doubt on the “health plan” results as well. We've been seeing similar claims related to broad support for “universal background checks” repeated over and over again for years from Quinnipiac and other polling organizations, but when voters have actually been given the opportunity to cast a ballot on the issue the results have always been dramatically different.

Three years ago, voters in Washington State were asked to vote on a “universal background check” initiative, Sponsored by Mike Bloomberg's gun control conglomerate, Everytown for Gun Safety, and supported by local billionaires including Bill Gates and Paul Allen. The Bloomberg consortium spent between $10 and $14 million dollars urging “Yes” votes, compared to about $1 million dollars spent by pro-rights groups opposing the initiative. Despite the lopsided spending, and polls claiming that Washington voters supported the idea at rates of 85% to 95%, the measure squeaked by with a victory of only about 2%.

Last year, Bloomberg bought similar ballot measures in Nevada and Maine. Again, spending was heavily weighted in favor of the measures, and again, pollsters reported close to unanimous support for them among voters, but in Nevada the measure passed by less than 0.5%, winning a majority in only one county.

In Maine, the voters rejected the measure outright.

These results are akin to pollsters predicting, not just a victory for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, but a massive landslide victory, only to be proven wrong on Election Day.

We attribute the very different voting versus polling results to lack of information on the part of the public being polled, and intentional manipulation on the part of the pollsters. What really raises questions about the most recent Quinnipiac poll, is that the pollsters at Quinnipiac should be well aware of the results in Washington, Nevada, and Maine. If they really were seeking accurate answers, those numbers would clearly tell them that there are some serious flaws in their methodology. For them to press forward with the same flawed methodology generating the same proven inaccurate results, is strong evidence of intentional bias and agenda-driven manipulation, and it should bring all of Quinnipiac's polling results under suspicion.

Newspapers and TV talking heads love polls. So do advocacy organizations and politicians – as long as the polls go in their favor.

That’s because humans are basically herd animals, and we tend to want to be on the “winning” side of any issue, so if you tell people that virtually everyone supports candidate A, or favors “universal background checks,” people who don't have an educated opinion are likely to fall in with the crowd. The good news for the politicians and pundits, is that it's relatively easy to get polls to say just about whatever they want. All it takes is asking the right questions of the right people. Simple questions, like “Which candidate do you prefer for president?” can be manipulated by focusing the polling in geographic areas that lean heavily toward one party or another, but as the questions get more complicated, delving into legislative and policy issues, results are even easier to manipulate, because most people have only a limited understanding of the issues.

The reality is, most Americans don't think much about politics. They don't follow issues, don't pay attention to the news, and certainly don't do in-depth research. Barely half of eligible voters have enough interest to even bother casting a ballot in presidential elections, and the interest level drops exponentially as you move down the ballot or get into questions about legislation.

People like you, AmmoLand News readers – who actually read articles about political issues – are the exception, not the rule. And even though we read about, and might be knowledgeable on some topics, there are almost certainly other things that we don't know much about.

Human nature dictates that most of us think we are a little smarter than the next guy, and that we have enough understanding of just about any topic to offer up an opinion. That being the case, all a pollster needs to do is ask the questions in such a way as to elicit the answer they're looking for.

Bogus Research
Pollsters know that if they come up with results that are contrary to what their patrons are looking for, they are not likely to get more funding from those sources in the future

Of course, most polling organizations, especially those based in prestigious universities like Quinnipiac, claim to be impartial and unbiased. Above the fray, as it were. In reality that is rarely the case.

Polls cost money, and the folks paying the bills usually have an agenda. Pollsters know that if they come up with results that are contrary to what their patrons are looking for, they are not likely to get more funding from those sources in the future. And even if the bias is unintentional, it is almost always present, for the simple reason that the pollsters and researchers are human. They have their own preconceived ideas, opinions, and feelings.

They also often have limited knowledge about the subject matter, so they might not even realize that their questions are leading.

For people well-versed on a given subject, the flaws and biases in polls are usually pretty obvious. Use of emotionally loaded words and phrases can have dramatic impacts on results, as can inaccurate or misleading information framing a question.

Couching questions about abortion in terms of a woman's right to control what happens in her own body will yield very different results than the same basic questions couched in terms of protecting the life of a baby. Similarly, questions about guns will get very different responses if they use terms like “assault weapon,” as opposed to references to “popular sporting rifles.”

The obvious inaccuracy in Quinnipiac's “background check” poll suggests that they are not producing polls so much as they are producing propaganda. The mainstream media's faithful regurgitation of these polling results from organizations that have so thoroughly discredited themselves, is further testament that the “news” organizations are also in the propaganda business.

Figures don't lie, but liars do figure, and nowhere is that more obvious than in twisted and misleading polls.

Neal Knox - The Gun Rights War
Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War

About Jeff Knox:

Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition. His father Neal Knox led many of the early gun rights battles for your right to keep and bear arms. Read Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War.

The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition has offices in Buckeye, Arizona and Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org.

  • 16 thoughts on “Quinnipiac’s Propaganda Polls – 95% Support Background Checks? Yeah Right…

    1. I get people calling me to take polls over the phone all the time. I tell them I’ll take the poll. I also tell them I’m going to lie at multiple points in the poll. Never had any one refuse to administer the poll and I lie like crazy. So any poll I’ve ever taken has corrupted data in it. I encourage you to do the same and ask your friends to do this also. The more corrupt the data the more useless polling becomes and maybe they’ll quit doing it. When some one asks me about a poll they just saw the outcome on asks me what I think, I tell them, “Oh Yeah, I took that poll. The data is corrupted, I lied.” You should see the shocked look on their faces when they realize how easy it really would be to corrupt these stupid polls.

      1. @C/E…They will keep taking the polls as long as they get paid and they will say what those who are paying want it say so they are corrupted anyway.

    2. Speaking of Multi-billionaire Mayor Michael “Save us from Ourselves” Bloomberg…I love these articles:

      The High-Level Hypocrisy of Mayors for Gun Control
      FRIDAY, AUGUST 4, 2017 The High-Level Hypocrisy of Mayors for Gun Control

      Leona Helmsley, the “Queen of Mean” convicted of income tax evasion and other crimes, is famously said to have said “We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.”

      The same sense of entitled grandeur – that rules apply to lesser beings – pervades the thinking of many high-profile gun-control notables. For example, ex-New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is protected by guns carried by his armed security detail, while he spends his billions to undermine the Second Amendment rights of average Americans.

      In 2006, as part of his anti-gun agenda, Bloomberg founded Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), a coalition of current and former mayors advocating for regulating all guns, not simply “illegal guns,” and calling for “assault weapon” and magazine bans, expanded background checks, and other restrictions on law-abiding gun owners.

      By 2013, roiled by constant reports of criminal behavior by members, MAIG was subsumed into Bloomberg’s new gun control entity, Everytown for Gun Safety. Nonetheless, arrests and convictions of MAIG members (including for gun-related crimes) continue to feature regularly in the news, so much so that it’s become something of a running joke (here and here). It’s likely no coincidence that MAIG’s website chooses not to name the elected officials that make up its membership; instead, it lists the municipalities these members represent.

      The roster of the recently disgraced include the ex-mayor of San Diego, Bob Filner, who resigned from office in 2013 after multiple women made allegations of sexual harassment, and who subsequently plead guilty to charges of false imprisonment and battery. Another public official who had been associated with MAIG is Gordon Jenkins, formerly the mayor of Monticello, New York, who was removed from office by a state court in 2015 after it found he engaged in “‘unscrupulous conduct or gross dereliction of duty or conduct that connotes a pattern of misconduct and abuse of authority.’” The misconduct referred to by the court included threats to withhold funding from his local police department in an effort to influence the disposition of criminal charges against him, and attempts to use his position to intimidate and coerce police officers into giving him special treatment after he was arrested for a DUI. Following his removal from office, Mr. Jenkins plead guilty to lesser criminal offenses after being charged with bribery-related felony crime.

      Rounding out the MAIG dis-honor roll for 2017 (so far) are former Stockton, California mayor Anthony Silva; Allentown, Pennsylvania Mayor Edwin Pawlowski; and Vaughn Spencer, former mayor of Reading, Pennsylvania, all currently facing criminal charges. Of course, these individuals, like all persons simply accused of criminal offenses, are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

      In March, ex-mayor Silva was arrested on felony charges of money laundering, embezzlement, and grand theft, arising out of alleged personal misuse of grants and other funds of the Stockton Kids Club, formerly the Boys & Girls Club of Stockton. (“Sour grapes,” claims his defense counsel, although Silva has figured in other controversies.) As an elected official and part of a MAIG coalition of California mayors, Mr. Silva supported legislation creating so-called “Gun Violence Restraining Orders” that would require persons to surrender their firearms to police based solely on allegations by law enforcement or family members.

      Allentown, Pennsylvania Mayor Edwin Pawlowski was indicted in July, accused of violating federal public corruption laws arising out of a misuse of public office (over 50 counts, including bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud, honest services mail and wire fraud, travel act bribery, making material false statements, and conspiracy). Prior to that, Mayor Pawlowski appeared in a “public service” ad released by MAIG “demanding action” on gun control measures, and supported Bloomberg in calling for “tougher gun laws” and restrictions on gun shows and private firearm sales.

      Vaughn Spencer, the former mayor of Reading, Pennsylvania, was also charged in July and accused of violating federal public corruption laws (bribery, wire fraud, and conspiracy). Like Mayor Pawlowski, Spencer signed on to a MAIG letter to President Obama in 2012, calling for bans on “military style” weapons and “high capacity” magazines, expanded background check laws, repealing the Tiahrt Amendments, and more.

      The Department of Justice (DOJ) press releases regarding these two Pennsylvania officials note that the allegations concern the “mayors manipulating the levers of power for their own ways and means. As charged, Edwin Pawlowski and Vaughn Spencer brazenly and repeatedly sold off city contracts to bankroll their political futures.” The DOJ adds that in “an astounding act of irony,” former Mayor Spencer allegedly “bribed the President of City Council to introduce legislation repealing a Reading anti-corruption statute.”

      These are serious offenses – the charges of mail fraud, wire fraud, honest services mail fraud, and honest services wire fraud have an individual maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine; the remaining federal charges have maximum sentences of five or ten years and similarly onerous fines.

      As part of furthering his notions of good governance, ex-Mayor Bloomberg has made a $32 million gift to Harvard University, funding a program to teach serving mayors how to be effective leaders, with the inaugural class of 40 elected officials beginning their studies this July. A cynic might suggest that the curriculum include, besides the usual Bloomberg hobbyhorses of sugary drinks and gun control, the fundamental concept that the rule of law applies to the high as well as the low. After all, when law-abiding Americans seek to protect themselves from criminals, it’s not usually the gun-grabbing crooks at city hall that come to mind.

    3. Gates needs to concentrate on toilets for underdeveloped countries like he has been pushing. He ripped us off big time with microsoft and has all this money he can use to punish us with. Bloomturd is just that, no way around it and no excuse for it except he thinks he is more intelligent than the rest of us and wants to be our nanny.

    4. Of course when and if you poll a group of 100 pro gun background check folks you’re bound to get poll results like this. The fact that mainstream media keeps touting the results, and billionaire types like Gates and Bloomberg keep supporting initiatives promoting same, well then the results are the inevitable further erosion of Constitutional rights.

    5. It would be more intelligent to stop these fruitless polls. WE all know that they were wrong during the presidential election and are still wrong. Trump can not draw the size crowds he does and be lacking in the polls. In addition to the one the author mentioned there is real clear politics that ain’t so real and not so clear. They keep running Trump down, anyway.

    6. More lies of the left, liberal, hatemongers…see attached (the picture I could not attach but the rifles looked new and expensive):

      NEW JERSEY GUN BUYBACKS NET 4,775 FIREARMS
      35 Comments

      The results of New Jersey’s most recent gun buyback initiative were made public Wednesday, with top law enforcement officials calling it the most successful buyback in the state’s history.
      New Jersey Attorney General Christopher Porrino announced that a whopping 4,775 guns had been turned in for cash during the two-day buyback.
      The event occurred in three cities this past weekend. Firearms were collected at churches in Camden, Trenton and Newark. A total of 1,973 handguns, 1,142 shotguns, and 1,025 rifles were turned in, and 129 “assault weapons” were also handed over and received the highest payout of $200. No clarification was offered to Guns.com via Facebook on how the remaining 506 guns were classified. All the guns turned in will be melted down and destroyed.
      “If we collected just the assault weapons, this undertaking would have been worthwhile,” Porrino said at a press conference. “Many of those weapons are designed to pierce body armor, and getting just one off the street has tremendous value, not to mention getting 129 off the street in two days.”
      In an opinion piece published in the Star-Ledger before the events, Porrino admitted that gun buybacks are not a complete solution but argued they could do a lot to help law enforcement get crime guns off the streets.
      “Some doubters question the overall efficacy of buybacks, while others suggest that buybacks tend to bring in mostly old ‘attic’ guns,” Porrino said. “But once a gun has been turned in and melted down — as every firearm obtained through these buybacks will be — it can never be stashed in a vacant building or used as a community gun to commit crime after crime. It can never be stolen in a burglary and used later in a violent crime. And it can never fall into the hands of a curious child.”

    7. Back when upchuck schemer was in his first term, the antis tried to push through a similar ‘initiative’ (1076 IIRC) in WA State. It failed resoundingly. Now they have managed to buy what they wanted, SMH. The moral of my story? They will never give up and no price is too high for them to get what they want………..

    8. Questions like “do you support womens healthcare” will get far different responses than “Do you support the killing of unborn babys for any reason”? And for us, “Do you support keeping guns out of the hands of criminals” versus “Do you support Gun safety”? If you answer yes to either of these, then you must support Bloomingidiots’s agenda to remove all guns from America.

      So ask away queernipac, your polls mean nothing.

      1. ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
        The wording of the question,
        Who you ask,
        Where you ask,
        What you ask,
        How you ask,
        All have an impact on the outcome of ANY and EVERY poll that is taken.
        These above aspects of ANY and EVERY poll CAN be controlled by the organization which makes the poll.
        Thus, POLLS ARE WORTHLESS in predicting what an outcome will be with HUMANS.

    9. Can anyone tell me how a “universal background check” differs from the check I go through in OHIO when I buy a new handgun or rifle ???? I’ve gone through several checks when buying a gun and now in OHIO I believe we don’t have to go through the check if we have a CCL issued since 2015 or later. Thanks

      1. Under the provisions of every “universal background check” scheme I’ve seen, it runs something like this: You want to buy that nifty new AeroPrecision 6.5 Creedmoor, but your short on cash, so you decide to sell your old Winchester Model 12. One of your buddies says he’ll give you your price. Even if both of you have your CCL, you both have to go down to your local gun shop, give them the gun, and pay them a fee to process a background check on your buddy. If he passes, the dealer gives him the gun, and he gives you the money. So you just added $35 to $75 to the cost of the transaction, along with inconvenience and a paper trail. If there is a problem with the background check, or your buddy backs out, things can get complicated.
        What’s worse, this applies even for temporary transfers. Say your buddy is going to a 3-gun match or a training course that you can’t go to, and wants to borrow one of your guns as his fall-back in case he breaks a firing pin or something. You both have to go to a dealer, do the paperwork, pay the fee, etc., then you have to do it again when he is ready to give your gun back. So you have to pay a fee and go through a background check, just to get your own gun back after loaning it out for a weekend.
        Some of these laws don’t even make exceptions for wives. If you work out of town, you have to leave your guns locked up so they aren’t “transferred” to your wife or roommate while you’re away. It gets even crazier than this, but those are some of the highlights. They never explain any of this when asking the poll questions, just “Do you think background checks should be conducted on all gun sales?” No wonder they get bogus results.

    Leave a Comment 16 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *