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:


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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Conservative in Exile

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… Read more »


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… Read more »

VE Veteran - Old Man's Club

More liars and the B.S. that makes the flowers grow.


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.


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.

Jeff Knox

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… Read more »


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.


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.… Read more »


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………..

VT Patriot

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.


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.

Ronald Renken


Terence Colligan

Figures lie and liars figure.


I love that one too. 🙂