Connect with us

Politics

Opinion: Panicking over polls showing Donald Trump ahead of President Biden? Please stop

Published

on

Opinion: Panicking over polls showing Donald Trump ahead of President Biden? Please stop

A little less than a year out from the election, and the headlines are preoccupied with the latest bad poll for the president. The New York Times even wonders whether the president is “toast” as hand-wringing spreads across the progressive community.

While this might sound familiar to anyone reading about President Biden in recent weeks, I’m referring to the polling and headlines that confronted President Obama in the run-up to the 2012 election — which, in case you forgot, he won rather handily despite trailing Mitt Romney in surveys well ahead of the voting.

Over the last several election cycles, polling has increasingly become a central focus of media reporting on campaigns, particularly presidential contests. And that’s unfortunate. Average voters should rarely see or hear about polling because it’s not particularly relevant or actionable for them.

In many ways, however, polling is driving political media narratives. Polling is no longer a part of a news story; it is the news story.

The trouble is that horse race numbers can drive almost any narrative that politicians or journalists find expedient regardless of whether it’s accurate; see the great “red wave” media frenzy of the 2022 midterm elections, which of course proved to be the opposite of the truth. The mainstream media’s coverage of campaigns from such a standpoint is not only mistaken but also irresponsible.

Advertisement

Such coverage is doing to politics what modern cooking shows have done to gastronomy: turning it into something like a sporting competition in which much of the substance that could serve the viewer — such as how to cook anything — is lost in covering dramatic culinary contests. Likewise, instead of helping voters make informed decisions based on the differences between candidates, pundits (including me) spend a great deal of time making the case for or against a candidate based not on their policy positions but on their polling position. What’s lost is what the different records, beliefs and policy positions of the candidates might mean for voters’ everyday lives.

I do understand why polling has become a media obsession. People have always wanted to be able to predict the future, and polling is unfortunately being misconstrued as a political crystal ball.

But predicting the future is not what polls are for. “Polling is not designed or able to do what people most want it to do: predict election winners,” Monika McDermott, a Fordham University professor who studies political psychology and public opinion, told me. “There are far too many variables at stake in any election to perfectly predict the election. But the media and news consumers find horse race numbers exciting and easily digestible, and that’s why all the focus is on them.”

Covering the horse race therefore doesn’t just fail to give the voters vital information they need. It also spends an inordinate amount of time covering something that doesn’t have much of a relationship with what’s going to happen.

Working on campaigns, I often tell my clients that the horse race number — the one that shows how one candidate is faring versus another — is the least important one in a poll. That number is what campaign researchers are spending time and resources to understand how to change, and we do change it. Indeed, a presidential campaign will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to change that number. So as a pollster, I am not fixated on where my candidate is in the head-to-head number; I’m focused on the issues and messaging that will allow me to move that number.

Advertisement

In a two-person race, no candidate with less than 50% support is really safe. If you don’t have a majority, there are enough voters out there who can be persuaded and determine the outcome. So while the headlines scream that Trump leads Biden and the chattering progressive class panics, it really doesn’t matter much that Trump leads right now. The lead at this point, when the arguments and contrasts of the campaign have yet to be made, does not predict the ultimate winner.

That’s particularly true in a presidential contest. Ronald Reagan trailed early on in the public polling before his reelection, as did Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama. But in the end, those national campaigns found compelling contrasts, effective attacks on their opponents, a story about their accomplishments in office and a vision for the future that moved voters toward them over time.

That’s what good campaign polling actually does: It explores how an attack affects different voters to understand how to target an ad. It determines where support is soft among base voters and how to show them that the candidate is fighting for them. It tests the most effective policy proposals to contrast with an opponent to move swing voters.

While horse race numbers are fluid and changeable, voters’ core values and beliefs are not. Good pollsters look beyond the top line to understand how voters make sense of and give order to their lives so we can show them that our candidate can be trusted.

Good campaign coverage should abide by similar principles. The average reader or viewer doesn’t get any helpful information from sensational headlines telling them who appears to be winning or losing right now. How about using more of those resources to explain what each candidate’s election would mean for people like them? That’s the kind of reporting that would lead to more informed voting and ensure that the best candidate wins.

Advertisement

Cornell Belcher is the president of Brilliant Corners Research & Strategies and an NBC News political analyst. He was a pollster for the Democratic National Committee and Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns.

Politics

Pro-police group asks DOJ to probe Soros-backed Virginia prosecutor using Biden-era law once aimed at cops

Published

on

Pro-police group asks DOJ to probe Soros-backed Virginia prosecutor using Biden-era law once aimed at cops

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

EXCLUSIVE: A pro-police group will request the Justice Department investigate a Virginia prosecutor accused of being unfairly lenient to illegal immigrant suspects, using an oversight law the Biden administration used to scrutinize police departments like one in Kentucky after the Breonna Taylor incident.

The law enforcement “pattern-or-practice” provision, under 34 USC 12601, was previously used to investigate alleged civil rights violations during the Biden era by police departments — including in Louisville after a no-knock warrant was served, leading to a shootout that killed Taylor.

It has also been used against departments in New Jersey, Mississippi and Tennessee, as well as a division of the NYPD, for allegations ranging from excessive use of force, to gender bias and allegedly unlawful traffic stops.

VIRGINIA AG CALLS DEM PROSECUTOR’S ACTIONS ‘WEAPONIZED INCOMPETENCE’ IN SCATHING REPORT

Advertisement

The Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund is calling for an investigation of Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney Steve Descano. (Ethan Miller/Getty Images; Sarah Voisin/Getty Images)

On Wednesday, the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund (LELDF) told Fox News Digital it would ask the Trump Justice Department to use the same law in a different respect to investigate progressive Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney Steve Descano in Virginia.

Descano, who received at least $600,000 from a George Soros-funded political action committee during his first election bid in Virginia’s largest jurisdiction in 2019, came under fire recently for the nonprosecution of an illegal immigrant who allegedly murdered someone the day after he was released.

LELDF’s request “seeks to use established federal civil-rights tools to test whether a prosecutor’s office is operating a discriminatory system that endangers the public and erodes equal justice under law,” the group’s president, Jason C. Johnson told Fox News Digital. LELDF officials will formally ask Deputy Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon to investigate Descano’s office under the same “pattern-or-practice” concerns as Biden’s DOJ had in Louisville.

The group alleged the Fairfax Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office “violat[ed] the civil rights of US citizens by favoring illegal aliens and non-citizens in charging, plea bargaining, and sentencing decisions.”

Advertisement

They cited Descano’s “official policy” to consider “immigration consequences” when prosecuting cases.

“As a federal prosecutor, Steve protected immigrants from criminals who targeted them due to their immigration status… Steve knows that regardless of immigration status, all our neighbors deserve equal protection of, and equal access to, the law,” a passage on Descano’s campaign page reads.

 “The fear of law enforcement that Donald Trump has fostered in immigrant communities does nothing but lead to increased crime,” Descano claimed in backing up his policy.

“In addition to providing a safe place, Steve’s office will take immigration consequences into account when making charging and plea decisions. Although prosecutors typically refer to immigration consequences as ‘collateral consequences,’ avoiding the unnecessary destruction of families and communities will be a top priority for Steve as Commonwealth’s Attorney. Wherever possible, Steve will make charging and plea decisions that limit or avoid immigration consequences.”

That type of prosecutorial discretion runs afoul of the law, LELDF claimed in their letter to Dhillon.

Advertisement

SEARS DEMANDS RECALL OF FAIRFAX PROSECUTOR AFTER ATTEMPTED KIDNAPPING CASE

Marvin Morales-Ortez was arrested by Fairfax County Police. (DHS)

They pointed to the case of Marvin Morales-Ortez, who reportedly had first-degree murder charges stemming from a 2019 incident dropped by Descano’s office — which in turn told Washington’s ABC affiliate their evidence showed it was “clear that he was ultimately not the perpetrator who had killed Mr. [Jose] Guillen Mejia.”

Nick Minock, a reporter for the outlet, later obtained a transcript of Morales-Ortez’ preliminary hearing where Descano’s office posited that Morales-Ortez was present when Guillen Mejia was murdered and had ambushed the man on a walking path.

A short time after he was released, Morales-Ortez allegedly went to a home on Fan Shell Court in Reston, Va. — near John F. Dulles International Airport — and allegedly shot a man inside.

Advertisement

That chain of events enraged the Trump administration, with Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin saying that “Fairfax County politicians [who] push[ed] pushing policies that released this illegal alien from jail” have “blood on their hands.”

In the letter, LELDF argued that “dozens of illegal aliens like Morales-Ortez have repeatedly received excessive leniency from [Fairfax] under Commonwealth’s Attorney Steve Descano.”

They pointed directly to a passage in a 2020 memo from Descano laying out similar to his campaign page that “[Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorneys] shall consider immigration consequences where possible and where doing so accords with justice.”

LELDF claimed the memo and the policy it forwards directly violates the Constitution and denies U.S. citizens equal protection under the law versus illegal immigrants.

Steve Descano speaks at an event at the Center for American Progress on Dec. 17, 2019. (Getty Images)

Advertisement

“It is both immoral and unlawful for a government agency to engage in systemic discrimination against U.S. citizens to the benefit of those illegally present,” the group told Dhillon.

The memo represents the necessary predicate for a federal investigation, they argued, while also taking issue with Fairfax’s “explicit policy directing prosecutors to weigh immigration consequences, including deportation’s ‘detrimental impact’ on families and communities, while ensuring no better outcomes than for non-immigrants.”

In a fuller excerpt from the memo, Descano says that when the seriousness of an offense and its harm is significant, the weight of “potential adverse immigration consequences” should be “minimal,” while the opposite is true for “less serious” offenses and those with “no identifiable victim.”

In those cases, subordinate prosecutors should “have greater latitude in negotiating a resolution that takes adverse immigration consequences into account.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

While his office did not respond to a request for comment, Descano has also bristled at the notion of being tied to Soros — recently hitting back at a top Youngkin administration official who blamed prosecutors linked to the Hungarian-American financier for the crime crisis.

“I’m not a ‘Soros funded prosecutor’, I’m the CA for Fairfax County – where the murder rate is 75% lower than the entire Commonwealth’s. Maybe [she] should look at the numbers (especially since she works in public safety) before making such a ridiculous claim,” Descano tweeted in 2022.

Continue Reading

Politics

Larry Ellison pledges $40-billion personal guarantee for Paramount’s Warner Bros. bid

Published

on

Larry Ellison pledges -billion personal guarantee for Paramount’s Warner Bros. bid

Billionaire Larry Ellison has stepped up, agreeing to personally guarantee part of Paramount’s bid for rival Warner Bros. Discovery.

Ellison’s personal guarantee of $40.4 billion in equity, disclosed Monday, ups the ante in the acrimonious auction for Warner Bros. movie and TV studios, HBO, CNN and Food Network.

Ellison, whose son David Ellison is Paramount’s chief executive, agreed not to revoke the Ellison family trust or adversely transfer its assets while the Warner Bros. transaction is pending. Paramount’s $30-a-share offer remains unchanged.

Warner‘s board earlier this month awarded the prize to Netflix. The board rejected Paramount’s $108.4-billion deal, largely over concerns about the perceived shakiness of Paramount’s financing.

Advertisement

Paramount then launched a hostile takeover, appealing directly to Warner shareholders, offering them $30 a share. Paramount on Monday extended the deadline to Jan. 21 for Warner investors to tender their shares.

“We amended this Offer to address Warner Bros. stated concerns regarding the Prior Proposal and the December 8 Offer,” Paramount said in a Monday Securities & Exchange Commission filing. “Mr. Larry Ellison is providing a personal guarantee of the Ellison Trust’s $40.4 billion funding obligation.”

Warner Bros. Discovery did not provide an immediate comment.

Warner stock jumped 3.5% on the news to $28.75. Paramount shares climbed 4.2% to $13.61 and Netflix fell 1.2% to $93.23.

The Ellison family acquired the controlling stake in Paramount in August. The family launched their pursuit of Warner Bros. in September but Warner’s board unanimously rejected six Paramount proposals over the last three months.

Advertisement

Paramount started with a $19 a share bid for the entire company. Netflix has offered $27.75 a share and only wants the Burbank studios, HBO and the HBO Max streaming service. The Netflix bid is a mix of cash and stock. It envisions Warner Bros. spinning off its linear cable channels, including CNN, into a new publicly traded company, Discovery Global, by the middle of next year.

Paramount upped its all-cash offer to $30 a share Dec. 4, in the waning hours of the auction.

That night, Warner Bros. Discovery’s board voted unanimously to accept Netflix’s $72-billion offer (the total value of the deal is $82.7 billion). The company, in regulatory filings, has cited Netflix’s stronger financial position.

Since then, Paramount executives launched their hostile bid and held meetings with Warner investors in New York, where they echoed the proposal they’d submitted in the closing hours of the auction.

On Monday, Paramount also agreed to increase the termination fee to $5.8 billion from $5 billion, matching the one that Netflix offered. Paramount would have to pay Warner that amount should the deal collapse.

Advertisement

Three Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds representing royal families in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi have agreed to provide $24 billion of the $40.4-billion equity component that Ellison is backing.

The Ellison family has agreed to cover $11.8-billion of that. Initially, Paramount’s bid included the private equity firm of Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law, but Kushner withdrew his firm last week. Previously, Paramount dropped the Chinese firm Tencent from its financing consortium over regulatory concerns.

“In an effort to address Warner Bros.’s amorphous need for ‘flexibility’ in interim operations, Paramount’s revised proposed merger agreement offers further improved flexibility to Warner Bros. on debt refinancing transactions, representations and interim operating covenants,” Paramount said in its statement.

Paramount confirmed that the Ellison family trust owns about 1.16 billion shares of Oracle common stock and that all material liabilities are publicly disclosed.

“The Ellison Trust has financial resources well in excess of what would be required to meet its commitments to be entered into in connection with the Offer and the second-step merger [with Paramount], including, among many other assets and financial resources available to it,” Paramount said.

Advertisement

Paramount has been aggressively pursuing Warner Bros. for months, yearning for the scale the Warner assets would bring the company that, before the Ellison takeover, had suffered from years of under-investment.

David Ellison was startled earlier this month when the Warner Bros. board swiftly agreed to a deal with Netflix for $82.7 billion, including some of Warner’s debt, for the streaming and studio assets. He alleged during a CNBC appearance that the Warner Bros. board had failed to seriously consider the merits of his family’s bid.

Paramount subsequently launched its hostile takeover offer in a direct appeal to shareholders. The Warner Bros. board urged shareholders to reject Paramount’s offer, which includes $54 billion in debt commitments, deeming it “inferior” and “inadequate.” The board singled out what it viewed as uncertain financing and the risk implicit in a revocable trust that could cause Paramount to terminate the deal at any time.

Warner added that its shareholders also would have equity in the new Discovery Global, which Warner believes could fetch about $3 a share. Paramount has said its deal is more straightforward. The Ellisons, who enjoy friendly relations with Trump, have told shareholders their deal would face a smoother regulatory review.

Larry Ellison and Trump are on friendly terms, and Ellison’s software company Oracle is part of a consortium taking over social media app TikTok. That deal is expected to close next month.

Advertisement

Trump’s support was also key to the Ellison family’s takeover of Paramount. Before that deal was approved, Paramount agreed to pay Trump $16 million to settle a lawsuit over “60 Minutes” edits that most legal experts called frivolous.

Trump has said that he wants CNN to be included in the Warner Bros. sale. Trump has long chafed over CNN’s coverage.

In the past, the president indicated that he favored Paramount’s pursuit of Warner Bros. — but he has been more circumspect in recent weeks, making complimentary comments about Netflix Co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos.

Executives from both Paramount and Netflix have argued that they would be the best owners and use the Warner Bros. library and movie and TV production capabilities to boost their streaming operations.

Netflix also announced Monday that it has refinanced part of a $59-billion bridge loan with cheaper and longer-term debt.

Advertisement

Bloomberg contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Politics

The Biggest Moments of Trump’s 2025: Mass Deportations, Tariffs and More

Published

on

The Biggest Moments of Trump’s 2025: Mass Deportations, Tariffs and More

When Mr. Trump signed an executive order in March that promised to restore the Smithsonian Museum “to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness,” historians and other observers were anxious about what he meant.

Months later, the president confirmed their worst fears.

Advertisement

“The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been,” he wrote in a social media post in August.

The post, which came a week after the White House ordered a review of the museum’s exhibitions, offered the most candid look to date at what many of Mr. Trump’s executive actions on diversity have targeted: the history and experience of Black people in the United States.

High-profile Black leaders have been fired as the president builds an overwhelmingly white administration. Federal websites have been scrubbed to sanitize the country’s history of slavery and discrimination. And other government agencies, like the National Park Service, have also removed exhibits on slavery. At the same time, Mr. Trump has reinstalled statues that glorify Confederate soldiers.

Advertisement

In his first year, Mr. Trump has set out to rewrite the nation’s history by erasing the scars of its original sin.

Photographs by Al Drago, Doug Mills, Maansi Srivastava and Bettmann Archive, via Getty Images.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending