Read The Opponent, Not The Polls

Read The Opponent, Not The Polls Authored by Thaddeus McCotter via American Greatness,For recovering politicians, this is the most dangerous time for a relapse, especially those living in a swing state. Their televisions, radios, and social media are chock with political news and ads. This can spark a recrudescence of old vices, such as arguing at the top of one’s lungs at an offending ad or slanted news story, and, worse, then conjuring a way to counter it and win the election for their side. It may even spur them to contact old friends still in the political arena and urge them to incorporate their “unexpectedly” inspired idea into their campaign. Such a loss of realistic expectations and understanding of what others are going through constitutes sure signs the poor creature is reverting to a politician’s solipsistic mindset.Further exacerbating the risk of their relapsing, interested friends from across the country send recovering politicians’ links to ads, news, or tweets to get their reaction. This can further trigger bouts of the ex-pol shouting to the heavens—or elsewhere—and reengaging the sordid political world they had renounced.Yet, by far the most frequent temptation occurs when friends from across the country contact the recovering politician to see if he or she has any insight into how their swing state and/or the nation will ultimately choose for president (and often who will control both chambers of Congress). These contacts are usually precipitated by the inquirer seeing a poll and asking if the recovering politician believes it is “accurate.” Tragically, the recovering politician may immediately commence addressing the merits of the poll’s methodology; the voting history of various constituencies vis-à-vis the poll results; and sundry other micro- and macro-critiques and speculations regarding the election—including their view of “what they need to do to win!”When the relapsed pol hits rock bottom, it “ain’t that pretty at all....”Of course, the friends of an ex-pol do not want to be the reason he or she goes cannonballing back into the political cesspool. So, for their sake and that of my fellow recovering politicians, I offer this bit of advice to avoid the temptation to relapse posed by “the polls say” query: Watch the opponent, not the polls.The virtue of this approach is to allow the inquirer to refrain from dragging the recovering politician back into the electoral fray for a simple reason: the inquirer can figure it out on their own. Granted, it isn’t foolproof, since fools will be too benighted to interpret an opponent’s political machinations. Still, it can help reduce the number of “the polls say” questions and, ergo, the near occasion of temptation for the ex-pol to reengage.Presently, the Democrat nominee’s presidential bid exemplifies why understanding what a campaign is doing is the best barometer of how a candidate is performing with the electorate—not a poll.On the micro-level, one can view the Harris campaign’s targeting of individual constituencies, which have traditionally comprised integral parts of the Democrat coalition. From young African-American men to Hispanics to Arab-Americans to Jewish-Americans, the Harris campaign’s assumed, almost unanimous, and necessary support has been lacking. As a result, we see not only an increase in her campaign’s messaging to these constituencies, we see the surreal hectoring of young black males—and males, in general—by surrogates, such as the Obamas. Asking voters to support your candidate indicates your campaign is okay; urging voters to support your candidate indicates your campaign is troubled; criticizing voters as not being “man” enough to vote for your candidate indicates your campaign is cooked. Other targeted messages abound within the Harris campaigns, including the emphasis on increased federal spending within the African-American community (in one of the most patronizingly racist appeals imaginable); abortion (though it is hard to imagine those who believe abortion is the overriding issue not already voting for the vice president); and the big lie about “Project 2025” being Donald Trump’s post-election agenda—all of which are designed to unite and rally a presently eroding and unenthusiastic Democrat voter base.On the macro-level, be one a political junkie or a well-adjusted person, the Harris campaign’s desperation is patent for all to see, notably by those Democrat candidates’ running from the radical leftist Ms. Harris and racing toward the middle:August’s “politics of joy” has devolved into October’s “Trump is Hitler.”Now, do you really need to risk a recovering politician’s relapse to recognize the Harris campaign is circling the drain? Tyler DurdenMon, 11/04/2024 - 21:45

Authored by Thaddeus McCotter via American Greatness, For recovering politicians, this is the most dangerous time for a relapse, especially those living in a swing state. Their televisions, radios, and social media are chock with political news and ads. This can spark a recrudescence of old vices, such as arguing at the top of one’s lungs at an offending ad or slanted news story, and, worse, then conjuring a way to counter it and win the election for their side.

It may even spur them to contact old friends still in the political arena and urge them to incorporate their “unexpectedly” inspired idea into their campaign. Such a loss of realistic expectations and understanding of what others are going through constitutes sure signs the poor creature is reverting to a politician’s solipsistic mindset. Further exacerbating the risk of their relapsing, interested friends from across the country send recovering politicians’ links to ads, news, or tweets to get their reaction.

This can further trigger bouts of the ex-pol shouting to the heavens—or elsewhere—and reengaging the sordid political world they had renounced. Yet, by far the most frequent temptation occurs when friends from across the country contact the recovering politician to see if he or she has any insight into how their swing state and/or the nation will ultimately choose for president (and often who will control both chambers of Congress). These contacts are usually precipitated by the inquirer seeing a poll and asking if the recovering politician believes it is “accurate.

” Tragically, the recovering politician may immediately commence addressing the merits of the poll’s methodology; the voting history of various constituencies vis-à-vis the poll results; and sundry other micro- and macro-critiques and speculations regarding the election—including their view of “what they need to do to win!” When the relapsed pol hits rock bottom, it “ ain’t that pretty at all ...

.” Of course, the friends of an ex-pol do not want to be the reason he or she goes cannonballing back into the political cesspool. So, for their sake and that of my fellow recovering politicians, I offer this bit of advice to avoid the temptation to relapse posed by “the polls say” query: Watch the opponent, not the polls.

The virtue of this approach is to allow the inquirer to refrain from dragging the recovering politician back into the electoral fray for a simple reason: the inquirer can figure it out on their own. Granted, it isn’t foolproof, since fools will be too benighted to interpret an opponent’s political machinations. Still, it can help reduce the number of “the polls say” questions and, ergo, the near occasion of temptation for the ex-pol to reengage.

Presently, the Democrat nominee’s presidential bid exemplifies why understanding what a campaign is doing is the best barometer of how a candidate is performing with the electorate—not a poll. On the micro-level, one can view the Harris campaign’s targeting of individual constituencies, which have traditionally comprised integral parts of the Democrat coalition. From young African-American men to Hispanics to Arab-Americans to Jewish-Americans, the Harris campaign’s assumed, almost unanimous, and necessary support has been lacking.

As a result, we see not only an increase in her campaign’s messaging to these constituencies, we see the surreal hectoring of young black males—and males, in general—by surrogates, such as the Obamas. Asking voters to support your candidate indicates your campaign is okay; urging voters to support your candidate indicates your campaign is troubled; criticizing voters as not being “man” enough to vote for your candidate indicates your campaign is cooked. Other targeted messages abound within the Harris campaigns, including the emphasis on increased federal spending within the African-American community (in one of the most patronizingly racist appeals imaginable); abortion (though it is hard to imagine those who believe abortion is the overriding issue not already voting for the vice president); and the big lie about “Project 2025” being Donald Trump’s post-election agenda—all of which are designed to unite and rally a presently eroding and unenthusiastic Democrat voter base.

On the macro-level, be one a political junkie or a well-adjusted person, the Harris campaign’s desperation is patent for all to see, notably by those Democrat candidates’ running from the radical leftist Ms. Harris and racing toward the middle: August’s “politics of joy” has devolved into October’s “Trump is Hitler.” Now, do you really need to risk a recovering politician’s relapse to recognize the Harris campaign is circling the drain?.