Hey, Pollsters, Can We Get Some Fresh Ones in These Key Senate Races?

Today on NRO VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: A nation became unhinged by trivialities like "hope and change." It has now awakened. The Madness of 2008. KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON: The Democrats embrace trickle-down economics. Blue Voodoo. ROBERT L. WOODSON: Another tragedy has predictably followed Ferguson's terrible shooting incident. An Open Letter to the Residents of Ferguson. TOM ROGAN: The Joint Chiefs chairman knows the threat the Islamic State presents. Let's hope Obama listens. Dempsey's Clarity and Obama's Confusion. SLIDESHOW: Emmy Red Carpet. Morning Jolt . . . with Jim Geraghty August 26, 2014 Hey, Pollsters, Can We Get Some Fresh Ones in These Key Senate Races? Assessing the state of the midterm elections, in just a few sentences: Larry Sabato: "In every single one of the Crystal Ball's toss-up states, (Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana and North Carolina), the Republican Senate candidate has not yet opened up a real polling lead in any of them." (Number of public polls in August in Alaska: 1. Number of public polls in August in Arkansas: 1. Number of public polls in August in Iowa: 0. Number of public polls in August in Louisiana: 0. Number of public polls in August in North Carolina: 3, two of which have Republican Thom Tillis ahead.) Nate Silver: "Since 2000, the average Senate poll has missed the final margin in the race by about 5 percentage points." Sean Trende: "Individual pollsters can easily find results suggesting that a race is opening up when, in fact, it is tightening, and vice-versa." Carl Cameron of Fox News: "Democrats who, earlier this year, thought they could defend their majority, now fear GOP momentum could cost them even more than six seats." The Key Demographic of America's Wrong-Information Voters Here's Liz Sheld examining some Pew survey results and confirming our worst suspicions, that a significant minority of the electorate walk around believing that certain political terms mean the opposite of what they really do: Looking just at the first question, which Pew has used to determine whether people who say they are libertarians actually know what the term means, 57% correctly identified the definition of "libertarian" with the proper corresponding ideological label. Looking at the other answers, an astonishing 20% say that someone who emphasizes freedom and less government is a progressive, 6% say that is the definition of an authoritarian and 6% say that is the definition of a communist. As E. Strobel notes, "The term 'low-info voter' is inadequate . . . More like 'wrong-info voter'." Perhaps when we're trying to persuade the electorate as a whole, we have to toss out terms like "conservative" or "libertarian." Not because they're not accurate, but because they represent obscure hieroglyphics to a chunk of the people we're trying to persuade. If you're one of these perpetually tuned-out voters, maybe words like "conservative" or "libertarian" are signals that indicate, hey, this is that politics stuff that you don't like to hear about, so you can stop paying attention now. This is frustrating, and I understand and feel the irritation that we have to water down or dumb down our arguments because some voters can't be bothered to understand some concepts we find pretty basic. We political junkies love political philosophies, and keep subdividing ourselves into smaller and more precise groupings. (Crunchy Cons! Neoconservatives! Libertarian Populism! Reform Conservatives! Eisenhower Anarchist!) We love these labels and terms, because we feel that they help explain a coherent way of looking at the world, government, the Constitution, human rights, society, etc. But to a lot of people, they might as well be Dungeons & Dragons character classes. They don't know which political philosophy best matches how they see the world because they flat out don't understand the terms, and perhaps most maddeningly, are not convinced that they need to know them -- nor much about anything else. Recall Jonah Goldberg's column to those self-proclaimed "socially liberal, fiscal conservative" types who are, in fact, actually "socially liberal and fiscally liberal": When George W. Bush added nearly $5 trillion in national debt in two terms you were scandalized. When Obama added more than that in one term, you yawned. When, in 2006, then-senator Obama condemned Bush's failure of leadership and vowed to vote against raising the debt ceiling, you thought him a statesman. Obama, who wants to borrow trillions more, now admits that was purely a "political vote." A little while back, I talked about celebrities who are not closely identified with the Republican party or conservative movement, who can articulate a conservative approach to an issue, and enjoy widespread applause: Adam Carolla, HGTV host Nicole Curtis, CNN host/chef Anthony Bourdain, Mike Rowe of Dirty Jobs, Gene Simmons of KISS . . . They say what they think, directly, but they rarely if ever frame their arguments in terms of political philosophies. Which argument is likely to be most effective? A) School choice is a good idea because it is consistent with the conservative principles that the government that is closest to the people is most likely to make the best decisions, is most accountable for those decisions, and is easiest to correct those decisions. B) School choice is a good idea because it is consistent with the libertarian principles that the power of the state should be limited and the power of the individual should be maximized. C) School choice is a good idea because it puts decisions in the hands of parents, who know what is best for their children. What Kind of Reception Will the American Legion Give President Obama? President Obama speaks to the American Legion today. What kind of reception will he get? The president's speechwriters will remember to remove the usual, "we're committed to our veterans" and "we've got a record of care that is worthy of pride" boilerplate, right? The VA is now saying that it's not "conclusive" that delays in care at that Phoenix VA hospital led to veterans' deaths. The Department of Veterans Affairs promises sweeping changes — and ample contrition — in a prepared response to an inspector general's due this week on a scandal over delayed health care for veterans. The VA response -- copies of which were obtained by USA TODAY — includes talking points that reveal at least one crucial finding by investigators: No deaths of veterans at a Phoenix VA hospital could be "conclusively" linked to delays in care at that facility. The talking points emphasize "it is important to note" this finding. Sam Foote, a retired doctor who worked at the Phoenix facility, alleged that the deaths of 40 veterans were linked to delays in care. The allegation of deaths, which surfaced in April, focused considerable media attention on VA management problems in Phoenix. A preliminary inspector general's report in late May concluded that delays in care and manipulation of scheduling records were systemic in the sprawling VA system of 150 hospitals and 820 clinics. The scandal drove VA Secretary Eric Shinseki to resign May 30, hours after he lamented that he had found a "totally unacceptable lack of integrity" within the system. The Senate confirmed Robert McDonald as the new secretary late last month. Another Corner of the World at War? Take a Number, Libya, We're Busy. Oh, hey, by the way, while we were discussing the Islamic State, a separate bunch of hardline militant Islamists took over Libya. If you want a tiny bit of good news in the Middle East, two quasi-friendly — or at least somewhat less-hostile — states are bombing those Islamists trying to take over the previous corner of the world in which we attempted "leading from behind": Twice in the past seven days, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have secretly teamed to launch air strikes against Islamist-allied militias battling for control of Tripoli, Libya, four senior U.S. officials said, in a major escalation between the supporters and opponents of political Islam. Here's one for the "stronger at home, more respected in the world" pile: The United States, the officials said, was caught by surprise: Egypt and the Emirates, both close allies and military partners, acted without informing Washington or seeking its consent, leaving the Obama administration on the sidelines. Egyptian officials explicitly denied the operation to U.S. diplomats, the officials said. And here's a familiar name popping up again: . . . Officials said that the government of Qatar has already provided weapons and support to the Islamist aligned forces inside Libya, so the new strikes represent a shift from proxy wars — where regional powers play out their agendas through local allies — to direct involvement. Hey, didn't we just hand Qatar five of Gitmo's worst? And they're out there providing arms to Islamists? Should we all just line up and have it out? Theoretically, we could form an anti–Islamic State alliance with Iran and Assad in Syria. The Kurds and what's left of the Iraqi army would be with us. Despite the fact that the Saudis oppose the Iranians, they seem to be anti-Libyan Islamist, along with the United Arab Emirates and Egypt. Turkey and Qatar are apparently pro-Libyan Islamist. Boko Haram, Taliban, you in? You're on the other team. Call it World War . . . Whatever Number We're Up to Right Now. ADDENDA: I'm scheduled to appear on the panel on Greta Van Susteren's On the Record tonight . . . You've been warned: Friday's Morning Jolt will feature another one of my long dissections of a long-ago cult television favorite . . . To read more, visit www.nationalreview.com Why not forward this to a friend? Encourage them to sign up for NR's great free newsletters here. Save 75%... Subscribe to National Review magazine today and get 75% off the newsstand price. Click here for the print edition or here for the digital. National Review also makes a great gift! Click here to send a full-year of NR Digital or here to send the print edition to family, friends, and fellow conservatives. Follow Tweet NR Podcasts Send National Review, Inc. Order Today! The Weed Agency: A Comic Tale of Federal Bureaucracy Without Limits By Jim Geraghty   Manage your National Review subscriptions. We respect your right to privacy. View our policy. This email was sent by: National Review, Inc. 215 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor New York, NY 10016