Mark Sanford’s special election victory shows PPP gun control polls are BS
Mark Sanford was supposed to lose, by a lot. At least that’s what left wing Daily Kos polling outfit PPP had in their ‘results’ leading up to the special election this past week. Mark Sanford ended up absolutely crushing Stephen Colbert’s sister in an election that Democrats thought they had in the bag. A PPP poll on April 22nd showed Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch beating Sanford by nine points. Mark Sanford actually beat Colbert-Busch by 9 points at 54% to 45%. That’s a whopping 18% swing from PPP’s polling of the race and the actual result.
When gun grabbing zealots sight ‘poll numbers’ as showing Americans in favor of gun control, they always seem to cite PPP’s numbers. If PPP’s polls are so far off on a special election in one district, how can they be trusted to accurately poll people’s opinion on issues such as gun control when they use their stupid robocall systems and strangely worded questions?
“PPP and Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns have led a fraud campaign attempting to convince Republican Senators that their political careers have collapsed as a result of their opposition to gun control,” Pratt said.
“This campaign of deception has attempted to frighten senators based on polling numbers which have dropped as little as 2% in Nevada since October — and 6% in Alaska. Both of these numbers are less than the number by which PPP missed the Sanford-Busch results,” Pratt said.
Addressing those who defended PPP’s 18-point error by claiming that the race shifted in the last week, Pratt asked: “How is it then that PPP is pronouncing doom on Senator Kelly Ayotte’s race in 2016 and Jeff Flake’s race, which is five and a half years away?”
“Although PPP’s questionable ‘robo-call’ methods had some success in candidate head-on-heads during the 2012 elections — where questions were difficult to fudge — PPP has, since then, prostituted itself to the gun control crowd,” Pratt said. “And its credibility has gone down the toilet in the process.