Did Fake Polls Collaspe Mallory McMorrow's Campaign?

So if inaccurate or fraudulent polls help shape a public narrative, really, about a candidate's viability, does that expose a weakness then in the way campaigns and the media evaluate polling data? I mean, should we all do a little soul searching here? Media, campaigns, politicians? I mean, we all need to say, yeah.

Yeah, and listen, you know, I tell candidates, particularly early on, you know, until votes start to get cast, there are only two metrics to measure a candidate's strength.

One is money and the other is polls.

Otherwise, no one can form an opinion if you're doing well or you're not doing well.

There is no other metric.

So you just got to keep your head down and keep doing the work.

And one of the other corrupting things in this process is how much money candidates often have to spend very early to affect the polls prematurely so that these super PACs that are sitting on the outside see that you're viable and you can attract their investments.

So you are often spending money to affect how other people spend money for you rather than running a campaign in which you communicate with voters.

And you take a chance when you do that because you spend early.

You're trying to move the numbers.

If you don't do that, the super PACs abandon you.

Well, you spent most of your money trying to attract them.

And then at the end of the campaign, you're broke.

So that's another flaw, I think, that was created by Citizens United and which was created because of McCain-Feingold, that has this outsized influence from money outside of the control of the actual candidates.

Do you think that this controversy might lead to better scrutiny, greater scrutiny of polling methodologies and maybe new standards? Or shall we just give that a laugh and move on? Well,

listen, I would hope so.

But, you know, this is how we do it.

Just stop reporting on it.

It's the media that drives it.

It's the media that commissions polls.

It's the media that fuels this.

And I know why they do it.

It's for eyeballs and clicks to get people to check in and But they spend a lot of money and they shape a lot of public policy and politics.

And I don't think that's what the media should be doing.

I think they should be calling balls and strikes, telling us what's going on in the campaign rather than the fixation on what the horse race looks like.

So if inaccurate or fraudulent polls help shape a public narrative, really, about a candidate's viability, does that expose a weakness then in the way campaigns and the media evaluate polling data? I mean, should we all do a little soul searching here? Media, campaigns, politicians? I mean, we all need to say, yeah.

Yeah, and listen, you know, I tell candidates, particularly early on, you know, until votes start to get cast, there are only two metrics to measure a candidate's strength.

One is money and the other is polls.

Otherwise, no one can form an opinion if you're doing well or you're not doing well.

There is no other metric.

So you just got to keep your head down and keep doing the work.

And one of the other corrupting things in this process is how much money candidates often have to spend very early to affect the polls prematurely so that these super PACs that are sitting on the outside see that you're viable and you can attract their investments.

So you are often spending money to affect how other people spend money for you rather than running a campaign in which you communicate with voters.

And you take a chance when you do that because you spend early.

You're trying to move the numbers.

If you don't do that, the super PACs abandon you.

Well, you spent most of your money trying to attract them.

And then at the end of the campaign, you're broke.

So that's another flaw, I think, that was created by Citizens United and which was created because of McCain-Feingold, that has this outsized influence from money outside of the control of the actual candidates.

Do you think that this controversy might lead to better scrutiny, greater scrutiny of polling methodologies and maybe new standards? Or shall we just give that a laugh and move on? Well,

listen, I would hope so.

But, you know, this is how we do it.

Just stop reporting on it.

It's the media that drives it.

It's the media that commissions polls.

It's the media that fuels this.

And I know why they do it.

It's for eyeballs and clicks to get people to check in and But they spend a lot of money and they shape a lot of public policy and politics.

And I don't think that's what the media should be doing.

I think they should be calling balls and strikes, telling us what's going on in the campaign rather than the fixation on what the horse race looks like.