Mainstream Media Cherry Picks Statistics to Declare Populism Dead

3

“87% have said, ‘We don’t want this guy”. This is exhibit A in the kind of selective statistics that have worked a charm for mainstream media in regard to a good many issues in their constant quest to spread disinformation. The quote from political scientist Andre Krouwell is proudly trotted out by CNN to frame the Dutch election as some kind of failure for Geert Wilders’ PVV.

Krouwell’s musings along with those of most of the mainstream media are an interesting interpretation of the actual statistics that are very easy to find, and remarkably in this case appear IN THE VERY SAME ARTICLE showing the complete and utter shamelessness of CNN and others in ignoring the inconvenient and twisting the narrative to suit their agenda.

What do these statistics tell the average person not looking to just take the ones that reaffirm their confirmation bias as if they were at a salad bar? The house majority of the VVD is 33 seats. The article frames this as somehow being a landslide, and a rejection of populism. It sounds great in theory, but look more closely. The VVD LOST 7 seats. This isn’t an ‘affirmation of the virtuous’. This is a disasterous drop in support of 21.21%. To put it in perspective, six Liberals lost their seats in the recent W.A election and the media (correctly) framed it as a bloodbath.

Now onto the Geert Wilders and his PVV, who mainstream media are almost universally framing as having s— the bed yesterday when nothing could be further from the truth. The PVV now has 20 seats. This article and others interpret their result as failure and ‘rejection’, but they picked up 8 more seats. That’s a 40% gain in support. As opposed to a 21.21% drop in support for the party that only just squeaked through, no doubt after having their policy and campaign heavily influenced by the rise of the PVV.

Let’s go back to the magic ‘87% rejection’ argument. The PVV picked up 13.1% of the popular vote which is how Krouwell arrives at his devastatingly ominous sounding interpretation of the fact that 87% of voters cast their vote elsewhere, as the far sexier sounding 87% rejection of Wilders himself. That all sounds great till you consider ALL THE NUMBERS instead of just cherry picking the PVV result.

The severely hemorrhaging VVD (a major party I might add, not a startup minor party) crawls across the line with a 21.21% drop in support and only 21.3% of the popular vote. Would CNN’s expert economist describe this as “78.7% said, “We don’t want this guy”?

Taking it further, the Green Left received a paltry 8.9% of the popular vote, but Hell will freeze over before Krouwell uses his same ‘rejection algorithm’ that works so conveniently to demonise the PVV to announce that “91.1% have said “We don’t want the Green Left and their fringe policies”.

We saw similar charges of ‘rejection of populism’ in the recent W.A. State Election. One Nation ran an ill-prepared campaign with ill-prepared and ill-vetted candidates, and their brand was actually tainted by association with the Liberals. It wasn’t a rejection of populism, it was a rejection of ill-preparedness and poor-execution as any party in temporary disarray would experience. Even still, it looks like they’ll get two seats in the upper house.

They weren’t a viable alternative by any stretch for Western Australians, yet as many of us predicted, enough people were frustrated enough to vote for them anyway to get a decent result in the seats where they did run, which should be a sobering thought for Labor and the Coalition. If a disorganised rabble had this kind of impact based on a wave of discontent on their first outing, what will happen next time when a more organised minor party shows up?

Make no mistake, the Dutch election especially was an affirmation, rather than a rejection of populism. Wilders makes both Trump and Hanson appear quite centrist by comparison, so one can only imagine how successful his party would be if he dialled down his rhetoric to more widely palatable levels. Trump wouldn’t be sitting in the Oval Office had he referred to illegal immigrants as ‘scum’ a couple of weeks out from the election, so Wilders no doubt kicked a bit of an own goal there.

But the fact that things are apparently so bad in Europe that enough voters will overlook some salty language to give a party an extra 8 seats says a lot. If the mainstream media somehow interprets what has occurred in the Dutch election as a rejection of Nationalism, and a rejection of populism, we can only wait with baited breath to see the illusionist magic show that will be the post election MSM coverage in France later in the year.

It’s your XYZ.Photo by Metropolico.org

SHARE
Previous articleFood for Thought – Slut-Shaming the Sycophantic Socialist Slappywag
Next articleBetter Driver Training Needed to Avoid Death
Eh?nonymous was a thoroughly repellent unemployed social justice warrior until a one in a million glitch in his Facebook account affected the algorithms in his news feed, omitting posts from his much loved left leaning Huffington Post and I F---ing Love Science, and inexplicably replacing them with centrist and conservative newsfeed items that slowly dragged him kicking and screaming into the light beyond the safe space that Mr. Zuckerberg had so carefully constructed for him. It’s a long road to recovery, but every Mark Steyn share he sees in his newsfeed is like another day clean from social justice addiction.
  • Salome

    Without preferential voting it’s impossible to find out how many really rejected any candidate. Also, the lefties are the real losers in this election. One comment I read elsewhere pointed out how well Green Left had done, picking up 10 seats. Well, when you start with 4, 10 is a huge improvement. But it has to be seen against the 29 seats lost by PvdA, the labour party. It would seem that the left, as a whole lost. Some PvdA voters were probably discontented by the grand coalition with the VVD, and took a step further to the left by voting Green Left. But not all.

  • Gregoryno6

    Indeed, interesting parallels in MSM commentary on Pauline and Geert. Both gained votes and seats, and yet are written off as losers.

    • Ray Johnston

      Yes interesting but then Geert had a positive reply and Pauline went on about that Scarborough woman and sour milk Barnett etc instead of going straight away on about ON’s vote in upper house at 8.13% (real state wide), 7.9% in the Perth city division of East Metro (one of the two largest populated) and how this is looking terrific for next Senate election. And yeah, we’ll be knocking off the Greens for the 6th spot because as you all at the ABC know, the Greens vote down to 7.91% from last WA state election in 2013 of 8.21%.
      She or Tincknell could off spoke positively or made light of the fact that the silly Liberals put the Shooters ahead and cost them a MLC seat but hey, we are totally stoked with getting 2 , we are on track etc,etc instead of negative sour milk BS which the ABC lapped up but would have spit out at the sight of Pauline grinning in their face with Green vote stats.