Polling firm admits that polls in Wisconsin Democratic Primary and LA Mayor race were totally fake.

 

File photo of Francesca Hong. Fox News.

A polling firm called Median Strategies have admitted that two polls in the Wisconsin Democrat Primary and the LA Mayor race were fake as a "social experiment". Fox News. The polls had Francesca Hong in Wisconsin and Karen Bass far ahead of their opponents. However, the polling outlet said it was an experiment to see how false information could spread and then shut down their doors. Both polls ended up bein inaccurate, as Hong lost her race in the primary while Bass won by a much slimer margin. 

My Comment:

This is one of the more irresponsible things a polling outfit has done. Putting out entirely false polls is, quite frankly, disgusting. And it calls into question the very concept of polling. If there are outfits out there fabricating data, do we really have any idea of how is winning and losing our political races?

Calling it a social experiment is nonsense as well. And it is funny that the experiment failed in the Wisconsin Governor's race. From what I understand, that poll was largely ignored as larger and more reliable outlets dominated the news. 

Regardless, there were absolutely other ways to demonstrate that false information is a problem without contributing to it. Indeed, that's exactly what they did. These polls probably didn't have too much of an effect, as the Wisconsin one was ignored and the LA one only got a little coverage. But it's pretty easy to think that it could have affected things, especially in a race as close as the Wisconsin Democrat primary was this year. 

But I also think that the "experiment" excuse is probably false. This was probably a scam of some kind. What is likely is that the firm was just lazy and didn't want to do the actual work. By faking the polling results they could get attention and funding, but it fell apart when the LA Times investigated the whole thing. 

It's also possible that this was a scam based on prediction markets like Polymarket or Khalshi. Large amounts of money is bet on the results of these races and by putting out false info they could affect the odds and get a bigger payout. Given that bets can be on just about anything, even overstating a poll could cause a lot of people to place bets that they otherwise would not, so faking numbers might have been a way to increase the payouts of opposing bets. 

If this sounds like a good argument to ban these kinds of prediction markets, I would agree. I hate the incentives that the existence of these prediction markets creates and we have already seen the effects. And this could be another example, and it shows it goes far beyond just sports betting. 

Regardless, this story is going to further erode confidence in American polling this cycle. We have already seen some massive upsets, even beyond the Wisconsin race. The Michigan Senate race is another example and even tonight we saw something similar in Florida's Senate Race for the Democrats. People have already lost faith in the polls and having an outlet out and out faking results is not going to help things. 

President Donald Trump seems to be reaching out to North Korea for a diplomatic win.

President Trump shakes Kim Jong Un's hand on a TV in South Korea. Reuters. 

President Donald Trump seems to be reaching out to North Korea in search of a diplomatic win. Reuters. Trump made a major diplomatic push during his first term to try and warm relations with North Korea, which remains a pariah state. However, Trump appears to be renewing focus on North Korea now. He has scaled back US participation in a major military drill with South Korea, due in part to their refusal to help with the Iran conflict. Trump and Kim Jong Un do have a respectful relationship and both men claim to understand each other. North Korea is in a better negotiating position, due to an economic boom from participating in the Russia-Ukraine war. 

My Comment:

I speculated yesterday that Trump's canceling of the exercise with South Korea had less to due with South Korea and more to do with North Korea. Given Trumps statements about Kim Jong Un, I think that is the case. South Korea did anger the United States by not helping in Iran, given that they too have an interest in keeping the oil from the Middle East flowing, but it's really not about them, that much. 

The cynics are saying that this is just a ploy to get some positive media coverage for Trump ahead of the midterms. There is probably some truth to this, a diplomatic win would probably be helpful for Republican chances in November. But I also don't think that's the only factor. Trump wanted a deal during his first term, and if 2020 had gone different, he probably would have gotten one. He also seems to genuinely like Kim Jong Un, and he has a good relationship with him. 

Kim Jong Un has good motivation to at least talk to Trump. Doing so would be a win for him too, largely because it would give him quite a bit of prestige and legitimacy. It would also bring some predictability to the relationship between the United States and North Korea, which is a major concern. 

The problem is that North Korea really is in a good position right now. Their participation in the Ukraine war has been an absolute economic boom for them, funneling billions of dollars into their economy. They have sold billions of dollars worth artillery shells and missiles and are getting paid for every soldier they deploy in Russia to help defend the country from Ukrainian attacks. 

This means that Trump and Kim Jong Un will probably meet each other as equals and any diplomatic deal will have to be limited in nature. Getting rid of North Korea's nuclear weapons are not a realistic goal for Trump if they do meet. However, a test ban, an official de jure end to the Korean war and/or a ban on missile tests in exchange for sanctions relief could be a real possibility. 

I do think that this is a positive thing. Korea has been a tinderbox for far too long and ratcheting down the temperature again would be useful. Indeed, it was something that should have been done during the Biden administration, but Korea was just yet another issue that Joe Biden was out to lunch on. I don't think a major deal is likely, but any kind of talk is a positive. 

 

Pentagon downplays reports of bad conditions on USS Abraham Lincoln.

 

The USS Abraham Lincoln. Fox News/Reuters.

The Pentagon has downplayed reports of bad conditions on the USS Abraham Lincoln, which has set modern records for length of deployment. Fox News. The Lincoln has been deployed for 260 days in support for the Iran conflict  and has faced allegations of plumbing issues, supply shortages and even crew members threatening to jump off the ship. However, the Pentagon says that the Lincoln's mental health issues are among the lowest in the carrier fleet. CENTCOM commander Admiral Brad Cooper said that many of the issues that had been reported, like the plumbing issues and food quality, have been fixed for some time. Long sea deployments are challenging, Cooper claims, but credited the ships petty officers for focusing on mental health. The Lincoln is now heading back to port and will be replaced by the USS George Washington. 

My Comment:

For context, in World War II, the USS Essex was deployed for 495 days and participated in several massive battles, including the battles of the Philippines Sea, Leyte Gulf, Iwo Jima, Okinawa and Operation Ten-Go, the Japanese attack that ended with the destruction of the Yamato, the biggest battleship ever made. Other carriers and other US Navy ships faced similar lengths of deployment overseas.

Marines and Soldiers might be confused by the complaints as well. In Vietnam the US Army required a 12 month deployment while the Marines faced a 13 month one. And in Iraq and Afghanistan? The Army still required a 9 to 12 month deployment while the Marines often did 6 to 9 months. And unlike the Lincoln, they faced enemy fire and extremely poor conditions. I know if I had the choice of where to serve, I'd rather be a Sailor on the Lincoln over a Marine or Soldier any day of the week. 

That isn't to denigrate or downplay the service of the Sailors and Marines, they have conducted their deployment with honor and do have my praise. But context is important and it's clear that folks are exaggerating just how bad things are. Indeed, the people deployed on the Lincoln are mostly likely just griping. 

Did the Lincoln have issues during this deployment? Of course. From what I understand the plumbing issues were serious and the did have to operate at a high during the Iran conflict. And by modern standards the deployment is long, 9 months at sea is longer than the modern US Navy is used to. Though the ship never came under fire, carrier work is dangerous and so is just going to sea. The air wing especially had a high tempo deployment and I bet they need a break. 

Are there mental health problems on this deployment? Sure, but that's true for every military deployment. Indeed, folks go postal or harm themselves during leave and on base as well. Are they worse than normal because of the long deployment? CENTCOM says otherwise and it's very possible they are right. 

I think the real difference now is that Sailors and Marines are able to contact home very easily. I guarantee that the USS Essex had similar issues during it's 495 day deployment but the general public never heard about it because they didn't have any way to contact home other than highly censored mail. Now anyone on the Lincoln can call their parents and gripe and many of those parents don't really know the reality of deployments. 

Has the Trump administration handled this well? Not really. Trump put his foot in his mouth, as he is wont to do, by saying the deployment should be even longer, which the media, of course, latched onto. I kind of see his point, I doubt that the USS George Washington would be pulled out of the Pacific if it wasn't for this bad press, but it's not something he needed to say. 

I do think there is something to be said for the fact that we only really have three carriers deployed right now, the Lincoln, the Washington and the Bush. The other eight are in port, either being repaired, upgraded, refueling or in training. I know that having large numbers of ships down for those reasons, but that seems like a lot. Usually we have 2-4 deployed but given the active conflict with Iran, you would think that more of them would be deployed. 

DSA candidate Francesca Hong loses against more centrist Democrat David Crowley in Wisconsin Democrat governor primary.

 

David Crowley (background) with Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers (foreground). Fox News/AP.

DSA candidate Francesca Hong lost in a shocking upset against center left Democratic candidate David Crowley. Fox News. Crowley won by .4% and will face Republican Tom Tiffany in November. Crowley had dropped out but came back into the race as a "never-Hong" candidate and got the endorsement of Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers. Hong was polling 20 points ahead of Crowley and other candidates in the field, but suffered several major setbacks in her campaign, most notably not getting endorsements from prominent leftists like AOC and Bernie Sanders. She also had several controversies over her social media statements, such as wanting to cancel Thanksgiving or defunding the police. 

My Comment:

I'm pretty conflicted about this one. Francesca Hong was almost beyond parody in how bad she was as a candidate and I didn't want even a chance of her winning. She's a DSA commie that would destroy the great state of Wisconsin assuming she got any kind of power. But I also think she would have been a lot easier for Tom Tiffany to defeat. 

A big question of this race is how bad the polling was. They actually got Hong's level of support correctly, but they had absolutely no idea how popular Crowley was going to be. He barely won, but you would have thought that they could have detected the support gathering around him and at least given him a decent chance of winning. That didn't happen and it shows that polling is having a terrible moment. They missed several other primary races, most notably the Senate one in Michigan, and it makes the 2026 midterms very hard to predict. 

It does make me wonder if I shouldn't have tried the "pied piper" strategy in Wisconsin. I voted yesterday for Tom Tiffany, but it was barely a contested primary and most of the other races in my district were uncontested. Perhaps I should have voted for Hong because she was easier to beat? But I also know that the potential for that backfiring is high, how many Democrats pushed Donald Trump in 2016, and look how that turned out for them?

As for Hong herself, she's everything wrong with the Democratic Party right now. She cares more about hating Israel than anything else and her actual policy positions (which were so toxic she had to back off of them) were so bad that it's insanity. Which makes sense because Hong was actually hospitalized for her bipolar disorder when she was 18. Indeed, she has all the worst qualities of the Democrat's younger voters and I am very glad that she is gone now. 

Crowley seems like he's a lot more moderate and will likely be Tony Evers 2.0. That's not as bad as it sounds. Evers is probably the best of the Democrats Midwestern Governors, not because he's good, but because he's such a non-entity that he had little chance to screw up the state. Crowley seems to strike me as the same type, someone that could be elected, but wouldn't be able to get much done if he gets in, especially if Republicans retain control of at least one house of the state legislature. That's extremely likely so Crowley getting elected is more status quo antebellum than any kind of actual change. 

But I should not that it's not a sure thing that Crowley will win. Tiffany is a strong candidate and I tend to think the idea of a "blue wave" in 2026 is overstated at best. The main difference is that Tiffany might be the candidate that "scares the normies" now that Hong is out of the race. Tiffany is pretty MAGA and how big of a deal that is will be the main question of 2026. I'm not going to go as far as the polling agencies (because they beclowned themselves enough in this race that I don't trust them at all), but I think Wisconsin is now a true toss up, and it's probably going to be a coin flip as to which party wins in Wisconsin. 

Analyzing the new defense pact between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

 

The leadership of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. AP. 

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have joined a new defensive pact. AP. The Mecca Joint Defense Agreement would treat an attack on any member as an attack on all members. The members say that the pact isn't directed at any specific country, but many feel it could be directed at Iran. The alliance is powerful, Turkey has huge conventional military, Saudi Arabia has a lot of soft power in the region and is rich, while Pakistan has nuclear weapons and an experienced military. However, the agreement is not as strong as a formal alliance like NATO. 

My Comment:

This news broke a few days ago, but the news cycle is slow today and there isn't much else to talk about besides primary election results. And it is a huge story, this is a large alliance and could have serious implications down the line. 

This is a very powerful alliance, and I think only one country could realistically challenge it, and that's the United States. All three of these countries have huge amounts of troops, large professional militaries and some limited power projection. And, of course, they have nuclear weapons. 

The alliance faces major logistical issues though. None of these countries share a border and Turkey and Pakistan aren't even in the same region. They could support each other in a war against Iran, obviously, since all of them are in striking range of Iran, but what if they get into a conflict with another country? I think they would have extreme difficulty in accomplishing much. 

And honestly, I think that Iran is the least likely country to trigger this alliance right now. Iran has largely been degraded in terms of military power and could not afford to launch a war against Saudi Arabia or Pakistan any time soon. I guess they could continue to launch attacks against US bases in Saudi Arabia and that could trigger the pact, but I honestly don't see the Saudis calling people into the war given they haven't really joined it in the first place. 

The real threats to a larger regional war are India and, to a much lesser degree, Israel. Pakistan and India have had several conflicts in the last decade and all of the conditions that led to that conflict (terrorism, border disputes, religious differences) still exists. Should a conflict break out, it's very possible that Pakistan could call their allies into the conflict, leading to a larger regional war. 

However, this scenario would be the most difficult for the Saudis and the Turks to help out. They don't really have a land route to send troops, so they would have to go by see. Even assuming they had the shipping capability, they would have to somehow evade Indian attacks on their supply convoys. And given that Turkey and Saudi Arabia have closer ties to India than Pakistan, obviously, it's possible the alliance could fall apart.

And Israel? A war between Turkey and Israel isn't as unlikely as you think. There has been tensions over Turkey's actions in Syria and there is evidence that Israel no longer considers Iran to be their number one rival. But a conflict between Turkey and Israel, perhaps in Syria, would be difficult for the other members to help out with. The Pakistanis are too far away, and while the Saudis could help, they have closer ties to Israel. 

Regardless, I don't think too much will come from this pact, barring a major war between India and Pakistan. It's mostly symbolic in nature and is probably more about keeping Iran from dragging them into the war than anything else.