The Trump Vengeance Tour Continues As He Sues Pollster For Being Wrong

Free Speech

from the the-anti-free-speech-era dept

Donald Trump has made it quite clear that he views his reelection as not just a vindication of his views, but as a blessing for his plan to bring vengeance on those who disagree with him. His cabinet picks are following in his footsteps on that, with various threats of lawsuits flying this way and that. And now he’s filed his most ridiculous sore winner lawsuit yet: suing one newspaper and pollster who suggested Kamala Harris had a lead in Iowa.

Trump, himself, never one to shy away from filing vexatious SLAPP suits, seems emboldened by Bob Iger’s decision to settle the case Trump had filed earlier this year against ABC and George Stephanopoulos. That case was very dumb, but because Stephanopoulos made the case more complicated than it needed to be, a judge refused to dismiss it earlier this year. At that point, it starts to get expensive, and Iger seemed to do the math that, with all the attacks the GOP has made on Disney, it was better to comply and kiss the ring — an unfortunately common occurrence for media moguls these days.

That said, this latest lawsuit is monumentally stupid. Ann Selzer, who had previously been called “the best pollster in politics,” clearly ran a single very bad poll in Iowa right before the election for the Des Moines Register. It caught a lot of attention as it showed Kamala Harris up by a few points on Donald Trump in a state that no one thought Harris would win. This really upset a lot of people at the time, but in the end, it was just a bad poll. It happens.

But, according to this new lawsuit, this one bad poll was… apparently election interference? That’s according to the complaint filed on Monday in an Iowa state court. While Trump had mentioned his intention to sue, Puck News broke the story of the actual lawsuit, but they get no link from me because they quoted from the complaint without including a link to it (my link above in this paragraph is directly to the complaint).

The complaint is laughable because Trump clearly can’t show any damages. He won the election, he won Iowa, so what harm occurred here? The lawsuit claims the poll was part of a Democratic plot to suppress Republican voting, but provides no evidence for this conspiracy theory. If anything, an inaccurate poll showing Democrats ahead would likely motivate more Republicans to turn out and vote.

The idea that you could sue pollsters for releasing poll results that differ from the final election outcome is absurd and dangerous. Polls are snapshots of voter sentiment at a given time, not ironclad predictions. Even the best pollsters are sometimes off the mark. It’s the nature of polling. They could have a bad sample or a bad polling system. Or their weighting system could be off. It happens. It shouldn’t be against the law to make a bad prediction.

Pollsters shouldn’t have to fear lawsuits for doing their jobs. If this is allowed to stand, it could have a severe chilling effect on political polling. What pollster would want to risk being sued by an angry candidate every time they release results?

Indeed, even if the judge dismisses this lawsuit as baseless, if they don’t also sanction the lawyers for filing such a garbage case, it will still create a chilling effect among pollsters, who will likely worry that they might have to go through such a costly and stressful legal process anytime they publish unfavorable numbers.

Unfortunately, with no anti-SLAPP law in Iowa, and Congress being unwilling to vote on a federal anti-SLAPP law, there’s not much to deter frivolous lawsuits like this that aim to punish and silence protected speech, unless this particular judge decides to make an example of Trump and his lawyers here. But I’m not holding my breath.

The complaint reads more like the whining of an insecure man-child who can’t handle criticism than a legitimate legal argument. I mean, look at this unhinged rant:

This poll—purporting to show that President Trump’s commanding lead all but vanished upon Harris’s entry into the race—was indicative of Defendants’ intent, even as early as September, to paint an incorrect and cynical picture of the downward trajectory for President Trump in the face of a supposedly turbocharged Harris Campaign. In truth, Harris’s hollow message of “joy” was missing badly with voters across all demographics and regions, who craved actual policy changes that only President Trump can and will deliver

Any court that cares about the First Amendment should dismiss this case and sanction Trump’s lawyers for filing it. Sadly, these days, that’s far from guaranteed, as many judges seem willing to ignore basic First Amendment principles, often through MAGA-tinted glasses.

But, this whole thing is just painfully stupid:

For too long, left-wing pollsters have attempted to influence electoral outcomes through manipulated polls that have unacceptable error rates and are not grounded in widely accepted polling methodologies. While Selzer is not the only pollster to engage in this corrupt practice, she had a huge platform and following and, thus, a significant and impactful opportunity to deceive voters. As Selzer knows, this type of manipulation creates a narrative of inevitability for Democrat candidates, increases enthusiasm among Democrats, compels Republicans to divert campaign time and money to areas in which they are ahead, and deceives the public into believing that Democrat candidates are performing better than they really are.

Does this mean the Harris campaign should be able to sue any of the pollsters who were wrong in the other direction? Hell, she would have a (still laughable and vexatious, but…) marginally more credible complaint, seeing as she actually lost the election (though she was willing to admit that, something Trump has never done).

The implications of allowing this suit to proceed are chilling. If a candidate can sue any pollster whose results they dislike, it would make accurate, independent polling nearly impossible. Campaigns could bully pollsters into only releasing favorable numbers or keeping unflattering results quiet. The public would be deprived of an important source of impartial information about races.

In a sane world, this lawsuit would be laughed out of court and widely condemned as an attack on free speech and democracy. Instead, it will likely be celebrated by the MAGA crowd as Trump “fighting back” against perceived enemies. That attitude, more than the complaint itself, shows how much trouble our political system is in.

A country that actually supported free speech wouldn’t allow such censorial SLAPP lawsuits to occur. And it should be widely seen as embarrassing that the President-elect would file such a lawsuit. Instead, it will be widely cheered by a bunch of people who pretend they support free speech while actually applauding this assault on free speech.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, ann selzer, anti-slapp, donald trump, election interference, elections, free speech, iowa, kamala harris, polls, slapp
Companies: des moines register