Many decades ago, I was an undergrad in Northwestern University’s School of Business. Statistics and marketing were mandatory courses. Donald Trump, some years later, was an undergrad at Wharton. The curriculum was much the same. We both were aware of the dangers of using tainted data—surveys asking the wrong or improper questions or focus groups skewed one way, or the other can lead to disastrous results. New coke and the Ford Edsel resulted from avoiding the tough but right questions. Instead, they went with those likely to confirm what you already thought. Everyone in business school has heard the cautionary, “dogs don’t like it story.” The last thing you want to do is fool yourself.

Possibly an awful polling question asked in slightly different versions by several organizations led to the worst foreign policy disaster in memory. In my last post, I referred to the Dispatch article showing how you asked the “should we remain in Afghanistan question,” yield widely differing results. 

 The “Do you approve or disapprove of Biden’s plan to remove the troops from Afghanistan?” is a version of the eternally high polling “Are you in favor of world peace.” “Everyone is for world peace. However, if we add you lose all your freedom to attain it, the results reverse. “Do you think the U.S. should remove all military troops from Afghanistan, or should some U.S. troops remain for counter-terrorism operations?” elicits a some troops’ stay majority.  

We’ve all heard the quality of the data concept, “Garbage in Garbage out.” There’s a variation “Garbage in Gospel out.” The latter applies here. The Bernie Saunders peacenik group has long dominated the left. Add the Trump “America First” bunch, and the Rand Paul “never get involved overseas” libertarians. You have many people emotionally ready to accept and repeat the 70+ percent favor pulling out foolishness.

The question is why “reputable polling operations” would ask the Afghan question in this manner. They have to be aware this is sure to mislead. If a student taking Statistics and marketing is taught this is rotten practice, why would pros make the error? We know polling in the 2020 election was the worst ever. Why leaders would make such an important decision based on a faulty polling question must’ve been because it gave them the desired answer.

Donald Trump especially had to know his claimed pullout support was bogus. If he wanted to know how Americans thought about Afghanistan, he would’ve demanded the right questions. Maybe he wasn’t the great student he claims to have been.

On March 9th, less than two months after Biden’s inauguration, I posted “The Dog ate Biden’s Homework.” I warned the new administration’s capabilities weren’t as advertised. We already had an out-of-control Southern Border. A total misunderstanding of “Project Warp Speed” led to kids not being in school and an unneeded $2. 1 billion in additional spending. The vaccines combined with those naturally immune allowed a return to everyday life and a rapidly expanding economy. With substantial pent-up demand, the last thing we needed was additional relief. It all but guaranteed inflation. The administration appeared to be unaware of any of this.

At the time, I concluded, “Much of the new administration’s problems arise from the same flaw, lack of preparation. One of the primary reasons put forth for electing Biden was competence. Joe and those around him knew what they were doing. It appears they don’t.” 

In subsequent posts, I spelled continuing errors of judgment. It became clear the question wasn’t what the administration got wrong but could they get anything right. Gathering and understanding information and analyzing data was beyond their capabilities. They heard what they wanted to hear and expected the outcomes they desired.

If you’re surprised by the present Afghanistan debacle, you weren’t reading Detour on the Road.” The longer the inept stay in control, the greater the failures. On the other hand, the mainstream media willingly continued the myth of Biden competency. Further, the media bubble likely contributed to the resulting disaster.

Now we have the media suddenly aware the administration was ineffective. If I could see the flaws, they had to be visible to those with the big newsrooms. I and others questioned abandoning Bagram Airbase in the middle of the night. The slow extraction of Afghans was visible to all. They chose to ignore and cover-up.

When Hunter Biden’s laptop surfaced, they refused to cover it. Instead, they promoted a bogus Russian disinformation operation put forth by left-leaning former intelligence people. To date, no one has disputed the computer’s ownership or contents. Rather than alerting the public Joe Biden wasn’t up to the job, they covered -up the possibility he was corrupt as well.  

One of the favorite media tricks is the use of simple issue poll questions eliciting a one-word response. Sarah Isgur and Chris Stirewalt in the Dispatch understand how it contributed to the administration, and others misreading the situation. The question asked matters. On Afghanistan, “The Hill asked: