Ever since NH Senator Kelly Ayotte voted against the pointless enhancement of background checks the left has been livid. More than usual. All the appropriate organs, water carriers, fellow travelers, and progressive 'pundits' have been working this barren udder for every drop of sour milk they could get. And they have not let go of it. They can't. The only way they will ever turn New Hampshire into the kind of gun-free-, left-wing war-zone, that perpetuates the generations of helpless victims their political co-dependency demands is by Federal fiat.
So who do they look to for help? The media, of course.
The New Hampshire local media (like most) is majority left-leaning with the only major television news station, WMUR, being little different from any other of its ilk, aiding and abetting the narratives of Democrats because hey!--emotional headlines, even if misleading, are supposed to be good for business and quite often emotion is all the Democrats have. The background check issue is emotional, has been heated, complete with its army of progressive straw men, which the talking heads translate into chum for the low-information-post-public-school fish to digest.
The most recent bit of chum arrived in the form of a local poll in which 526 or so adults were sampled on New Hampshire gun laws (some of which our own Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter is herself unfamiliar), background checks, their feelings, and so on. I didn't fisk the poll because any New Hampshire poll will be a product of other "institutions" of the near-left (if not wholly of the left), I simply took WMUR's chum and did the math they were hoping the fish would breeze by on their way to the consuming the seasoned meal WMUR had prepared for their uninformed palates; one that aligned with the menu set before them by the Democrat State party and its appropriate organs, water carriers, fellow travelers, and progressive 'pundits.'
WMUR, on their web site, leads their brief report about the poll with this: “Granite Staters unhappy with failure of gun background check bill.”
In the opening paragraphs we are told that...
"...46 percent of those surveyed believe gun laws should be stricter, while 14 percent said they should be less strict. Another 37 percent thought they should remain about the same."
The obvious intent here is to suggest anywhere between a 9 and 32 point margin in favor of stricter gun laws in the Granite State. But if you add the "remain the same" group to the "less strict" groups, something really wonderful emerges. By a margin of 51% to 46%, those surveyed think New Hampshire's gun laws should remain the same or be less strict.
The WMUR report goes on to observe that 70% were unhappy with the 'background check vote.' I was unhappy with the background check vote. I was unhappy that there was a vote. I was unhappy with the vote for cloture, the vote to block a filibuster that would have brought to the public record important facts about background checks, crime statistics, the truth. My point being that I'm not sure exactly what that means in the context of the poll but we should note that it is a far cry from the 92% faux-poll number the entire progressive firmament has been tossing about in search of fresh meat to repeat their background-check memes, and taken in the context of this poll itself, makes the70% figure virtually meaningless.
If 92% of (Blah Blah Blah New Hampshire) think we need background checks, but like Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter do not know we already have them, and 70% are unhappy-perhaps at getting a call from a polling firm during dinner--but 51% of these same people think we should stick with what we have or even loosen the regulatory grip on gun laws in the state, then we can infer that their background-check unhappiness aligns more with mine than that of Democrats who will do anything to avoid running on the issue locally.
So why not report the fact that 51% believe we need the same or less restrictive Gun laws? It looks bad for the narrative.
Something else that looks bad, which they bring up near the end of their article, is that despite all the time, effort, and money the anti-gun left has poured into New Hampshire, and the pointy sticks they've been waving at Senator Ayotte, only 30% or less of those polled even knew how either New Hampshire Senator voted, with 53% of independents noting that the issue would not affect their vote.
How the professional left responds to this "reality" is not unpredictable. They will run with the "majority want stricter laws" bread-crumbs that WMUR just handed them. And that is fine with me. It allows me to encourage everyone who runs against a Democrat in this state to ask Democrats why they are not running on additional or enhanced background checks and stricter gun laws for New Hampshire in their local campaigns. If it really is as important to voters as you keep insisting, you should all be swept into office on it where you can then enjoy the freedom to advance whatever mandate you believe that gives you.