The latest public opinion survey from Fairleigh Dickinson University (FDU) has sparked significant controversy for the deliberate exclusion of two key Democratic primary candidates, Larry Hamm and Patricia Campos-Medina.
This exclusion is not merely an oversight but is being criticized as an unethical practice with serious political consequences for candidates lacking the financial backing of special interest groups.
Conducted between April 1 and April 8, 2024, the FDU survey reveals that Democratic contender Andy Kim is struggling to gain support from independent voters in the upcoming New Jersey Senate race.
However, the validity of these findings is being called into question due to the exclusion of civil rights activist Larry Hamm and labor advocate Patricia Campos-Medina from the survey questions.
Dan Cassino, the poll director, has not addressed inquiries regarding the exclusion, which some argue amounts to an illegal corporate contribution to a congressman who has raised substantial funds from special interests.
At least 377 people who gave more than a million dollars to Menendez in donations of $1000 or greater also made more than a million dollars in donations of $1000 or higher to Kim, whose policy positions align closely with those of the corrupt, hawkish Senator, suggesting that he would represent more of the same.
In stark contrast, Larry Hamm is a genuine agent of change.
Both Kim and Campos-Medina supported Menendez in 2018, further indicating their alignment with the current political establishment. By excluding Hamm from the poll, the survey undermines his candidacy and hinders the possibility of a true alternative emerging in the Democratic primary.
This exclusionary practice is reminiscent of the 2018 election cycle when progressive Democrat Lisa McCormick was similarly omitted from polling and even made the subject of lies media outlets told voters.
The day that the US Senate Ethics Committee “severely” admonished Menendez CBS News falsely reported: “The filing deadline in New Jersey has passed, so Democrats have no choice but to stick with Menendez in the 2018 race.”
CNN’s Chuck Todd said the same thing on April 26, 2018.
Forty days later, McCormick received 159,998 votes, or 40% of the ballots cast, in the Democratic primary against Menendez, demonstrating that corporate-controlled news outlets and academic institutions work to suppress underfunded but popular candidates.
The pattern of excluding viable challengers from significant polls suggests a deliberate effort to stifle dissent and maintain the political status quo.
Critics argue that these actions are part of a broader nefarious scheme to prevent genuine alternatives from gaining traction and winning elections.
As the June 4 Democratic primary approaches, polling institutions must ensure transparency and fairness.
The integrity of political polling is essential for democratic processes, and the exclusion of key candidates undermines this integrity. Voters deserve comprehensive and accurate information about all candidates to make informed decisions at the ballot box.
The controversy surrounding the FDU poll highlights the need for ethical practices in the electoral process, particularly in how surveys are conducted. Ensuring that all candidates are fairly represented is vital for the health of democracy and the proper functioning of electoral competition.