Following daily polls on this year’s election can lead to intellectual vertigo, especially among those who picture Mr. Trump sporting a Hitler mustache, or others who struggle to decipher policy views buried in cackling Kamala’s word salads. America’s media noise machines breathlessly report that this or that state is Trump’s to lose; no, make that Harris’ to lose, who last night or last week “surged” to a one-point lead, or two points, or something.

It’s the same story for the rest of the battleground states: either candidate is up here, down there, gains a point or two someplace in the Midwest, only to be knocked down a statistical smidgeon somewhere else that experts insist is a “must-win” contest.

The only constant in this babble fest of numbers is confusion among many voters who try to make sense of it all.

Those whose brains haven’t been fried by the fabricated insanity of Trump hatred might conclude that the election shouldn’t be close, especially since Kamala Harris and her ilk have supported policies that no sane, normal person would entertain for a second: massive invasion of illegal aliens — including thousands of felons, defunding police, coddling criminals, showing disdain for women who object to males changing in their locker rooms, funding surgery for mentally ill youngsters suffering from sexual dysphoria, mandating that everyone be judged on the basis of race, class, or gender — the list goes on.

For all that, however, one hears about the importance of voting against Trump. What about voting against Harris?

The Media Noise Machine Shapes Elections

Inconceivable, Vizzini might say (The Princess Bride), and for good reason. Democrats have had the electoral deck stacked in their favor for a long time, as Tim Groseclose documented in his meticulous study about political bias, Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind, published in 2011. (READ MORE: Reagan Conservatism Is Alive and Well)

Among Professor Groseclose’s conclusions, two points stand out. First, in his words: “My results suggest that media bias aids Democratic candidates by about 8 to 10 percentage points in a typical election. I find, for instance, that if media bias didn’t exist, then John McCain would have defeated Barack Obama 56 – 42, instead of losing 53 – 46.”

And presumably, Republicans would have won elections after Obama’s “transformational” exploits in office, including the 2020 contest that advanced a senile cypher to the presidency. Indeed, given Groseclose’s documentation, it’s surprising that Republicans win any elections, especially at the national level.

The second point centers on reactions to Groseclose’s work, which he labeled a “firestorm:” denunciations by “hundreds, and maybe thousands, of left-wing blogs.” His study was “highly flawed,” and he should “be fired IMMEDIATELY” from his position as professor of political science at UCLA for “that cockamamie load of bulls**t.”

Groseclose’s editor said that he had never seen anything like the reaction to Left Turn, and he hoped the author’s home address wasn’t available. Groseclose himself characterized such responses as “vicious,” certainly an understatement, given the arrogance of his detractors and the vitriol they heaped upon him. For all his efforts, he still received several job offers from other universities, in spite of the considerable smearing of his work and reputation.

Speaking of which, scholars at odds with their left-wing colleagues should take some comfort in the fact that half of the country regularly receives the same treatment by liberal luminaries, especially those ensconced in America’s media complex.

Perhaps the most trenchant observer is investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, whose career brought her into the belly of the beast, populated by denizens committed to safeguarding The Narrative at all costs. This term has been bandied about frequently over the past decade, but casual listeners might not appreciate its prevalence or its devotees’ ferocious determination to defend it at all costs. In fact, if Groseclose’s work is considered devastating, Attkisson’s review of The Narrative is no less than horrifying.

The Narrative is the story line that embraces every event in society, public and private. Its goal, in her words, “is to embed chosen ideas so deeply within society that they are no longer questioned — scratch that — so that questions are not permitted … Contrary views, facts, and science must be shoved down the memory hole — disappeared — as though they had never existed.”

No wonder that she begins her recent book, Slanted, with copious examples from George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. In fact, Attkisson’s review of American media practices is as chilling as Orwell’s fictional treatment of Soviet totalitarianism. And efforts by liberal elites to demonize opposition (especially Donald Trump), eradicate “disinformation,” and expunge the Second Amendment are inspired by identical goals, best summarized by Orwell: “To conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought.”

Anything but a Landslide

In short, with the goals clear and the methods set in place, the liberal media establishment has been cranking the machinery to ensure close elections, regardless of the quality of their candidates, the messages they deliver, or the characteristics of their opposition. (READ MORE: Democrats’ Homicidal Rhetoric Inspires Trump-Hating Gunmen)

The last thing rulers of the controlling heights of American institutions want is a Reagan-like landslide, even though the administrative apparatus is mostly unaffected. The best way to prevent such a possibility undoubtedly lurks in liberal thoughts, bringing to mind a comment made by Franklin Roosevelt when he began his presidency. An adviser suggested that if he solved the Great Depression, he would go down in history as the country’s best president. FDR said that if he didn’t, he would be America’s last president, presumably ending the possibility of future elections.

It is a tragedy of American politics that FDR’s fear is the current liberals’ dream.

Marvin J. Folkertsma is an author of several books, retired professor, and former longtime chair of the Department of Political Science at Grove City College.