In my home state of Iowa, one of the most vocal and liberally minded groups of idealists resides, and recently, I found myself on the receiving end of their ire.
It felt akin to being a lamb led to slaughter; I was besieged by more than 50 passionate journalists, all aflame with anger about the recent national presidential election setback. They were specifically incensed at me for offering my perspective on why the defeat transpired. My insights only fanned the flames of their frustration.
This confrontation unfolded on Monday, Nov. 11, during a Zoom call initiated by my friend Julie Gammack, who runs a respected journalist and columnist program in Iowa.
This column revolves around two significant Zoom meetings spaced a week apart: one held just a day prior to the election and the second a week later.
Despite having been away from Iowa for 54 years, I still maintain connections with many journalists, whether through personal acquaintance or by reputation. They are outstanding writers, with a majority contributing weekly columns on platforms like Substack.
But why could they not see the bigger picture?
In their view, how could I be so out of touch?
That Iowa Poll
A week earlier, Julie had certainly made waves by inviting J. Ann Selzer, the mastermind behind the notable (and ultimately discredited) “Iowa Poll,” to speak on that weekly Zoom call. Selzer’s revelation that Kamala Harris had edged ahead of Donald Trump by three percentage points in Iowa suggested that the Democrats might be securing the national election.
The atmosphere among the 100 participants on that fully booked Zoom call was electric with excitement, save for my own disappointment.
Remarkably, that poll turned out to be woefully inaccurate; Trump won Iowa decisively by 12 points.
The findings of that poll energized Democrats nationwide, with it being prominently featured on subsequent episodes of NBC’s Meet the Press, a show that has consistently positioned itself as an adversary to Trump.
From my perspective, the members of this Iowa faction were ensconced within a confirmation bias bubble, oblivious to the dramatic shift away from leftist ideologies happening across the country.
Here is how Julie introduced her remarkable guest: “You’ve heard about the Iowa Poll and its prominent figure. The latest results triggered a seismic narrative shift within the political chattering class when they were first unveiled in The Des Moines Register.”
Follow-Up Zoom Post-Election
I reached out to Julie and mentioned I could participate in the second Zoom call for a limited time, and she deemed it intriguing to have a Trump supporter included in the discussion.
During my brief turn to speak, I expressed my skepticism regarding the poll, citing my friends and family in Iowa (all of whom are opposed to Trump) who believed firmly that the Hawkeye State remained solidly in Trump’s corner.
I spent my allocated five minutes questioning how Democrats could wholeheartedly embrace concepts like open borders, student loan forgiveness, and an over-emphasis on race and gender identity.
After finishing my remarks, I told Julie I would appreciate the opportunity to return when I had more time.
In my absence, my comments were met with considerable backlash from the group. Among the critical voices was Bob Leonard, who passionately stated, “That guy (Sniffin) doesn’t care about anything except his own arrogant white ass!”
Ouch.
Why The Dems Lost
Let’s shift our focus away from my Iowa challenges.
Tyrus, a popular figure on the Greg Gutfeld show, articulated one of the most resonant reasons for the Democrats’ defeat in just two words: “BUD LIGHT.”
Indeed, the unraveling of support seems to have coincided with the best-selling beer’s decision to embrace a “woke” agenda, alienating its previously loyal customer base.
Additionally, the incessant presence of that U.S. Department of Health Admiral, who appears to take pride in sporting skirts, may instill trepidation among the ranks of Russian, Chinese, Iranian, or North Korean military leaders.
Here Is A Difference
Reflecting on the Iowa incident, I ponder why my views contrast so sharply with those of the attendees at the Zoom meeting. While I would hope we could share common values, we appear to diverge significantly, far beyond mere geographical distance.
I sincerely hope Julie will invite me back for another session in the future, even though they will certainly be prepared for me next time.
And truthfully, I will be ready for them, as well.
Bill Sniffin can be reached at: Bill@CowboyStateDaily.com
What insights did John Smith gain about the challenges of political discourse during his Zoom calls in Iowa?
**Interview with John Smith, Political Commentator and Author**
**Editor:** Good afternoon, John, and thank you for joining us. You recently participated in two heated Zoom calls in Iowa, one before and one after the national presidential election. Can you tell us what that experience was like?
**John Smith:** Thank you for having me. It was an intriguing and quite intense experience. The first call, led by Julie Gammack, featured J. Ann Selzer discussing her Iowa Poll that suggested Democrats were gaining ground. There was a palpable excitement in the air, while I felt quite skeptical. After all, the poll turned out to be incorrect, with Trump winning Iowa by a significant margin.
**Editor:** It sounds like you were in a tough spot. How did the other participants react to your perspective during the later call?
**John Smith:** Well, let me say, it felt a bit like being a lone voice in a storm. After the election, I joined the second call briefly and expressed my concerns about how Democrats were engaging with voters. My comments, especially regarding policies like open borders and student loan forgiveness, were not received well. I could sense a lot of frustration directed towards me for questioning their approach.
**Editor:** You mentioned a “confirmation bias bubble.” Can you elaborate on that?
**John Smith:** Absolutely. It appeared to me that many of the journalists present were so entrenched in their beliefs that they couldn’t see the shifting landscape in the country. Their reaction to my thoughts seemed more about defending their worldview than really engaging with the complexities of the political climate. They were invested in the narrative shaped by that faulty polling data and overlooked the broader electoral realities.
**Editor:** It must have been challenging to express your views. Do you think there’s a way to bridge that divide and foster constructive dialogue?
**John Smith:** That’s the crux of the issue, isn’t it? Engaging in meaningful dialogue requires both sides to listen and be open to differing opinions. It’s vital for journalists and commentators, regardless of their political leanings, to seek out diverse perspectives to capture the full picture. I hope my future contributions may provide some insightful contrasts to the prevailing views.
**Editor:** Thank you for sharing your experience with us, John. It’s clear that open discourse remains crucial in today’s polarized environment.
**John Smith:** Thank you for the opportunity. I truly believe discourse is essential, especially in journalism.
