Magicians Kara-Murza And Levada Center
Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 1:51AM 
Vladimir Kara-Murza is a Western educated Russian opposition figure who publishes an English language blog on World Affairs. In his recent (published on 25 January) article he conjures up some extraordinary propaganda. The article bears the title: 'New Protests Mount in Russia as Kremlin Moves to Fix Vote.' Already in the title there is an element of propaganda. Kara-Murza does not provide any proof of a mounting protests in Russia, he only tells us of an upcoming demonstration, not to mention that he has no proof that Kremlin will fix the vote. He bases his claim on numbers published by the Levada Center in December. I quote:
As Russia’s March 4th presidential vote approaches, Vladimir Putin is beginning to realize that, for the first time in 12 years, he may be risking defeat. With 36 percent support in the polls, he will likely have to go into a runoff (local authorities have are already begun preparations), where the outcome will be far from certain. With its survival at stake, the regime is pulling out all the stops to ensure that its man is declared the winner in March.
He then continues with the news that the Central Electoral Commission disqualified Grigoriy Yavlinskiy from the elections for having more than quarter of signatures in support of his nomination defective, as if Yavlinskiy presented any danger to Putin, and banning him from running is somehow helping Putin win the election. I will show that this is not the case, and Yavlinskiy might as well have had problems with his application. But first let me stop at the figure 36%.
What Kara-Murza cites are numbers published in December by Levada in a table with the following description:
If the elections of the president of Russia were held the upcoming Sunday, would you take part in them, and if yes, for which of the current politicians would you vote? (open survey)
You will notice that there is something strange about the numbers. For instance, Zyuganov, the leader of the Communist Party, only has 6% support, and is actually behind Vladimir Zhirinovskiy, who takes second place with 7%, Medvedev only has 3%, Mironov 2%, Other candidates 1%, 22% do not know for whom they will vote, 9% will not vote, 11% do not know whether they will vote. The last three numbers are important because they give a hint as to what the nature of the survey is, even though Levada does not make it clear in its description.
The true nature of this kind of survey was revealed by Levada on 25 January, the very same day Kara-Murza published his article, therefore there is a chance he was not aware of it at the time of writing, although there also is a chance that he was aware of it, and that he deliberately quoted those month old figures because it was convenient. He certainly did not revise his article, and the only update he has underneath the article, concerns a decision of the Moscow mayor's office to let a demonstration planned for 4 February to go ahead.
The January results published by Levada have this to say about the kind of survey Kara-Murza cites:
If the elections of the president of Russia were held the upcoming Sunday, would you take part in them, and if yes, for which of the current politicians would you vote? (open survey, from among all people that were inquired, no list of candidates was provided)
A bit more information is included here, the key information here is that the number is 'from among all people inquired', that means everybody, even those who said they will not vote. The other important piece of information is that 'no list of candidates was provided' to the inquired, people could write in anything. It seems that out of the total number, and with no help of a list of candidates, Putin's rating has risen to 37% in January, he leads the polls well ahead of anyone else. But Levada also included results from a different survey in January, it was described as follows:
Would you come to the elections of the president of Russia, and if yes, for whom would you vote if the list of candidates included the following politicians?
The results are divided into two columns. The first one is named: '% from among all those that were inquired', the second '% from among those that are decided'. The latter is marked by an asterisk and the description behind the asterisk, underneath the table reads:
*from among those that most likely will come to the elections, or those that will definitely come to the elections.
In the column marked by an asterisk, Putin gathered 63%, from among all those that were asked 43%. The second place in the column marked by an asterisk belongs to Zyuganov with 15%. Yavlinskiy also happens to be to be in that column with mere 2% of all votes. I have to wonder, how much would the Kremlin actually gain from excluding Yavlinskiy from the race? In terms of support that man is an absolute nobody. I understand that the liberal opposition likes to say that all its failures are politically motivated, but I do not see the motive here. Using the logic of Russian liberals, I could say that Yavlinskiy did make mistakes in his application on purpose, in order to later claim that he is being oppressed by the Kremlin. Knowing that he cannot win, I think he does have a motive. But to be fair, I have no proof, and so do the liberals with their claims of politically motivated disqualification of Yavlinskiy.
But more important questions need answering here. For instance, what is wrong with the numbers published by Levada? It included almost no description in December, but suddenly it included a massive description of the same poll in January, and even included results from another poll, the latter likewise properly detailed. You see, Levada is a liberal organisation and is anti-Putin. If you visit their home page, you will see on your right side of the screen, that they provide an internship programme for young Russian specialists called 'Training Programme For Russian Policy and Opinion Makers' together with the Polish Institute of Public Affairs (Instytut Spraw Publicznych), and with support of the National Endowment for Democracy. The latter is a US, government funded, NGO which is never far from places where coloured revolutions occur, and it is no wonder they are in Russia too, educating young Russian specialists in how to make 'opinion and policy.'
What you observe in the case of Kara-Murza and Levada is precisely that making of opinion. Kara-Murza publicised low results in favour of Putin, and declared that Putin will have to go into a run off, and the government will have to fix the vote to make him win. It is called: 'creating an opinion in advance', so that in the event of elections, the liberals can all shout how Putin's results do not match the opinion polls which were previously widely publicised by liberal-friendly media. In my opinion, Kara-Murza cleverly cited the poorly described results from December for that very purpose. Meanwhile in Russia, several news outlets have cited those 37% from January as Putin's pre-election rating. According to PolitOnline, these were: Gazeta.ru, Vedmosti, Ekho Moskvy, MAYAK, and Kommersant. And people say there is no freedom of speech in Russia.
To wrap up, I must admit that I like Levada, it is the only Russian institution I go to to learn about the public opinion in the country. The reason is simple, although until now I have not found it necessary to cite any such figures, I would prefer them to come from a source that cannot be called pro-Kremlin, or God forbid 'Surkovite propaganda.' But now I realise that my safe source might not be all that honest unfortunately.
Reader Comments (36)
'To wrap up, I must admit that I like Levada, it is the only Russian institution I go to to learn about the public opinion in the country.'
Give me a break Leos...your whole piece goes on to try to lambast Kara-Murza who uses this same resoure for his figures that you 'like'. The only 'extraordinary propaganda' is this piece which only nit picks at really nothing at all. Besides, if Yavlinksy was really no threat to Putin, then why deflate his election bid?...Sounds crooked to me, as does most anything that is associated with Putin. Stick to writing about rusyns and resin, topics that more closely match your temperament! :-)
('create an opinion in advance' sounds like some sort of jargon you must have picked up at sovok school! :-)
I just had to take a look at the diferent topics under which you categorized this article, to see if you included 'fun' as you did your last piece. I was surprised that you didn't, for I find this one to also be to much fluff to be taken seriously! :-)
@ Hack
You seem to have reading problems, I said why I like Levada, it is not because they do honest work though, but because they are anti-Putin, and therefore unassailable as a source by the opposing side. You have nothing to assail me for by the way, your comments demonstrate that. You do not show that Yavlinskiy was/is/or ever will be for that matter a threat to Putin, I do. Show us that I'm wrong, or simply shut up when you have nothing to say. Telling me that I am a sovok, and that I should stick to satire and Rusyns are nothing but shaming tactics of a troll who has nothing of substance to say. So once again, shut up if you have nothing to say. You are old enough to know that.
Thank you very much.
Leos - So if I'm reading you correctly you 'like' Levada because they're unassailable as a source because they're 'anti-Putin', 'not becasue they do honest work'?? And you're trying to tell me that you're not writing a comedy piece here???...
As for Yavlinsky, the fact that he wont be on the ballot is proof positive that he's 'no threat to Putin' and, as you call it 'create an opinion (or in this case create an election result) in advance' ala Putin!!! :-)
@ Hack
I demonstrate clearly in the above article why Levada happens to be dishonest, and not very good in it's methodology. I cannot help you being a dunce, there is no cure for that. ;-)
Careful who you call a ;dunce' Leos. Noone is questioning your characterization of Levada as being dishonest (at keast in this instance).
What I clearly find unbelievable is that even so, you still state that 'you 'like' Levada because they're unassailable as a source because they're 'anti-Putin', 'not becasue they do honest work'??
Leos, what's to 'like'??.....:-)
I mean, are you admitting that only sources that are 'antii-Putin' are trustworthy?...This, coming from an avowed fan of Putin??...
If you don't see the humor in this, then, well do I need to continue??....:-)
@ Hack
No, it doesn't mean that pro-Putin sources cannot be honest, in fact it is often the case that they are more honest than the liberasts. I just want to insure myself against possible dunces accusing me of quoting a source that they find as a priori biased, that's all. Now, are you going to address the central contents of the article? Or are you just going to be nitpicking on side details? Because that's what you have been doing all along, and you getting quite boring with that.
Your central thesis being what? That Kara-Murza is somehow an inept writer because he uses 'inaccuate' sources. Even you admit that:
'The true nature of this kind of survey was revealed by Levada on 25 January, the very same day Kara-Murza published his article, therefore there is a chance he was not aware of it at the time of writing'
C'mon Leos, get real here and move on. Isn't it about time for an update on your bleeding heart, 'downtroden' rusyn project again??.....:-)
@ Hack
But my post is not just about Kara-Murza citing wrong figures, he might be innocent here. But Levada is not the only organisation in Russia where he could get some figures. Kara-Murza is therefore lazy and dishonest, and also likes to run his mouth about things he has no proof for. Second issue is Levada itself, which also appears to do dishonest research. And finally we have liberast media publishing Levada's dishonest research, and it is not just Kara-Murza. I have singled him out, because he is an English language example of this.
Actually, I am working on a hit job piece on the Kiev Patriarch, did you not say you go to a Kiev Patriarchate parish? Is that so, I just want to check if you belong to one of the North American Ukrainian Orthodox canonical jurisdictions, or a make-believe Orthodox parish. Because if it is that latter, you are sure going to enjoy my piece. :-))
A 'hit piece' written by a 'make-believe' (unbaptized) Orthodox Christian about a 'make-believe' Orthodox parish??....Sounds like the 'resin' that you've been smoking is fueling your appetite for the 'make-believe' world that I'm beginning to see that you so often inhabit...:-)
@ Hack
You have not answered my question. Do you belong to a heretic parish?
I don't see why that would be of interest to a 'heretical' (unbaptised) Orthodox Christian??.....:-)
@ Hack
Answer the question, you slime!
In this case Levada is not presenting a standard election poll. Presidential polls in most countries only asks the questions of likely voters. This poll will be repeated ad nauseum in the Western press, and they will likely not inform the readers of this critical distinction. It reminds me of the bleating by the so-called "free press" that is trying to scare everyone with the mortal threat from Iran, or that Assange is a dirty rapist. This is a sick world.
@ cartman
Finally, a constructive comment from an intelligent person. ;-)
I have seen the number only at Kara-Murza's blog when it comes to Western Press, and he was likely repeating the hype of Russian liberal media, you know the first that will claim they report the truth. Although if I find some other English language outlet repeating the number, I will sure post on that.
Funny thing is, those early Levada polls gave no support at all to Yavlinski and still he somehow was supposed to get 2million, or 1,9million excluding rejected ones, signatures for his presidential bid.
@ AllanH
The thing is that, as far as I was able to read, Yavlisnkiy got these signatures in a rather record time. As is said, through a xerox machine. What I find however even more strange is the claim that taking Yavlinskiy out somehow benefits Putin. I think Medvedev is out of the race now, that sure benefits Putin, but Yavlisnkiy? Honestly, if his disqualification was government motivated, it is no good from the point of PR. Besides, it does not benefit Putin in any way, because the few supporters Yavlinskiy has are a priori anti-Putin, they will vote for anyone but him, therefore diminishing Putin's chances for victory in the first round of elections, even if by a little bit.
I cannot verify that information with Medvedev, but I would agree with those that claim that since United Russia has a dominant position, it should field two candidates, so there is some choice on the ballot, even if it means that Putin will not win the first round. But then again, that would be just kowtowing to the loud non-system opposition, there is no need for that.
'The true nature of this kind of survey was revealed by Levada on 25 January, the very same day Kara-Murza published his article, therefore there is a chance he was not aware of it at the time of writing'
and now this:
'But my post is not just about Kara-Murza citing wrong figures, he might be innocent here.'
One only wonders how this calumnizer, Karma-Murza, plans to maliciously attack the freedom loving and unasailable good name of Vlaimir Putin next?...Thank God for those like Tomicek, who put a little bit of reason back into the equation!!! :-)
@ Hack
Kara-Murza made the claim that the Kremlin is moving to fix the vote, basing that on a dodgy poll. He might be stupid propagandist, but then again, he might also be doing that consciously. I have posted a link to this post in a comment underneath his rant, things had been a bit silent since then. I might have a look if somebody doesn't want to pick an argument with me. It so happens, that these types usually don't dare...
'These types' must really be real chickenshits!!! :-)
Or perhaps, just read your site and shrug their shoulders and say to themselves 'do I really 'give a shit' what Tomicek has to say??....:-)
@ Hack
They do not have to care, but it does not mean that Kara-Murza is not a dishonest propagandist. ;-)
Leos - I have shown you, by using two of your own quotations, that your characterization of Kara-Murza as a 'dishonest propogandist' is very flimsy indeed. Try again next time, maybe you'll have more luck in your crusade. Actually, his previous entry, similar in theme to the one you've just 'critiqued' seems to be written quite convincingly too: 'Neogiating with the Kremlin' http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blogs/vladimir-kara-murza. Perhaps, you'd be doing the world a service in negating some of his conclusions in this article too??.......
@ Hack
You have not shown anything. I have clearly demonstrated that even if he was fooled by Levada's poll, he is still engaged in dishonest propaganda. Those quotes that you have cited are just me being nice. ;-)
And these supposed 'clear demonstrations' of Karma-Murza's culpability of being a 'dishonst propogandist' are nowhere to be seen......:-)
@ Hack
Which is because you are dunce, and there is no cure for that. ;-)
Your whole premise that Karma-Murza is a 'dishonest propagandist' is based on his reliance on inaccurate information, that even you point out didn't surface until the very day that he printed his piece. Even you, being the 'nice guy' that you are admit that this could have easily have been an oversight. Who's really acting stupid here Leos??.......
@ Hack
No, it is not only based on that. ;-) I have actually given him a benefit of a doubt on that point.
'No, it is not only based on that'
It's too bad that you didn't include the rest in your article...kinda leaves the readers thinking that your 'critique' is half assed.
@ Hack
And I wonder how my articles gather up several dozen, even a hundred comments at time, and it is that simple, people argue with one idiot here. :-))
' And I wonder how my articles gather up several dozen, even a hundred comments at time'
At any given time, Leos, you can thank me for 50 - 75% of your comments. You're lucky that I have th time to waste on this entertaining endeavor. However, as a clearly important member of your roving troupe of eccentric and eclectic fellow travelers, you might want to consider asking your own benefactors to consider paying me as well, as an outside 'consultant' (to help continue my interest in 'sponsoring' your site). My fees would be quite reasonable, however, I haven't as of yet set up my own Sperbank account. :-)
@ Hack
I know you spread your shit all over my discussions, you do not have to tell me. ;-)
Leos - a more apt interpretation of my pressence here would be liken me to a fly - one that seems to be attracted to the gavno that you write! :-)
@ Hack
Why don't you take your sorry insect ass to Kara-Murza's blog, I see he has a deficit. Nobody is interested in his shit. ;-)
I only try to work my magic on those that exhibit an insect size intelligence!! :-)