LJD and The Case Of The Case Of The Very Nasty Push Poll

What was the push? (3.00 / 1)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

Wow. If there was a push poll, what exactly was the untrue message being pushed?  

---

by: Blue08 @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 17:27:02 PM UTC

yeah, where's the beef? (3.00 / 2)

Perhaps a link would be more responsible.

---

by: Robert Ryland @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 17:59:42 PM UTC

Was the call just a vague negative message ... (3.00 / 2)

... kind of like this post?  Negative emotionally charged allegations without facts or reason.

---

by: countrycoder @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 19:05:36 PM UTC

Does that make this a "push post"? (3.00 / 1)

That would make sense. Besides which, it doesn't seem McBlogger knows what a push poll even is.

As far as I'm concerned, the push poll disqualifies Larry Joe for serious consideration as our representative in Congress, mostly because a real push poll would have been about real issues.

Does that make any sense whatsoever to anyone? No wonder his post is so vague. It's heavy on the innuendo and anger, but light on the facts.

How long was this poll? How many questions? Was any data being collected?

Hello?

---

by: Blue08 @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 19:24:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Accusations....... (3.00 / 1)

This is a very serious allegation McBlogger, do you have any proof to back up this claim of a LJD financed push poll?  It would be the height of irresponsibility to impugn the integrity of the LJD Campaign in the middle of a Congressional race in which Democrats must choose a Candidate based on their merits in order to take back this important seat.  To throw out an accusation as potentially serious as this without solid evidence smells of just the kind of Rove-esque dirty trick that you mention above.  One can sense that their is a lot of momentum behind Larry Joe's campaign right now with the release of his impressive fund raising numbers and growing number of key endorsements.  One would also hope that this is not a somewhat desperate attempt by those behind the DG campaign to salvage a campaign they can feel slipping away.

---

by: CitizensForLarryJoe08 @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 19:28:23 PM UTC

I thought it best not to recap... (4.00 / 2)

some of the dirt in the call, mostly because it was all untrue. If you don't know what was said then you've either not heard it or are being deliberately obtuse. You can call the certain former member of the SDEC. She's been rather mouthy about that stuff, even being called out for saying something untrue at CTDF by Dana DeBeauvoir.

As for a link, how exactly would you like me to link it? I didn't record the thing so there's no MP3 to post. Sorry I don't keep a recorder all set up and ready to go on the off chance that I'll get called in a push poll.

As for being angry, far from it. The poll was amateurish, which is no surprise. Had it been a good push poll it wouldn't have been about easily disproven personal accusations and would have been about issues, slanting or misrepresenting Dan. Instead, they made it about personal stuff.

---

by: McBlogger @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 19:52:59 PM UTC

You missed your calling... (2.00 / 3)

in advertising, McBlogger.  As Bill Cosby once said:

"The very first law in advertising is to avoid the concrete promise and cultivate the delightfully vague."

While you're doing a good job of advertising this, no one is delighting in it but you.

If you want to talk about seriousness within campaigns, how about you provide some corroborating facts instead of giving us a kiddie's meal version of your claims.

---

by: MeanRachel @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 20:29:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So, you're saying that... (0.00 / 0)

the call never occurred? I think Lorenzo Sadun already confirmed that I'm not lying about the call. As for the Anna Nicole thing, go to APR if you don't believe me.

---

by: McBlogger @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:30:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Such as what? (3.00 / 2)

And who is this "certain former member of the SDEC", for those of us who are apparently just "obtuse"? Do you know this came from LJD's campaign? How so?

If you can't elaborate further or substantiate your allegation, perhaps you shouldn't have posted it. Acting affronted when others ask for facts or elaboration on something like this is rather petulant and erodes your credibility.

It doesn't help Dan's campaign and it doesn't help us replace McCaul with a Democrat.

formerly known as SouthsideSmoke

---

by: Robert Ryland @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 20:12:18 PM UTC

Sorry... (0.00 / 0)

Just realized you weren't local to Austin. It was Ann McAfee former SDEC 14. She's been corrected on her talking points a number of times, not that it's stopped her from repeating them to anyone who'll sit still long enough.

---

by: McBlogger @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:36:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Contents of push poll (4.60 / 5)

My wife received this push poll on Wednesday.  I was out, attending the West Austin Dems endorsement meeting, but she reported that it started with "who do you support in the CD10 race?", and then had a series of "would the following make you more or less likely to vote for candidate X?" questions.  The statements about Doherty were favorable, and the statements about McCaul and about Grant were very unfavorable.  In particular, the statements about Grant disparaged his role with the Kerry campaign, his age, and even his address.  [I wish I could be more detailed, but I wasn't home to take the call.]

Even if the statements about Grant were true, I think this sort of tactic is totally out of bounds.  If you're going to trash you opponent, you've got to admit that you're the one doing the trashing!

I asked a friend who works with the Doherty campaign whether they were really behind this.  (I can't imagine who else would be, with I also had difficulty believing that LJD would stoop so low.)  She never responded, and did her best to avoid me at the TCDP Filing Day Dinner.  I'm taking that for a "yes".

Alfred Stanley also received this push poll, and he took notes.  (Hopefully he's reading BOR and can weigh in.)  He told me that, in his opinion, the poll was probably designed to give the Doherty campaign information on what sort of dirt could actually work later on.  In other words, instead of being a sleazy attempt to influence voters with innuendo, it's mainly preparation for a sleazy attempt to influence voters with innuendo!

The Grant campaign is compiling a fact sheet to refute the allegations in the push poll.  I don't know when it will be released, but you'll almost certainly see it posted on BOR.  

---

by: LSadun @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 20:36:35 PM UTC

Doesn't sound like a push poll (3.00 / 2)

Testing message, testing negatives, sure. Doing it in such a small population as Dem primary voters in CD-10 is problematic as you have to call a high percentage of the population and then it seems like everyone was getting this negative call. Not real smooth, even if it is a somewhat accepted practice.

---

by: George @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 21:47:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

By your description it is not a push poll (1.00 / 1)

After your own description of the poll, it is clear that this is not a push poll, so it is misleading to call it that. This poll apparently was used to collect information, which is not push polling. Please don't mislead readers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

A push poll is a political campaign technique in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. In a push poll, large numbers of respondents are contacted, and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda and rumor mongering, masquerading as a poll. Push polls are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning [1]. The term is also sometimes used inaccurately to refer to legitimate polls which test political messages, some of which may be negative.

It's pretty standard to poll an opponent's negatives. Since based on this comment this was not a push poll, McBlogger should update this misleading and unfactual "push post."

Looks like those calling "bullshit" were right.  

---

by: Blue08 @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 21:54:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

sounds like a push poll to me (5.00 / 2)

so youre saying that LJD's campaign is "polling" whether to use Dan Grant's age, address and past role in John Kerry's campaign?

I don't buy it.

---

by: David Mauro @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 00:49:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, that's pretty accurate... (5.00 / 1)

the intent to smear Dan was clear from the questions. No, those calling bullshit were wrong. Just as you are.

You can poll an opponents negatives, but this was making stuff up in an attempt to create a bad impression of a candidate in the mind of a potential voters. Those of us who have been through campaign 101 call it a push. That is, in fact, what it was.

It's the kind of thing that consultants like to run... mixed with a some polling on specific issues are disparaging things, often untrue, about the opposition.

Should have hired someone better to do the oppo book.  

---

by: McBlogger @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:41:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You could just call Larry Joe's (0.00 / 0)

campaign manager and /or Larry Joe himself, I'd bet, and get a straight answer from them. Or not. Worth a try, I think.  

---

by: Robert Ryland @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 20:42:42 PM UTC

Time out (4.33 / 3)

This whole thread is running on way too little information.  McBlogger didn't give any details, and the counter-accusations are totally lacking in evidence.  I've already posted all I know, and there's a lot that I don't know.

What we need is the text of the push poll, a statement from the LJD campaign either confirming or denying their sponsorship, preferably with information about the allegations, and a statement from the DG campaign refuting the allegations. Then we can judge for ourselves. In the mean time, let's cool it.

Consider that a challenge, LJD and DG!

Both campaigns read BOR and are capable of responding within 24 hours.  

---

by: LSadun @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 21:44:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why are you troll rating? (0.00 / 0)

Was there something offensive or slanderous or blatantly untrue in the comments you are trying to censor?

Even though I think McBlogger is wrong, I'm up-rating him because I would rather have an good argument that censor anybody.  

---

by: Blue08 @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 00:44:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ratings (0.00 / 0)

My apologies.  This was my first time making ratings and I misunderstood the system.  I thought "hide comment" meant "take back the rating I previously gave the guy", not "take this comment off the web".  I also took the ratings at face value, with "good" meaning "good", etc. I'll reset them by hand. Better yet, I'll remove them entirely (if that's allowed) and won't try rating people until I've got a better sense of the grade inflation.  

For what it's worth, I do think it was unproductive for McBlogger to bring up the poll and then refuse to say anything about the contents.  He should either have brought up the details (and put up with the unpleasantness) or left the whole matter alone.  Going halfway only left the (wrong!!) impression that this whole business is made up.  

---

by: LSadun @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:49:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Push Poll (4.00 / 2)

For those who fail to appreciate or understand what a push poll is, check out below.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...

---

by: Libby Shaw @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 21:45:42 PM UTC

push poll or poll? (3.67 / 3)

Nearly every poll I've ever run results in accusations of push polling...even when my candidate's friends/family call to say "they're running a push poll on you".

Any scientific poll would include positive and negative statements about both candidates.

The theory is that you play out the entire campaign and measure the impact of all the statements on all candidates.

I didn't get polled. I haven't seen any of the questions. I haven't heard of either campaign admitting or denying that they are polling in the district...so I'm not saying what this was.

But, IF either campaign was polling in this district there would certainly be "negative" questions. A poll that doesn't measure the negs of both candidates is largely worthless because it is not representative of what will play out over the course of a campaign.

Incidentally, the AAPC has a strict policy against push polling. If any candidates consultants are found to have done one, they get kicked out.  Not a good thing.

Also, the folks who received this call should have a read-out on their caller ID. This can help us work back to the phonebank from which the call originated (there aren't that many that do political polling).

Until we have a better accounting of what was asked, and how, it will be impossible to say if it was a push poll.

Please refer to KT's signature.

---

by: colin @ Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 23:17:00 PM UTC

That's the thing... (0.00 / 0)

they weren't Dan's negatives. They were a bunch of false and misleading statements. All in all, it was pretty sloppy.  

---

by: McBlogger @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:43:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So what are Dan Grant's negatives? (2.00 / 2)

And what were the questions the poll asked?

---

by: Blue08 @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:01:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You keep asking me that... (0.00 / 0)

... and I'm not going to repeat any of it. I may have been born at night but I wasn't born last night.

Dan doesn't really have any negatives that I can see, other than being energetic and intelligent. But those are only negatives if you're an idiot. Maybe that was by LJD was making things up.

---

by: McBlogger @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 02:58:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Note to BOR readers: (3.00 / 3)

candidates poll.  

---

by: tired of weakness @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 03:30:53 AM UTC