Push Polling

[Bando]

It has begun (Link). Given that McCain was the recipient of a nasty one of these from Bush in 2000, you'd think he'd abhor the process. Guess not.

[AustinHoya03]

Sept 15, 2008 21:11:54 GMT -5 Bando said:

Given that McCain was the recipient of a nasty one of these from Bush in 2000, you'd think he'd abhor the process. Guess not.

Is McCain still steering the ship? Appears not to me.

Back to the subject at hand, the Rs have shown in the past two elections that their strategy is: do the math and appeal to the specific groups and subgroups of voters you need at any cost. It will be even more important in this election, IMO, since the Rs will do worse with traditional independents than in 2004.

[Boz]

Ummm, where is there any information that this is associated with John McCain or the McCain campaign?

But if you want to go this way, I'll be happy to hold Barack Obama responsible for every reprehensible thing that MoveOn and DailyKos do.

[HealyHoya]

Push polls work. Groups affiliated with both major political parties engage in this tactic (as do groups affiliated with third parties). Groups affiliated with the Democratic Party will engage in the same tactic and likely in the same states, though obviously on different issues, before election day.

Good find. I find the timing interesting. Typically push polls are employed just before election day. The push poll against McCain in South Carolina in 2000 occurred just before the primary and was certainly a significant factor in the outcome. I'm not sure how effective this effort will be. My guess -- and it really is a guess -- is that this is a very, very narrow push sample to test questions, question order, etc. for a bigger effort in October.

In terms of suggesting that because a group affiliated with the GOP is pursuing self-financed push polling two months before the election which focuses on an issue represented by the most wealthy and one of the most passionate and aggressive lobbies in the US signifies that McCain is no longer "steering the ship" is, in my opinion, a stretch.

Push polling has been a campaign tactic utilized by both the Dems and Republicans for the past thirty+ years. The Dems push polled Reagan in 1980. Clinton push polled the bejesus out of Bush the Elder. Stephanopolous talks about that openly at this point.

I would be interested to see what the Dems push McCain on...personal health? strengthening the McCain=Bush theme with Indies? 100 years in Iraq? Middle class econ issues for Mich, Penn, etc.?

[Bando]

Sept 15, 2008 22:20:06 GMT -5 Boz said:

Ummm, where is there any information that this is associated with John McCain or the McCain campaign?

But if you want to go this way, I'll be happy to hold Barack Obama responsible for every reprehensible thing that MoveOn and DailyKos do.

Is that differently than how you normally operate?

[Boz]

I believe as far as I've ever gone is to advise Barack Obama to tell those people/groups to shut up, as they are not helping him.

If you'd like to tell McCain to tell these pollsters to shut up, that's fine with me. I don't disagree. But I think it's a stretch to look at this and say, "Oh John McCain is behind and/or approves of this sort of thing," (or alternatively to say "Clearly John McCain is no longer in charge of his own campaign.")

But I think you know that.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

So .... what exactly is push polling? I think I understand the general concept based on what you guys have said, but what are the technical aspects?

[Boz]

It basically means, instead to trying to guage people's opinions, you are trying to influence people's opinions, with leading -- and/or misleading -- questions.

It's the difference between:

Who do you support for President?
A. John McCain
B. Barack Obama
C. Other

and

Who do you support for President?
A. War hero and patriot John McCain
B. Marxist radical Barack Obama
C. I'd like to throw my vote away.

And yes, they can be just that obvious.

[Bando]

Sept 16, 2008 9:12:49 GMT -5 Coast2CoastHoya said:

So .... what exactly is push polling? I think I understand the general concept based on what you guys have said, but what are the technical aspects?

Push polling isn't polling at all. It's campaign messaging disguised as polling. A company will call up thousands of voters, way more than would be used in a poll. They'll begin with generic poll questions, but then move on to stuff like this, what the Bush folks used against McCain in South Carolina in 2000:

"If John McCain had an illegitimate black child out of wedlock, would that change your perception of him?"

Notice that technically, it's not a lie, as they're only positing a hypothetical. However, the voter thinks this is a legitimate pollster, so the smear seems like a legitimate issue. It's very effective, but probably the lowest form of politics.

And Boz, you're obviously right that this isn't coming from the campaign directly. Whoever is doing, though, is not immune to the campaign's influence should they directly denounce this, and I don't believe that's going to happen.

[TC]

Sept 16, 2008 9:31:35 GMT -5 Bando said:

Push polling isn't polling at all. It's campaign messaging disguised as polling. A company will call up thousands of voters, way more than would be used in a poll. They'll begin with generic poll questions, but then move on to stuff like this, what the Bush folks used against McCain in South Carolina in 2000:

"If John McCain had an illegitimate black child out of wedlock, would that change your perception of him?"

And just for clarity, this was a reference meant to confuse voters as to McCain's adopted Bangladeshi daughter Bridget.

Completely off-topic, does anyone remember Hillary, when she was making her case to the superdelegates saying that if it was Hillary vs. McCain it would be the most positive election ever? Knowing what we know now, Hillary vs. McCain might have been even uglier than this race.

[hoyatables]

I'm pretty sure I received a push poll call last month in Virginia. It was definitely full of some leading questions.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Thanks guys. So is it generally non-campaign affiliated groups that do this, campaigns, or "nudge-&-wink", or all of the above? Seems pretty, well, lame to me. Like the kind of thing pre- or post-hillstaffers/WH aides with too much idealism and partisanism in them would be into.

[HealyHoya]

Sept 16, 2008 14:53:42 GMT -5 Coast2CoastHoya said:

Thanks guys. So is it generally non-campaign affiliated groups that do this, campaigns, or "nudge-&-wink", or all of the above? Seems pretty, well, lame to me. Like the kind of thing pre- or post-hillstaffers/WH aides with too much idealism and partisanism in them would be into.

Good question. You will never (never, never, never) find a campaign that admits to push polling, admits to directly funding groups that push poll on their behalf, explicitly condones push polling, etc. Never. It's rare to even get a candidate or senior campaign official to discuss the existence of push polls on the record.

Let's put it this way: the 2000 push poll against McCain regarding his adopted daughter was one of the most effective and highest profile pushes in the past twenty years. It was also one of the dirtiest, most inflammatory pushes in memory because it dealt with a) race b) in the South and c) was about his (at the time) 11 year old daughter. The same guy, McCain, is now a presidential candidate again eight years later and has been in the news non-stop and yet, to this day, people can only speculate who actually paid for and then executed that push poll. No one knows for certain.

Though "dirty", push polls will remain and, likely, increase. Major telemarketers can now kick out 3.5-4 million calls per day. Cost runs as low as $0.12 per call (sometimes lower depending on the length of the call) and many push polls are now completely automated even though responses may vary (think customer service numbers where you speak your answer/service request) and record your answer.

Regarding legality, as long as the question is phrased as a hypothetical then you're pretty much in the clear. There have been lawsuits filed against push pollsters under telemarketing laws but they have been hit-and-miss. (I think the Indiana AG filed suit against the Swift Boat push pollster -- if memory serves). Either way, free speech tends to be a fairly effective defense.

And push polling isn't just a tactic used against individual candidates. The NRA, certain anti-immigration groups, pro-life and pro-choice groups and so forth will push on behalf of issues, political parties, ballot initiatives. Hillary pushed Obama in California. McCain pushed Romney in New Hampshire.

It happens all the time.

Push poll "questions":

In Massachusetts, where court-ordered same-sex marriage is legal, they are now preparing materials to teach the gay lifestyle to children, beginning in kindergarten. Would you support a ban on court-ordered same-sex marriage in [your state]?

[Caller,] did you know that as a state senator Obama voted "present" 43 times instead of taking a yes or no stand for what he believed in. Knowing this, would [caller] be more or less likely to vote for him?

[hifigator]

Austin, do you really think that McCain will do worse with independents than GWB did in 2004? From the numbers I have seen, that is one of McCain's strengths and it honestly should be. All politicking aside, Obama is clearly a strong left wing candidate. McCain has been a maverick moderate Republican, but has drifted to the right on certain issues in the past few years. Still, it is hard if not impossible to see that he is more to the middle than Obama.

[AustinHoya03]

Sept 16, 2008 16:45:02 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Austin, do you really think that McCain will do worse with independents than GWB did in 2004? From the numbers I have seen, that is one of McCain's strengths and it honestly should be. All politicking aside, Obama is clearly a strong left wing candidate. McCain has been a maverick moderate Republican, but has drifted to the right on certain issues in the past few years. Still, it is hard if not impossible to see that he is more to the middle than Obama.

Well, this independent (reluctantly and regrettably) voted for Bush in 2004, mainly because I felt John Kerry was a terrible candidate whose nomination was a mistake. I certainly do not feel that way about Obama and I am going to vote for the Democratic candidate this time around. I think you'll see a lot of independents vote for Obama because a) he is a serious candidate; and b) we have no inclination to vote for the candidate of the party which has governed poorly, by most acccounts, over the past eight years. I felt the same way in 2004 -- I wanted to vote for the Dem candidate but felt the party nominated a schmuck.

NB: The above is really a gross oversimplification -- my choice has actually involved political issues of substance as well.

Boz: If McCain is indeed in charge of his campaign's policy message, he's totally sold out. I prefer to think it's the official campaign staff shaping his turnaround.

www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12009710

[hifigator]

Sept 16, 2008 21:30:58 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

Sept 16, 2008 16:45:02 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Austin, do you really think that McCain will do worse with independents than GWB did in 2004? From the numbers I have seen, that is one of McCain's strengths and it honestly should be. All politicking aside, Obama is clearly a strong left wing candidate. McCain has been a maverick moderate Republican, but has drifted to the right on certain issues in the past few years. Still, it is hard if not impossible to see that he is more to the middle than Obama.

Well, this independent (reluctantly and regrettably) voted for Bush in 2004, mainly because I felt John Kerry was a terrible candidate whose nomination was a mistake. I certainly do not feel that way about Obama and I am going to vote for the Democratic candidate this time around. I think you'll see a lot of independents vote for Obama because a) he is a serious candidate; and b) we have no inclination to vote for the candidate of the party who has governed poorly, by most acccounts, over the past eight years. I felt the same way in 2004 -- I wanted to vote for the Dem candidate but felt the party nominated a schmuck.

NB: The above is really a gross oversimplification -- my choice has actually involved political issues of substance as well.

Boz: If McCain is indeed in charge of his campaign's policy message, he's totally sold out. I prefer to think it's the official campaign staff shaping his turnaround.

www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12009710

Austin, at the risk of opening an entirely new can of worms -- certainly worthy of its own thread -- I will still ask why you have taken such a position?

Kerry had far more experience than Obama, both as a politician as well as in the obvious area of National service. I'm not supporting Kerry, nor "knocking" Obama in this question, just asking why you feel that Obama "is a serious candidate," but Kerry was "a schmuck."

As for McCain, I certainly understand some of the criticisms. He has essentially rocked the boat his entire career. Is that a "good" thing or not? That is obviously a matter of opinion. But for those who knock McCain for "politicizing" his position to improve his electability, I would ask two questions:

1. Does it beat the alternative? In other words, regardless of how much any of us would "approve" of a particular platform in its entirety, are we -- as the same individual who "approved" of such a position -- "better off" by choosing someone else who was never, at any point, near the position we would prefer?

2. As much as we would like a Utopian option and as much as we would love to see a "transparent" candidate, are any of us really of the impression that either side has a "stronghold" on such things as negative campaigning, mudslinging and ... for lack of a better term ... selective doctoring of the truth?

In my opinion, it is quite obvious that virtually every candidate has a degree of #1 in them. At some point ... and as unfortunate as I find this ... every candidate must admit that they must cater to the constituents to at least some degree. Notice that I didn't say "their" constituents. The point is that each candidate must appeal to the voters. In all elections without an incumbent ... and especially those without a "lame duck" VP candidate, this is mandatory. All candidates do it ... at least all of those who have more of a chance of election than you or I do.

As for #2, I think this issue is much more colorized. I think that it is very difficult to view things objectively. I think that we are inclined to justify such negativity from "our" side, while microscopically searching high and low for any and all "mud" we could possibly find on the "other" side.



On Edit: I'm not sure the real intent of my question came through. I'm not arguing with the position of those who suggest that McCain 2000 isn't the same candidate as McCain 2008. Aside from the obvious and dramatic change in the global socio-economic landscape, I still understand the point. That being said, I don't agree with the implication that the person or the individual is necessarily a mutation from the original. The bottom line is that first and foremost, you are running against your opponent. In 2000, John McCain was running against George W. Bush. He did, what any other politician before him or after would do, by focusing on his strengths and hopefully redirecting attention away from his weaknesses. Now, in 2008, he is runing against Barack Obama. For him to focus on why he is "better" than GWB wouldn't make much sense. On a similar scale, Obama's emphasis is entirely different now than it was 6 or 12 months ago, when he was running against Hillary Rodham Clinton. I don't think either of them should be blamed for this. The point is that for all of the so-called "support" that the 2000 John McCain would have from moderates and independents, many are presumably expected to jump ship, and go to the Obama camp. My question is why is there some idea that the McCain of 2008 is so different from the McCain of 2000, to justify a shift to the Obama of 2008, when he is clearly more similar to the Gore of 2000?

Before anyone mentions it, I know that the 2000 was incredibly close. I'm not suggesting anything to the contrary. But I have heard so many people who were claimed "Bush" votes in 2000, who are quite vocal about the fact that they would choose the McCain of 2000 in a heartbeat, but for some reason think that the 2008 Obama is the obvious choice against the McCain 2008.

[AustinHoya03]

Sept 16, 2008 22:43:01 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Kerry had far more experience than Obama, both as a politician as well as in the obvious area of National service. I'm not supporting Kerry, nor "knocking" Obama in this question, just asking why you feel that Obama "is a serious candidate," but Kerry was "a schmuck."

1. John Kerry was marketed as the "candidate who could beat George W. Bush" after the Iowa cacuses. He rode this myth all the way to the nomination. IIRC, there was very little substantive discussion of a Democratic plan throughout the primary season.

2. Once nominated, Kerry allowed the R's to frame the debate, and failed to present a comprehensive policy plan of his own (or at least one that made any sense).

Obama's lack of experience is a concern for me (I didn't make up my mind until the conventions, FWIW) but it is far from a deal-breaker. His campaign has laid the policy groundwork on issues I and other Americans care about, and that is something Kerry failed to do.

[FewFAC]

FYI, the parties responsible for the push polling have been identified. Of course, why even bother asking the McCain camp to speak out as forcefully against this type of mistruth that they regularly demand the Obama camp to speak out against, when mistruth and failed policies are their bread and butter.

[Filo]

Sept 17, 2008 0:37:36 GMT -5 FewFAC said:

FYI, the parties responsible for the push polling have been identified ...when mistruth and failed policies are their bread and butter.

Do you come up with these patented campaign platitudes on your own or are algorithms involved?

Are you James Carville? Really, be honest.

[HealyHoya]

Sept 17, 2008 0:37:36 GMT -5 FewFAC said:

FYI, the parties responsible for the push polling have been identified. Of course, why even bother asking the McCain camp to speak out as forcefully against this type of mistruth that they regularly demand the Obama camp to speak out against, when mistruth and failed policies are their bread and butter.

Well, first of all, no campaign is as one-sided as some would like to believe. Ask people who make a living working on campaigns -- from both parties -- and they will confirm as much. Again, Clinton and Obama push polled each other in California. McCain push polled Romney is New Hampshire. Dems do this to Dems. Rs do this to Rs. Rs do this to Dems. And, yes, Dems do this to Rs.

The degree of utter outrage expressed over these common tactics seems to be inversely related to actual, substantive campaign experience and knowledge.

From the article cited, this really isn't a push poll per se. A mere 750 calls spread over five states isn't really a push effort. As I noted in a previous post, it sounded to me more like an effort to improve message accuracy for a future significant push poll effort. Confirmed.

Whatever. Axelrod could give a rip about 125 calls in Pa. 125 calls? Silly.