Hillary "Push Poll" story debunked

[ruggerson]

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/proclinton_push_poll.php

February 03, 2008
Pro-Clinton Push Poll?

Andrew Malcolm of the Los Angeles Times reports evidence of a pro-Clinton "push poll" in California, or as he defines it, "malicious political virus that is designed not to elicit answers but to spread positive information about one candidate and negative information about all others under the guise of an honest poll."

His definition is right, but does the call in question meet it? Malcolm's source, a former local television news director named Ed Coghlan, describes a call from "a pollster who wanted to ask registered independents like Coghlan a few questions about the presidential race." The survey tested reactions to statements about Hillary Clinton and negative statements about Barack Obama, John Edwards and John McCain:


Coghlan said he was offended by such underhanded tactics and knew he was going to get out a warning about this dirty trick, but he said he played along for the full 20-minute "poll."

That last bit of information tells me that this call was almost certainly a message testing survey, and not a so-called "push poll." California has over 15 million registered voters, and roughly three million of those are independents. If "someone" was paying "to spread this material phone call by phone call among independent voters," would they really spend 20 minutes on the telephone with each one?

Not likely.

The call that Coghlan describes sounds more like a message testing survey that included many negative messages about Clinton's opponents. In other words, someone called a random sample of voters with the intent to "elicit answers," or more specifically reactions, to negative messages that the Clinton campaign or an allied group considered airing in California.

(more)

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Another Obama dirty trick. He'll say or do ANYTHING to win!

I heard that he lived a mile from Jeffrey Dahmer and shopped in the same grocery.

How can you trust a man who lies and who shops at the same grocery store as Jeffrey Dahmer?

--p!

[ruggerson]

2. ??

What are you babbling about?

[chascarrillo]

3. Makes sense.

Not sure how much better it is, but that does make sense.

[Azathoth]

4. So it's not a real push poll because it spent 20 minutes bashing Obama?

They weren't pushing smears against Obama, they were just shopping them around, trying to find which one would cut the deepest? That makes it all so much better. :eyes: :rofl:

[MercutioATC]

5. "Debunked"? Hardly.

One journalist feels that the call lasted too long to be a push poll and that constitutes a debunking?

People, get a grip...

[ruggerson]

6. Ben Smith at Politico agrees with Blumenthal

"The L.A. Times gets very excited about what it calls a push poll; though if you've been obsessing with me about polls and their motives this cycle, this one -- 20-minutes long, detailed, and (as far as has been reported) not all that widespread -- sounds a lot more like message-testing. This, by contrast, is a push poll"

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Remainders_Who_is_the_Giants.html

[MercutioATC]

7. Congrats, you have two "debunkers".

It may have been...it may not have been.

My point is that a few dissenting opinions based on the length of the call isn't a "debunking".

[ruggerson]

8. I guess you didn't bother to read the link

Blumenthal is a well known POLLSTER. So you have a pollster saying it's certainly not a push poll versus an LA Times reporter who wrote a story claiming it was.

Thinking rationally, I realize that's tough at times, wouldn't a professional pollster have more valuable insight into what is or is not a push poll?

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/proclinton_push_poll.php

"For further reading: We have discussed the distinction between so-called "push polls" and message testing many times. Most relevant are my comments on the distinction between "push polls" and message testing here and here a well as those by Stu Rothenberg, Republican pollster Neil Newhouse and the statement from the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR)."

[MercutioATC]

9. Yes, I did. It's still a matter of a couple of opinions.

Like I said, it might have been or might not have been, but you're being WAY too free with the word "debunked".

[ruggerson]

10. It's not just a "couple of opinions"

it's a professional pollster, who is not partisan either way, saying it was not a push poll.

If you want to disagree with a man who does this for a living, be my guest.

But, yes, he "debunked" it.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

11. Oh, well, that's ok then.

:eyes:

[McCamy Taylor]

12. Buchanan /CREEP dirty trick from 1972, attribute bad comments about one Dem to another Dem

Would Clinton's campaign waste 20 minutes push polling Edwards and McCain when she is only running against Obama? Why not push poll 4 or 5 people in the same time?

Who in the hell would push poll anyone in the current political climate except the candidate about whom the slurs are being made (to slime the opponent who will be made for the push poll) or the RNC dirty tricks machine under Karl Rove?

Guys, grow up. That includes all the people working for the Obama campaign. Even if this is your first campaign, you do not have to act like it is. There are plenty of books and websites out there which will tell you everything you need to know about political dirty tricks.

I swear. I am beginning to wonder if some of these Obama people can really be a naive as they pretend to be. Or are they aware that the most likely source for the stuff they hear about is the RNC and the MSM itself and they only pretend to believe that it is Hillary being bitchy or dirty in order to score points. Because no one can be that gullible, can they?

This is part of the reason I am still going to vote for Edwards.

[ruggerson]

13. Apparently they can be that gullible