On "Push-Polling"

Clarification (0.00 / 0)

I'm glad you took the time to clarify the difference between a push poll and a benchmark poll. It's helpful for your readers to know the difference between the two and to know how each are used in determining what issues matter to voters.

However you're take on the purpose of benchmark polls was less than comprehensive. You were right when you said they are "a smaller-scale poll to test the waters," however that doesn't mean they are solely used to gauge how your opponents vulnerabilities sit with voters.

Benchmark polls are also used to gauge the priorities of voters. For instance, if voters react more strongly to funding for afterschool sport programs than say local transportation issues.

Too much merit was given to the paraphrasing of the poll in question yet that didn't deter this site from writing the post "BCDO Gay-Bashing" without having all the facts.

"I don't know exactly what the question was, but here's the relevant information: Loretta Weinberg was a sponsor of the civil unions legislation and Valerie Huttle is a sponsor of the marriage equality legislation. Weinberg, Huttle and Johnson all support marriage equality. These questions were tested on all of the candidates..."  (Sorry I'm quoting here, I couldn't find the handy posting tips to put this passage in a excerpt box)

The truth is that the poll in question genericly asked voters how they felt about civil unions not because it's a potential line of attack but because like many other issues relevant to our state right now, it's vital for a campaign to know what issues matter to voters. There is no malice behind asking voters how they feel about civil unions, it's no secret that it's a hot topic in our state and therefore potentially relevant in the upincoming elections. And when I say relevant, that's not to assume it will be used in a negative way.

Keeping your readers abreast of the going ons in the 37th makes sense, but jumping to conclusions and being overtly reactionary without knowing the facts in my opinion is beneath the mission of this site and sadly seems to be a theme that's embrassed more and more each day.

---

by: BergenDems @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 00:09:44 AM UTC

a little more clarity (0.00 / 0)

I'm glad you posted so people can see "both sides" of the story and decide for themselves.

When a question is phrased: "...and what if I told you that Loretta Weinberg..." it's obvious what you're doing and why you're doing it.

It's possible that wasn't the phrasing used. Maybe the question was something like "On a scale of 1-10, how important is the issue of civil unions to you?" If it was something along those lines, please correct me, and I'll apologize for getting it so wrong.

If that's not the case, and the question was asked to see if it could be used to attack your opponents, I'll stand by what I said.

Could you clarify that point?

---

by: Juan Melli @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 00:21:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Happy to clarify... (0.00 / 0)

The question wasn't asked in reference to any individual.

The question stood alone in the context you suggested above, "On a scale of 1-10, how important is the issue of civil unions to you?"

Misinformation can be clarified when a genuine dialogue is sought by both parties. I'm thankful that we've had the opportunity to have one and shed light on the situation.

But what remains a mystery to me is why this site doesn't ask these sorts of questions before making accusations like the BCDO is gay bashing? Like your readers, marriage equality is an issue many of us stand firmly behind.

Despite taking the initiative to clarify the language of the poll now, the idea has been put into the minds of dozens if not hundreds of now misinformed readers.

We don't always have to agree but I ask that you to try and be fair and tread lightly before you leap. It serves both sides better when you do.

---

by: BergenDems @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 00:48:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

thanks (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for clarifying. So just to be clear, you're saying that the Teaneck Progress blog got it completely wrong in the way they represented the poll? That's strange that they mentioned that all the questions were repeated for Huttle after they were asked about Weinberg. It would seem like an expensive poll to ask the same exact question multiple times, but maybe there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for it.

How was the question about "tax and spend liberal" asked? Was that just in reference to tax and spend liberals in general? Like, "On a scale of 1-10, how do you feel about tax and spend liberals?" Or was that one about specific candidates?

---

by: Juan Melli @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 00:59:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

On civil unions... (0.00 / 0)

Actually it didn't say all the questions were repeated for Valerie. The Teaneck blog post stated, "When the caller began the same line of questioning about Valerie Huttle, I cut her off."

---

by: BergenDems @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 01:09:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

thanks (0.00 / 0)

for avoiding the question.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 01:22:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And thank you... (0.00 / 0)

for avoiding mine.

---

by: BergenDems @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 01:23:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why not print the whole script? (4.00 / 1)

You BergenDems have already used it. Then we can really make up our own minds about it. 

Printing the script would help make your case. Unless, of course, that line of questioning just tanked with the voters of the 37th and you want to forget the poll was ever taken. 

Which I could understand....

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 01:27:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This Gets Better and Better... (0.00 / 0)

Carols question/challenge is one worth accepting if there's nothing to hide or be ashamed of.

Also, (now that y'all have admitted to doing the poll) why use a Canadian company?  Please "Buy American" in future.  Thanks.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 01:45:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Canadian? (0.00 / 0)

I still don't get where the confirmation came from that it's a Canadian firm that did the polling. Teaneck Progress said that the woman spoke with a "Canadian-sounding dialect." She could have been in Vermont and sounded slightly Canadian. The larger point is the framing of the questions, not the nationality of the poll-taker.

---

by: Scott Shields @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 02:17:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Outsourcing is an Issue.... (0.00 / 0)

I love Canada and the Canadian people; but I think American political campaigns should use American vendors whenever possible.

If you look at the Teaneck Progress site

http://teaneckprogre...
  the person who received the call cites 800-690-6970 as the # on the caller ID.  I called it and couldn't quite make out the name of the company; but someone with sharper ears did and it turns out to be Dimark Research in Winnipeg...which fits in with the accent.

From their front page  http://www.dimarkres...

§  Dimark can help you realize a savings of 30% as your chosen outsource partner

§  A favorable US dollar translates into superior savings with a Canadian partner

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 02:43:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

My bad... (0.00 / 0)

Yeah, I just called the number myself. It is Dimark Research out of Canada. I thought the whole thing was based on the accent, which I thought was kinda silly. But there was some confirmation, which I missed and you pointed out.

To (bizarrely) go out on a limb for BCDO again, I'm guessing that they commissioned a poll and the pollster stupidly farmed out the calls to a Canadian firm to save money, and BCDO never knew about it. This kind of stuff trips up campaigns all the time and it may be lame, but it is completely valid.

---

by: Scott Shields @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 02:54:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

We Progressives Are an Understanding Forgiving Lot... (0.00 / 0)

...and you may be right in your generous theory. 

Even so, it's the job of the press to press for the truth...it may have been an innocent accident as you framed it or an intentional attempt to save money by their campaign with no concern for American workers.

If it's the latter that's true; then it deserves to be raised as an issue, and whoever messed up should apologize at least.  Either way, the truth should out. 

If the Record and/or Ledger don't follow up with stories to get to the bottom of all these questions I'll be disappointed.

It's one thing for an anonymous person claiming to be "bergendem" to say something on a blog...it's quite another for a reporter to ask Joe Ferriero or Michael Wildes aquestion point blank and then report on the answer given or not given.

Can you imagine how the BCDO would have reacted if the shoe were on the other foot and this whole fact pattern was reversed?
 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 03:18:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Because polls are expensive. (0.00 / 0)

Why not print the whole script?

Anyone who has worked on a campaign will tell you that a lot of money is spent to get polling information, which is an advantage. Knowing what's on the poll and what the results are is insider info that they keep protected.

That's why you'll hear about "internal poll numbers" being leaked, or confirmed by a spokesman, etc etc.

---

by: JRB @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 02:18:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

We'll just have to record a call instead. Anyone? n/t (0.00 / 0)

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 02:21:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Push Polling and Beyond...... (0.00 / 0)

Either way....if this was just a "benchmark poll" or a precursor to test out how effective negative themes might be for future (by definition, large scale "push polling); this discussion has served the laudable purpose of shedding some light on the distinctions between legitimate polling to gather data and the unethical technique of using a "push" poll as a way to implant negative (an even untruthful) impressions in the minds of likely voters.

The more sophisticated and the more aware the electorate is about these techniques the better.  I hope the Record and the Ledger do informative stories on this.

I remain displeased that someone saw fit to hire a foreign company to do this polling and that no one has yet come forward to own up to who paid for it.

(This is the "beyond" part) Frankly, I would love to see a series of say, a dozen public forums throughout the district between now and primary day.

All six candidates should be there.  There could be suggested issues to be addressed as starting points and an hour or so could be limited to the candidates stating their positions and asking questions of each other...then for the next 90 minutes the public should be invited to have a go at asking questions.

The specific rules could be ironed out.  My point is that it is in the best interests of the people to have a better understanding of who the candidates are and of what they actually stand for. 

Do this for two and a half hours once (or twice) a week up to election day and immediately put it all up on the web for everyone to see and hear.

Such an open campaign would be a healthy opportunity to drum up real citizen interest/involvement in their governance.

Instead of spending megabucks on expensive/extensive repeated mailing pieces that contain little more than 15 second sound bites and some pictures (that wind up in the trash within a few seconds)...imagine being able to simply direct folks to the web where they could watch/download/share/burn real live and extensive/substantive discussions/debates between all the candidates! And the folks with no internet access could be sent DVD's of the events....public libraries could organize showings for people not able to attend and who don't have net access or a dvd player.

Let's allow the truth about who people really are and what they really believe in come out. Why would any honest politician have any objections to such a campaign???

As for the push polling, now we'll surely know it when we see it, eh? 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 01:38:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

re: (0.00 / 0)

Like your readers, marriage equality is an issue many of us stand firmly behind.

Does "some of us" include Michael Wildes, Ken Zisa, and Cid Wilson?

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 02:46:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

HTML tip (0.00 / 0)

(Sorry I'm quoting here, I couldn't find the handy posting tips to put this passage in a excerpt box)

In front of the text, put "blockquote" in "<>" brackets and "/blockquote" in "<>" brackets at the end.

---

by: JRB @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 02:10:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Will Wildes, Zisa, Wilson or the BCDO do any push polling in this race? (0.00 / 0)

I bet you can't give a one-word answer to that question.

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 02:42:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Another non-issue. (0.00 / 1)

The Bergen County Democratic Organization is not "gay bashing" as asserted here. There isn't one iota of evidence that suggests such tactics or strategies.

Quite frankly, I'm tired of these baseless accusations everytime the Gay Community backs a candidate that is being challenged.

Where is the evidence of this going on? Since when is polling for data and opinions "gay bashing?"

Grow up and stop hiding like some victim because you want to paint anyone who doesn't agree with you as an extremist.

The BCDO is the Democratic Party. Are you now going to paint with such a broad accusatory brush and suggest the 1,200 members BCDO is anti-Gay without a single shred of evidence?

It's bad enough you attack honorable Republicans like Mayor Lonegan without any evidence, now the tactic is being extended to fellow Democrats, liberals and other progressives who simply support another slate of candidates in District 37?

It's pretty pathetic and more importantly, not true.

---

by: BigDaddyDem @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 01:54:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"...honorable Republicans like Mayor Lonegan..." ?!?!? n/t :-) (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 02:19:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I know - that cracked me up too.... n/t (0.00 / 0)

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 02:47:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Do you know Lonegan? (0.00 / 0)

He's been a very effective mayor and even the Democrats in Bogota would say the same.

He fights hard for his causes. That doesn't make him evil or bad.

---

by: BigDaddyDem @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 04:55:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

define "bad" (4.00 / 1)

I think we simply disagree on the definition of "bad". For example, I think being homophobic and racist are both "bad" things.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 05:02:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I had the displeasure (0.00 / 0)

of having him as a client when I first started out on my own as an engineer.  Talk about high maintenance.  I'm not a fan. 

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 13:36:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

wtf? (0.00 / 0)

I just asked a question, and nowhere did I refer to "gay-bashing".  So why did you just put "gay bashing" in quotes and accuse me of suggesting that 1200 members of the BCDO are "anti-gay"?  And why bring up Steve Lonegan?

FWIW, the only person "hiding" here is you, for posting behind a completely anonymous name.

And if you don't think Lonegan is an extremist, then you are nuts.

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 13:00:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hi, BergenDems - there's a wrong assumption in your posting (4.00 / 2)

Does merely asking about civil unions in a poll mean that the poll's sponsor, BCDO or not, is not progressive and biased against the LGBTI community?  Yes, in my view, because an assumption in your posting is completely wrong:

You write that "it's no secret that civil unions are a hot topic in our state and therefore potentially relevant in the upincoming elections."

In fact, CIVIL UNIONS HAVE BEEN THE FURTHEST THING FROM A HOT TOPIC IN OUR STATE AMONGST ANY SEGMENT OF THE ELECTORATE OTHER THAN THE FAR RIGHT-WING.  Both during the process of passing the bill and after the bill's enactment, the public zietgeist has focused right where it's always focused in New Jersey:  Primarily on property taxes (by far and away) and secondarily on corruption and on other quality of life issues. 

The truth is, the public couldn't care less, in a great way, about about whether same-sex couples even get full marriage equality, let alone civil unions.  A response that the polls are close on either issue (in the case of civil unions, they're not) misses the point.

The relevant poll questions on this are those that test voters' intensity on the issue:  When you ask the electorate to rank issues in terms of importance to them, marriage (or civil unions) for gay couples ranks at the bottom, quite frankly as it should.  That in itself shows you how progressive our electorate is.

Never in the history of any election in this great progressive state, whether a statewide election or a local one, has LGBTI rights even been an issue.

That these rights are now being tested in a poll, under the assumption that they're controversial, shows that the poll's sponsor is behind the times on LGBTI rights.

So, Bergen Dems, where do Wildes, Zisa and Wilson stand on civil unions?  Where do they stand on marriage equality?  It would be great if the BCDO would encourage their candidates to support marriage equality, which as you can see from this website is an issue of importance not merely to the LGBTI community, but also to the entire progressive community. 

Why don't you all surprise us?

---

by: Steven Goldstein, Garden State Equality chair @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 14:51:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"more conservative Jewish population" (4.00 / 1)

Be careful about this.

I don't know what the breakdown in the 37th is between Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, Secular, and otherwise Unaffiliated Jews might be, but only the Orthodox communities are predominantly conservative in their political opinion.  The rest are mostly liberals.

What's significant about this is Loretta Weinberg has traditionally received a greater degree of support from the Orthodox Jewish population in her district than most Democrats anywhere else in the state or country despite her staunch liberalism.

Being Orthodox, there is no doubt in my mind that Michael Wildes is going to go to great lengths to try to cleave this portion of Loretta's base from her and one of the weapons that he will try to use is her progressive stands on LGBTI issues in general and marriage equality in particular.

This will most likely come in the form of a whispering campaign rather than push-polling.  If anybody here is a member of one of the Orthodox communities in the 37th and is a supporter of Loretta Weinberg, please keep your ears open and your mouth shut.  A time will come for direct advocacy on behalf of Loretta, but for now, more information could be gained from being a quiet listener.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 04:22:37 AM UTC

Or, perhaps, an offensive targeted mailer... (0.00 / 0)

Like this piece of trash that was sent out to Orthodox Jewish Voters in Great Neck, NY in the closing days of the 7th State Senate District Special Election campaign. It didn't work.

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 15:19:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Conservative Jewish voters" (4.00 / 1)

And here I've been slurred as a "Jewish liberal" by conservatives my whole life.  Jews are anti-gay conservatives?  Who knew?  Nothing like a broad brush, eh?

---

by: brilliantatbreakfast @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 16:01:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Conservative Jewish voters" is not a "well-defined" statement (i.e. it is ambiguous) (0.00 / 0)

Does "conservative" apply to "Jewish" or to "voters"?  Conservative Jews are generally not all that politically conservative.  But Orthodox Jews can be, especially the charedi ones.

---

by: Scott Weingart @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 16:23:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

yeesh (4.00 / 1)

I didn't say all Jews were conservative or liberal or purple or anything. I just pointed out there are some Jewish voters in the district who happen to be conservative.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 16:39:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Jewish Voters" (0.00 / 0)

And there are other conservative voters in the district as well.  Why single out Jews?

---

by: brilliantatbreakfast @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 16:25:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

re (0.00 / 0)

Because they're the ones the campaigns are fighting over.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 16:29:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

One word - Teaneck (0.00 / 0)

Terribly divisive political tactics were used in Teaneck last year that tried to create religious divisions in town.  It was a cynical ploy that affected the election to some extent.  The shame of it was that it was coldly and politically motivated and adversely affected a diverse and vibrant community.  Unfortunately, some may wish to try these tactics in other election races in Bergen County. 

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 16:33:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Answer To All... (0.00 / 0)

...this kind of evil crapola is to shed light on it. Lots and lots of light.

Informed conscious attentive people who aren't angry or frightened can't be conned or manipulated by Rovian "divide and conquer"tactics.

On the contrary, when people actually see clearly what's going on; then the attempt to manipulate backfires on the perpetrator....as there is appropriate resentment and disgust.

Unfortunately, given the "successes" of many political hacks like Karl Rove, and Tom Delay and the people who are playing the divisive games in Teaneck, I suspect that they think that "good government types" like Loretta Weinberg and the rest of us are a bunch of naive pollyannish idiots.

Let's show these bums that they're wrong.

It's a chant heard at protest rallys but it's true none the less:  "The people, united, can never be defeated".

Let's do some uniting!

---

by: Nick Lento @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 16:59:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

be precise (0.00 / 0)

Don't get so defensive, Juan.

I for one don't have a problem with what you said, but being the blogger extraordinaire that you are, you should know as well as anybody the importance of being as precise as possible in your languaging.

For one rare moment in your blogging career, you were lazy with your choice of language.  It's OK.  It happens to the best and worst of us.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 18:03:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I understood (0.00 / 0)

The demographics here are complicated.  It is the same in Tenafly as well.  There is some division I don't think folks from farther away understand.  The biggest divisions in the 37th are often between different groups of the same faith - Judaism.  In the case of Tenafly, the eruv lawsuit touched a lot of nerves and brought these things to the surface.  It was an issue between more conservative and less conservative followers of Judaism.  It was these more conservative voters that Juan was referring to. Juan wasn't using a broad brush, he was actually recognizing a distinction which those of us in Teaneck and Tenafly are familiar with.

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 20:03:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

as did I, but... (0.00 / 0)

...someone who isn't familiar with the dynamics of the Jewish communities in the 37th could have misunderstood what Juan was saying and taken it the wrong way.

Working in the Jewish communal world for as long as I have, I am well aware of the tightropes that need to be walked, especially when it comes to politics.

I didn't write what I wrote to lecture Juan for the sake of lecturing.  The Jewish vote is an extremely important demographic in many parts of the state and depending on he degree of care that one puts into outreach, they can be easily won or lost.

Despite the liberal leanings of most Jews, some friction has developed over the past few years as a result of the far left's knee-jerk hostility towards Israel.  Republicans and establishment Democrats have often tried to aggravate this situation and paint Democrats, liberals and progressives in particular, with a very broad brush.

Some well-meaning liberals and progressives like Juan fall into traps through no fault of their own, simply because of the use of imprecise language.  It is unlikely to be a problem in the 37th, but in general, it is important for everyone to be as careful and thoughtful about their languaging as possible.

This is as true for any other ethnic group as it is for the Jewish community.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 03:01:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Michael Wildes and orthodoxy (4.00 / 1)

Michael Wildes will claim to be orthodox as long as it suits his ambitions. He will show us his father and the Bible that his father gave him for his Bar Mitzvah. He will tell the audience that his "Jewishness" is what defines him as a person and as a representative.

In another speech on another day, Michael will tell the audience that his being Jewish has no effect at all on his politics and that he represents all people equally.

The fact is that Michael represents only himself and the people who fund his campaign. His behavior in the weeks prior to the November 2006 election made it an embarrassing time to be a Jewish Democrat in Englewood.

I received the polling call this week. There is no question that whether you choose to call it "push" or "benchmark", the call had two purposes. They wanted to test the effectiveness of negative issues, but they clearly phrased the questions in a way that was meant to "inform" the listener and hopefully have the bonus result of telling the listener something they didn't already know.

I worry that the BCDO has virtually unlimited funds, but I am heartened by the idea that if the negatives raised in this poll are the best ammunition they have, we should be able to beat them handily.

---

by: NJ Liberal @ Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 22:39:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

When Shove Comes to Push... (0.00 / 0)

I worry that the BCDO has virtually unlimited funds, but I am heartened by the idea that if the negatives raised in this poll are the best ammunition they have, we should be able to beat them handily.

As I've been saying, in any real debate/fair fight; the BCDO Ferriero loyalists can not win.

The only shot they have to to distract attention from their machine politics and to go negative on the opposition.

If their tracking polls show they're losing in the closing days...don't be surprised to see massive saturation use of push polls and of any other means possible to win.

This isn't about a 49K a year job.  It's about how hundreds of millions/billions of dollars worth of properties get developed, who does the work and who makes the profits.

Follow the money folks...

---