Jersey Woman Push Polled By McCain Supporters....

It's not a push poll (4.00 / 1)

There's been a good bit of research on these calls, and it is not actually a push poll.  It is a test of negative messages to see which have resonance.

Push polls are much shorter than this poll because they want to reach many more people.  

However, it is more dangerous than a push poll.  The group is testing messages in order to develop negative advertising that will reach far more people than any push poll could.  They'll be right out front with what they say.

---

by: huntsu @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 13:49:37 PM UTC

A Distinction Without A Difference.... (0.00 / 0)

.....in the sense that the net result is, as you say, even more potentially devastating.

If you are correct; then this is a not a push poll in the sense that it is a dirty little under the radar sneak attack comprised of lies; but a way of testing the waters for an all out "above board" outright attack composed of lies.    Obviously, in the process of this "non push poll" being administered, all manner of untrue negative memes are implanted in the minds of anyone who "takes" the poll.

McCain is blatantly willing to lie about everything all the time...there is no "floor" beneath him at this point.....and we still have nearly six weeks to go.

It seems that McCain is determined to bait Obama into becoming visibly angry so that he can be framed as "an angry black man" and then whatever racial prejudices  people have will come into play.

Obama needs to find a way to touch the Conscience of America.   He has to call out the evil bullshit in such a way that he doesn't get stinky himself....not an easy task; but I believe it can be done.

Meanwhile, here's some of email I received from media matters that touches on these issues....

http://mediamatters.org/

(I couldn't find this on their site so I'm just going to copy the whole email)

The Weekly Update from Media Matters for America

The media's counterproductive focus on negative campaigning

It's getting awfully hard to pick up a newspaper or turn on the television without seeing a news report about the presidential campaign turning negative. It often seems the media consider the tone of the campaign more important than the collapsing economy, the war, our continued failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, and the Bush administration's apparent disdain for the Constitution -- combined.

Before we go any further, let me be clear: I'm not saying that negative campaigning isn't as bad as the media makes it out to be.

I'm saying negative campaigning is essential to American democracy.

See, for voters to make good decisions, they have to have good information. And, unfortunately, candidates aren't in the habit of telling voters things they've done (or plan to do) that are unpopular, or of running ads about the flaws in their own proposals. And since voters need to know the candidates' weaknesses as well as their strengths, and the disadvantages to their proposals, they need somebody to talk about those things.

Oh, sure, we could rely on the media to do that. How have they been doing lately? Anybody think they did a good job of assessing the candidates' relative weaknesses in 2000? Of poking holes in the Bush administration's tragically flawed arguments for the Iraq war? Of putting down the doughnuts and barbecued ribs long enough to pin John McCain down on how long he's willing to keep fighting in Iraq, what, exactly, he plans on doing to Social Security, how he would pay for his tax cuts and wars, or how much you have to make in order for him to consider you "rich"?

Anyone who thinks we can rely on the media to tell us what the candidates don't want us to know should head over to the Swampland blog, where Time reporter Michael Scherer insists that it is unfair to bring up John McCain's lengthy history of voting and speaking in favor of Social Security privatization. Scherer says we should instead simply look at the position statements on McCain's campaign Web page (statements that actually don't provide any reason to think that McCain no longer supports privatization, though Scherer seems to think they do. See my posts on Media Matters' new blog, County Fair, for further explanation.)

So, we need candidates to engage in negative campaigning -- that is, in criticizing their opponents' positions, experience, and previous performance. That's far different from dishonest campaigning. Or from tactics that cross the line from "negative" to downright sleazy. Those tactics should be called out by the news media, and frequently. But the media's reflexive focus on simply "negative" campaigning is unnecessary and often counterproductive.

It is unnecessary because the question of whether a candidate or campaign is "too negative" is a visceral question, not a logical one. Voters don't need reporters to try to measure negativity for them or to keep reminding them of it. If something is too negative for them, voters will have a visceral reaction against it; if not, they won't. Either way, they are perfectly capable of coming to that conclusion on their own. (With the important exception that if a campaign is running a viciously negative below-the-radar campaign, such as a whispering campaign like the one George W. Bush waged against John McCain in 2000, voters can benefit from the media shining a light on those tactics.)

What voters can't easily do on their own is assess whether ads are true, false, or somewhere in between. That's where the media can be useful. They have the resources -- and, ideally, some expertise -- to assess the validity of claims made in campaign ads. That's how reporters can actually be useful -- by doing what the voters can't do for themselves, and doing it well.

Unfortunately, the news media often lump true criticism together with dishonest or sleazy criticism, as though all negative campaigning is equal, and equally bad. This week, a study concluded that a larger percentage of Barack Obama's ads since the political conventions have been "negative," bringing another round of news reports that drew false equivalence between very different tactics.

The Wisconsin Advertising Project looked at a single week's worth of ads in determining that 56 percent of McCain ads and 77 percent of Obama ads were "negative." Aside from the dangers in drawing conclusions from such a small sample of campaign ads, the findings are of limited value given that the project made no effort to assess the veracity or fairness of the ads in question. In fact, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, the study counted any ad that so much as mentioned the opponent's name as "negative."

I suppose it might be mildly interesting to know that 56 percent of John McCain's ads mention Barack Obama, or that 77 percent of Obama's ads mention McCain. But it doesn't really tell us anything useful. How did they mention each other? Did the ads criticize policy positions or personality? Were they honest? The answers to those questions are essential to any meaningful assessment of the candidates' campaign tactics. (If you do find the project's findings compelling, you should keep in mind that in July, based on a much larger sample, the project found that more of McCain's ads were negative.)

Despite the study's failure to even attempt to assess the validity of the ads it declared "negative," several news organizations hyped the findings. Worse, some suggested the finding that more of Obama's ads have been negative undermines the recent conclusions of many impartial observers that the McCain campaign ads have been more dishonest than those of the Obama campaign.

The New York Post, for example, reported that the results of the study "clash with recent media coverage accusing McCain of distorting Obama's record in ads." Nonsense. That's like saying that the fact that this is September clashes with the fact that it is Friday.

On Hardball, MSNBC's Chris Matthews also touted the study:

   The McCain camp's been getting a lot of attention for some recent hard-hitting ads. In fact, the Wisconsin Advertising Project, a group that studies politics ads nationwide, deems that 56 percent of the ads aired by the McCain campaign last week were negative. That's 56 percent of McCain's ads, negative.

   But here's a number that may surprise you. How many of Obama's ads in that same time period last week were negative? Seventy-seven percent -- an indication, perhaps, that Obama intends to come out swinging -- or these are the next couple months. He's going to be doing it. Nearly four out of five ads Obama aired last week were negative -- tonight's "Big Number."

But the more significant "attention" McCain has been getting has not been for negative ads -- it has been for false ads. Matthews disappears that criticism, suggesting that the criticism of McCain has been for negativity rather than dishonesty.

On Race to the White House, Matthews' colleague David Gregory said, "Obama says he wants a new kind of politics. Why is he running more negative ads than Senator McCain?" Later, Gregory played an Obama ad accusing McCain of dishonest attack ads -- but look at how Gregory characterized the Obama ad:

   GREGORY: That is a new campaign ad from the Obama campaign. It is out this week, taking a swipe at John McCain for his negative ads. Take a look at this, a new study from the Wisconsin Advertising Project says that it is Obama slinging the most mud on TV; 77 percent of Obama's ads after the GOP convention were negative, compared to 56 percent of McCain's.

No. Obama's ad took a "swipe" at McCain for dishonest ads, not merely for negative ads. By changing Obama's criticism, Gregory was able to use the Wisconsin study to paint him as a hypocrite. And note the phrasing Gregory used to describe the study's findings -- the loaded phrase "it is Obama slinging the most mud on TV." Remember, the study made no effort whatsoever to assess the content of the ads; it simply counted as negative any mention of the opponent's name. On that flimsy basis, Gregory accuses Obama of "slinging the most mud" -- even as the consensus among neutral observers has been that McCain is leveling more false attacks.

Lumping all negative statements together as "slinging mud," without differentiating between true claims and false (or fair and unfair) doesn't inform viewers; it is a false equivalence that serves only to advantage truly dishonorable attacks by making them appear no worse than run-of-the-mill factual criticism. It plays into the hands of liars and smear merchants. And it penalizes honest and fair criticisms -- though such criticisms are essential to the voters' ability to make informed decisions.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 14:41:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, it is not ... (0.00 / 0)

There is a significant difference between a push poll and a poll testing negatives.

The push poll is intended to move public opinion by spreading false and/or negative information to as many people as possible through a false poll pretending to be legitimate.  It is deliberately deceptive, and is also an end into itself.  There is no second play.

The poll you are talking about is a legitimate poll, put in the field in order to determine the impact of certain messaging on the public.  They use legitimate poll techniques and statistical methods.  

They need to have valid poll results in order to take the second step, which is to use the most damaging negative attacks possible.  The poll itself is not intended to move public opinion, but the data from the poll is used to reach many people.

The reason why this distinction is important is because unless you know which you are facing you cannot combat it.  If you try to combat the statistically relevant poll as if it were a push poll you will be caught unawares when the ads start to hit.  If you treat a push poll as if it were a statistically valid poll setting up an ad campaign then you will be waiting for a punch that never comes.

Both have the same intent -- to smear the candidate.  But the distinction is certainly relevant to how a campaign responds.

---

by: huntsu @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 20:01:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Take Your Point From A Technical.... (0.00 / 0)

...perspective.

My sense it that you are right in that the intent, and the effect, of both types of polls in this instance is to smear....and/or to find out which smear might be more effective/credible.

However, practically speaking, the effect of the "statistically valid" poll is to implant negative suggestions/impressions/questions in the mind of the respondents that wouldn't have otherwise been there.

The reason I think there may be a place for statutory relief here is if it could be proven that the campaign doing this knew that the questions/allegations were untrue (I suppose that's the definition of a smear, eh?) then one could get a conviction of the guilty parties.

Free speech is great; but why should someone have the right to consciously/intentionally/maliciously lie about one's opponent in what arguably is one of the most important decisions a citizen has to make....i.e. who to vote for?

Hell, you can get busted for "false advertising" about a consumer product..... or misrepresenting the terms of a contract; but winning an election by consciously/intentionally/maliciously smearing your opponent is ok?   Arguably the stakes are even higher in the second category of deception.

We can do better.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 04:23:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Are you sure? (4.00 / 1)

Yes, there's a difference. But are you sure about this poll's intent and the number of people it's designed to directly reach. When I sent warning of it a few days ago to a friend in Pennsylvania, she said she'd already been hit with it. Her impression was also push poll, though she did keep the caller on the phone for as long as she could, so he couldn't bother as many others.

---

by: Dvd Avins @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 01:53:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

They released some info (0.00 / 0)

Apparently it was 750 people called over a series of states.    That's a small sample if you are looking for state info, so I do not think it was intended to push info, but to gather info.

Of course, they won't mind if rumors are spread ...

---

by: huntsu @ Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 20:43:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So, Bottom Line Is That.... (0.00 / 0)

....that a "Push Poll" isn't a real poll; but a tactic pretending to be a poll....that is designed to spread lies that will result the smearing of a candidate.

Therefor what this lady was subjected to was likely a preliminary stage/polling to discerning the most effective lies/smears to use in the actual "push poll".  

Did I get that right Huntsu?

As I said in the diary, when the effort is consciously lying with  the intent of getting people to believe something the perpetrators know is untrue so that a given candidate loses votes......I suggest that this is a form of political terrorism and needs to be punishable by criminal sanctions.

Obviously, the case would not be easy to prove; but that is also true for slander or libel.

Fortunately we live in a country where people who knowingly spread lies about others may be held legally/civilly  accountable.

How much more critical is it that clearly outrageous lies intentionally spread in order to sway elections be criminalized?

I suspect that most of this activity would come to a screeching halt if the people doing it thought it might cost them 5 to 10 years in prison.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 04:52:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

the solution (4.00 / 1)

isn't criminalizing speech no matter how bad, especially in a preventive detention mode for what you THINK "they'll" do with it.  Try to pause for a moment and ponder how that paradigm could be used against you and yours.

You can't prohibit groups from polling about what the public thinks are the most resonant positive and negative points to make about a candidate.  Even if YOU (because after all, who the HECK are YOU!) think they are making it up.

Push polls are phone calls disguised as polls which go out to many, many people (far more than 750 people nationwide) that ask leading questions like, if you knew that Candidate X beat his wife would that make you much less likely or just less likely to vote for him?  All reputable groups have disavowed push polls but they still go on.  Again, disclosure is the solution instead of prohibition.  If you made everyone disclose for whom and from whom they are calling, that would be a big step forward.  No, Nick, not perfect.  Just a step forward.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 12:00:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You Raise a Strong and Cogent Point... (0.00 / 0)

...we have to be extremely careful about taking any steps that could criminalize speech.

Pornography is a good example of something that is, arguably, inhumane and destructive of all that is good and decent about human love/sexuality......yet, adult people have a constitutional right to produce and "consume" it.

On the other hand, we do have laws against blatantly false advertising in the commercial realm.  

People selling Rice Krispies are compelled to tell you on their label if it contains, say...tomato extract.

Is there any line at all beyond which politicians and PR people (who are all trying to influence public policy) can not go???

Think about the stakes.  War and peace, life and death, democracy vs dictatorship.   That's what's really in play if we simply allow any kind of blatant lie to be told over and over.

We have an electorate that exists in a numbed fog of incredulity convinced that "they ALL lie".

So, yes, I take your point that speech needs to be free.....on the other hand isn't threatening the very pillars of our democracy the moral/functional equivalent of yelling "fire" in a theater?

I thank you for bringing up the opposite "side of the coin" (I can always rely on you for that ;-) but my conclusion is that this isn't a "black and white" issue and that there may be room for some kind of legislative action that imposes some kinds of sanction (civil and/or criminal) on some kinds of/degrees of demonstrably malicious political lies/dirty tricks.

If the liars and tricksters are simply allowed to get away with it and they keep on "winning" and accumulating power....the end result is that our democracy itself turns to a corrupt pile of ashes....and that must not be allowed to happen.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 15:35:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]