Defending Obama on the Push Poll question

Having been a savage Obama detractor on other issues, I strongly doubt these calls are from the Obama campaign.

They are either from 1) Republicans wanting Obama to win Iowa, or 2) they are from Edwards. Of course republicans want to boost Obama, but this isn't their style. Of the two, the Edwards campaign (or "independent" Edwards supporters) seems the likelier. (what ever happened to those folks who left the Edwards campaign to set up 'independent' attacks on Clinton, anyway?)

The calls are going primarily to women. Edwards has had trouble with women in Iowa because of Hillary's dominance in the Demo. Obama doesn't have the same problem with women.

The two "push poll" questions about Edwards are both things the Edwards' campaign WANTS to get out there... that he is left-wing, and that Elizabeth has cancer. It is almost impossible to imagine a female voter who vote not greet this poll with backlash, and feel great sympathy for John and Elizabeth. It is a "push" that can only benefit him.

And he definitely needs to get it out there that he's to the left, because Obama (one of the most conservative candidates in the race) utterly kicks Edwards' ass among progressives. That has to be frustrating for Edwards, who has embraced almost every net-roots stance.

The push poll questions about Hillary, on the other hand, are unambiguously negative, and follow Edwards' criticisms of Clinton quite closely.

The poll has the added benefit (to Edwards) of raising suspicion about Obama and generally muddying the water. When you're in third place change is good... almost an change.

We have no idea who is responsible, but from a rational analysis POV it seems most likely to be Republicans boosting Obama or Edwards boosting himself. (Or even a loose cannon Edwards supperter... the fact that the poll benefits Edwards most doesn't mean his campaign is the only possible culprit)
_____________________

On edit: This is, of course, merely my thought process after reading all of today's blog analysis. (Pollster.com, Blumenthal, Armbinder, Ben Smith, etc.) I have no unique data. And, as to whether this is an unfair insinustaion... sure, probably. But no more unfair than the standards of the blogosphere... we speculate and theorize.

The suggestion that this is Republicans trying to make ALL the Democrats look bad doesn't make sense to me, because the Republicans have no real interest in depressing caucus turn-out... a Dem will win the Iowa Democratic caucuses no matter what. That said, as an independent effort, who knows? A person might have irrational motives, in which case there's no way to rationally deduce them.

It is interesting that so far we've only heard from Edwards supporters who've been surveyed, but that could be because the calls upset them more than other possible recipients.

smear all three candidates.

I think the push poll is being financed by a Republican trying to smear all three candidates.
The Repubs want Hillary out front--she'll be easiest for them to beat, and if she wins anyway, she'll be easiest for them to control. I think the negative questions about Hillary are a smokescreen.

:headbang:
rocknation

a link to the post that started it all. Check out the "A" questions in particular:



:headbang:
rocknation

BTW - do we even know there was a push poll? Maybe there was just a single jerk who made this up to make Obama look bad.

The poll smears Hillary and Edwards. Which by default helps Obama.

Do the republicans want Obama, then?

obviously he must have approved the push poll.























Do I need to add:sarcasm: ?

Push polling is such a rethug sort of thing and if we find out it came from a Democratic candidate, I'll be surprised and disappointed. Until then, I'm giving our candidates the benefit of the doubt.

or measureing someone's negatives.

I agree with you that the Obama camp isn't behind this.

Are you shitting me? It's a PUSH POLL. They wrote the fucking book!

When the pugs seek a result it is usually crystal clear what result they are seeking. Their push polls are usually radioactive.

These calls are more nuanced than any pug push-poll effort I can recall. Pugs cut to the chase... Hillary's a lesbian, Obama's a muslim, Edwards' is cheating on his dying wife. That's the Republican style.

This current series of calls is very inside-democratic politics in tone. The Hillary questions are so softly targeted to the subtle concerns of Democratic caucusgoers:

...(Why) do you think Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate...
A) Is a weak general election candidate
B) Is too dependent on lobbyist money
C) Won't bring change

n/t

Are they all Edwards supporters?

The plot... thickens....

So who knows?

(It wouldn't be a bad "get out the vote" call if aimed at Edwards supporters. If I was leaning Edwards, and thought that Obama was going after Elizabeth's cancer, it would sure help me decide)

I wonder if there were Clinton supporters who got this call or any other candidate's supporters.

in the guise of a poll.

What you're talking about was a poll done for message testing.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/whos_behind_the_negative_messaging_in_iowa.php

I dunno. I guess we will find out eventually... or not, heh.

If the calls were as described, no age, marital status, etc., and really did end abruptly after the two negative question, it's a push-poll.

Message research would be useless without those demographic questions... like, for instance, who ou currently support.

I mean, Obama is immediately made suspicious over this, it's is too obvious and stupid for him to be behind it. The republicans don't make sense either, like you said, way too subtle and they would go after #1 unless they want Obama or something.

That still isn't a real demographic, just one question about teachers.

This may remain a mystery unless we get the entire list of questions.

I will say though, asking about immigration and teachers sounds like digging for real information to use in a campaign, so this isn't pure push polling.

set of questions. And without that, analysis is difficult.

There may have been different scripts for different calling lists, etc.

Or this could have been one of two nuts free-ballin' it... asking all sorts of different things.

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



....Puzzled, I went back and re-read the reports of the first two blogger/respondents (as well as another respondent account Smith reported this morning). All tell essentially the same story:

Both report being asked first about their voter preference in the Democratic caucuses, about the strength of their support for their first choice and about their second choice.
Both report being asked just two more questions: A three-way forced choice question asking them to choose from among three statements as the "most important reason not to support Clinton." They were then asked a similar question with two negative statements about Edwards.
And then, both bloggers report (or at least imply) that the interview ends abruptly.. "End of survey" says desmoinesdem. "There were no questions about what issues are you interested in," writes dorisdem, "or even how likely are you to caucus." Neither mentions being asked demographic questions (what is your age, race, etc.), although is it possible both simply left that part out.

If the "poll" included just the five questions above, it fits the profile of the a real so-called push poll, again, not a poll at all but a negative "advocacy call" masquerading as a legitimate survey....

From what I read on the Edwards blog. There was a question about immigration. It was asked if there was a teacher in the family. And something else.

It's a 'dynamic' (euphemism) story.

If it IS message research from Obama (or anyone, really), the distinction will not matter to many voters. Whatever the purpose, nobody likes bringing up cancer is an attacking way.

For what it';s worth, the head of Current Research (or whatever it's called) has no commented that the caller ID numbers are her phones, but that they have no contracts for any Iowa polling.

So it may be a loose cannon in her operation... motives TBD.

Maybe the bad calls are a case of a Central Research employee going Waaaayyyy off the script. (Though they deny doing any Iowa polling right now)

Oh well... we will probably never know, but it's a fascinating bit of skulduggery on someone's part.

How could anyone think cancer isn't over the line?

It could have been testing of that particular message by the Edwards campaign, so I didn't take it at first as a terribly negative question, but something the campaign might want to know. But the Edwards campaign has said it wasn't their poll, so it wasn't.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2281157



This seems to be the real story, that's being missed.

The caller ID said 'unknown caller'. When I asked who was calling they wouldn't say...they just said it was a call center.

It was the same questions that have been posted.

1. Who do you support.

2. How strong is your commitment to your 1st choice.

3. Do you have a 2nd choice.

4. 3 negative multiple choices about Hillary.

5. 3 negative multiple choices about Edwards.

6. Some choices about living paycheck to paycheck.

I had enough and hung up. But not after telling off the poor bloke on the other end of the line.

btw...my answers to questions 4 and 5 were both 'no comment'.

I don't know who is behind it but it makes no sense for a candidate to put any negatives out there about themselves. This is push polling and it isn't the first one I've received this campaign cycle. The first one was similar but was obviously a pro-Hillary call.

Don't tell me we don't get push polls in Iowa. I've received 2.

It is sickening.

Edwards and Clinton were?

Sorry.

One of the choices about Hillary was about changing her mind on the issues and one of the ones about Edwards was about his being a trial lawyer.

I was trying to get my husband's attention about the call so I can't recite all of the choices. They were all negative though.

Where's a tape recorder when you need one?!

This call pales in comparison to the one I got a few months ago though.

Does it seem to you that only Edwards supporters are being called? Or have you heard of others?

I know of several Edwards supporters who have received this poll in Iowa. Maybe that is a coincidence...I don't know.

I do know how outbound telemarketing works. You can change the path of questioning depending on how the person responds to any question along the way.

If a recipient self-identified differently, would the script differ. Maybe we will learn in time.

Dang- Iowa in primary season must be a crazy place to live.

but I wish I was part of it lol.

Asking negatives about Edwards and Obama and making Hillary out to be a girl scout. Really.

It is a crazy place to live during a political cycle!

because you get such great access to the candidates... but man, the downside really sucks too.

someone has been doing research and has traced most of this:

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/11/13/the-negative-message-testing-against-edwards-and-clinton-in-iowa-somethings-fishy/

not obama or edwards. I posted about it but, in case you miss it here is the link to the story so far.

But I find it very strange that line of questioning excluded him. Why would they do that?

Oh well.....it's just politics, right?

I fear for our country's future.

it's possible that was intentional to make it look like it might have come from Obama. Who knows.

I was about to post the link. I'd forgotten at first where I saw it.