Wednesday, September 06, 2006

More unethical practices: One (maybe two) push polls

Over the past few days, I've received two related emails, both on the topic of push polling. I'll start with the one I know for sure: Lamberti is still push polling against Boswell.

I received an email from a poll recipient over the weekend, and more information this morning. Here's the list of questions the Economic Freedom Fund asked on that race: (I have numbered and added bolding.)

1) Would you like your taxes not raised and if possible cut?

2) Do you believe that frivolous and abusive lawsuits cost us all too much money?

3) Leonard Boswell has support from liberal trial lawyers who make it a habit to sue little league baseball and pee-wee football teams.

4) Do you want liberal female California Nancy Pelosi and her supporters to take total control over the US house of Representatives?

5) Does knowing that Boswell voted for liberal Pelosi (either two or four) times make you less likely to vote for him?

6) Do you believe that America has an illegal immigration problem?

7) Would you support the argument that only a marraige betweeen one man and one woman is legal and binding?

8) On the issue of abortion would you consider yourself pro-life?

9) Do you support a law that allows the self-employed, such as farmers and small business owners, to deduct health care costs such as health insurance and doctors bills from their taxes?

10) Do you consider yourself a Republican?

11) Are you a man?

12) Do you have a favorable opinion of Bush?

This is terrible. It's misogynistic, misleading and it only tells half the story. It's exactly what one would expect from Jeff Lamberti, who by all accounts should leave a slimy trail behind when he walks.

The second possible push poll is more speculative. I received a press release today from David Loebsack's campaign:

Great news! The Dave Loebsack campaign has released a poll, and the numbers are great. I hope you have seen today’s Cedar Rapids Gazette page 3-B, but if not, here is what all of the buzz is about:

Only a paltry 38% of Iowans polled said they would vote to re-elect the Republican incumbent Jim Leach.

After the Iowans polled hear a brief biography of Dave Loebsack, the numbers jump to: Dave 52%, Leach 28%.

Now, I'm not an expert, and I certainly wasn't in the room when these calls were made, but how great would that "brief biography of Dave Loebsack" have to be to drop Leach's rating by ten points? I've emailed the Loebsack campaign to ask. I'll let you know what I find out.



Anonymous said...

The one thing I found so funny about the "Are you a man?" question was that it seemed more like, "Are you a manly man who does manly things with his manly friends and makes manly decisions?" than "What is your gender?"

Bob said...

The percentages could be different because as soon as the Leach supporters realize what the call is about, they probably hang up, leaving the rest of the sample skewed.

Matt ( said... ANYBODY out there paying attention to what a "push poll" actually is? The "Economic Freedom Fund" is a 527 organization based out of California operated by a Republican election law lawyer. I also believe he's formerly been a member of the leadership of the California GOP. Lamberti is not running that poll - but 527 is obviously running it to skew the vote and voter suppress.

Also, the Loebsack poll is NOT a push-poll. The "brief biography" is part of any basic "messaging poll" which tests positives/negatives on a candidate.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
KL Snow said...

FYI to anyone who may read this:

The previous comment, which I deleted, was an unproven character attack on Jeff Lamberti. I won't have unproven/unsubstantiated attacks on any candidates here.

So, if you're the commenter I just pulled down, feel free to either substantiate your claim or take your comments somewhere else.

Anonymous said...

I apologize Kl Snow. My post was in poor taste. We all did stupid things in high school. I hung out with Jeff alot and were very typical. Personally he is OK in my book, I could name names, dates, incidents but I probably could not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that what I am talking about happened, but that doesn't change what is the real truth.

The only problem I have, is if someone makes a mistake early in life and the laws of this country allows that person to erase that mistake, should that person have to admit to making that choice if they are working to take that choice away from others?

I think they should, particularly in a case where a moral issue like this is involved.

You can delete this if you wish, I just wanted to explain why I felt the need to say something.