BRIAN ROSS REPORTS
- Like Jay-Z + the Beatles, But Worse
- Update: Help for Homeless Children
- Bush Era, Revised -- and with More Barbeque
- The Tax Woman Cometh
- Paging Mr. Stanford: Antigua Called
- Who Are You Calling Partisan?
- Update: IRS Won't Use Private Debt Collectors
- But Is It Art?
- PMA Scandal a Sore Point for Dems in 2010?
- Down in Flames
- A New Mystery for RNC Chief
- PMA Clients Were Big Givers
- Raided Lobby Firm Still a Force on Capitol Hill
- Stanford Update: Another $143 Mil Found
- Cheney, Hooked on Controversy
TOP BLOTTER CATEGORIES
- Abramoff Lobbying Scandal
- American Al Qaeda
- Avian Flu
- Beirut Hospital Out of Gas
- Cheney
- CIA
- CIA Secret Prisons
- D.C. Madam Affair
- FBI
- Federal Air Marshal Service
- Homeland Security
- Hurricane Katrina
- IRS
- Mark Foley Internet Scandal
- Millionaire Sex Scandal
- Nigerian E-mail Scams
- Norman Hsu, Clinton Fundraiser
- NSA: Wiretapping
- Osama bin Laden
- Payola
- Pharmacy Investigation
- PMA
- Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
- Stanford
- Steele
- Terror
- Troopergate
- U.K. Airline Terror Plot
- U.K. Bombing Attempts
- Wen Ho Lee
- William Jefferson
- Zarqawi
« Previous | Main | Next »
Whose Push Poll Is It Anyway? Going Negative on Clinton, Obama; Positive on Edwards
December 19, 2007 12:43 PM
Iowa Democrats are being hit with a new round of "opinion poll" calls this week that stress negative qualities of Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama and praise John Edwards as a man who "has spent his life fighting powerful interests."
The calls come from operators who say they are "out of state" and are conducting an opinion poll for a "research company."
It's what known in politics as a push poll with the ostensible poll taker, in fact, pushing negatives about a particular candidate.
"Our campaign has nothing to do with this," said Marc Kornblau, a spokesman for the Edwards campaign. There was no immediate comment from the Clinton campaign, and the Obama campaign declined to comment on the calls.
Here is the transcript of one call received Tuesday by a Des Moines woman who is a registered Democrat likely to attend the caucus next month. She recorded the call at the request of the Blotter on ABCNews.com.
Question #1: Which Democratic presidential candidate do you think will fight the hardest for working people? Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards?
Question #2: Which of the following do you think will most help someone be a better president? Being the spouse of the president? Serving as a community organizer? Or working as a trial lawyer who fought many big corporations?
Question #3: I'm going to read the description of some of the candidates and ask if it concerns you.
First, Hillary Clinton changes her position on important issues too often. She has said that she would not eliminate Bush's tax cuts that give special treatment to the rich. Is this very concerning, somewhat, not so concerning or not at all concerning?
Question #4: Barack Obama has little experience at the federal level where he was a senator. He repeatedly refused to vote against legislation that threatened a woman's right to choose. Instead, he voted present. Is this very concerning, somewhat, not so concerning or not at all concerning?
Question #5: John Edwards is a liberal trial lawyer who supports mandated universal health care coverage at a time the government is already spending too much money. Is this very concerning, somewhat, not so concerning or not at all concerning?
Question #6: A recent nationwide polls says that Hillary Clinton may be a weak general election candidate. The polls shows that Clinton is the only Democrat who would lose to all five major Republican candidates in the November election. How concerned are you that if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, the Democrats may lose the presidential campaign?
Question #7: Barack Obama has taken over $12 million from the financial industry and its lobbyists. In the Senate, he was one of the only 15 Democrats who supported the financial industry by allowing predatory lenders to target (unintelligible and the poor by charging unlimited interest on their credit cards and loans. Is this very concerning, somewhat, not so concerning or not at all concerning?
Question #8: John Edwards believes that politicians in Washington keep changing the rules so big corporations and the super rich receive special breaks and the rest of us who play fair get stuck with the bills. Edwards has spent his life fighting powerful interests and has never taken a dime from the lobbyists. As president, he will fight to make the system fair. Is this very concerning, somewhat, not so concerning or not at all concerning?
Question #9: Barack Obama began his career as an organizer in Chicago and has fought for civil rights issues and for (unintelligible) people. He has served both as a state senator and in the U.S. Senate. Is this very, somewhat, not so or not at all persuasive to you?
When asked who he worked for, the caller said he had no idea who was a Democrat or a Republican. The caller ID of the call showed: 000-000-0000.
Do you have a tip for Brian Ross and the Investigative Team?
December 19, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (30)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
As a voter in Iowa I received 3 anti Hillary push polls. Two were obviously in favor of Edwards. When I confronted the third called with the question, "is this a push poll?" the woman hung up before I could determine who was sponsoring it.
Too bad Brian Ross didn't do more homework before airing his story Friday night. Maybe he got tricked too when someone planted the story idea.
Posted by: flowbleu | Jan 6, 2008 7:55:20 PM
By spreading the word such as this, about the "push poll" nobody should be answering there phone anyway. It will just allow no gathering of information and people won't even listen. I believe people have there minds made up anyway and now will no longer discuss it on the phone. Good job whoever you are!
Posted by: Carla | Jan 7, 2008 4:49:18 AM
So is this the reason John Kerry is now showing support for Obama? Kerry knows Edwards. Pretty weird.
Posted by: irma | Jan 10, 2008 12:38:42 PM
For those who think it's a Clinton trick to get Edward's votes; silly. Especially since the concern all along has been that Edwards is getting the possible Obama votes. The two have aligned themselves on attacking Clinton in various debates and criticism. I think it's a huge mistake for all sides to provide the right wing with ammo on any of these candidates. Democrats devisiveness on candidates is doing all the dirty work for the right wing in the general election. Wake up Democrats!
Posted by: Irma | Jan 10, 2008 12:44:24 PM
please educate yourselves on the difference between a push poll and a "message testing" survey. push polls are done with few questions, hardly asking to identify the surveyer's personal info like gender, income, etc. and push polls are sent to thousand or tens of thousand of people at once.
a "message testing" survey, while you may feel the practice is contraversal, has been done for many elections, but always discretely. it could be a perfectly valid scientific poll, it's just embarassing to find out that the campaigns are doing such things, it makes them sound petty. which, most of them, are--petty tactics to plan attacks with.
it's just that there's sooo much attention given to this election, that some have been exposed. they are only useful to the campaigns who buy the survey results. and for news people who love to expose petty politics for what it is.
Posted by: kenshin | Jan 10, 2008 5:11:24 PM
You guys really think hillary would be dumb enough to make it so obvious that it is her.
Posted by: THE D | Jan 10, 2008 6:17:06 PM
Barack Obama is the only candidate who can address the crucial global issues we have to face today. And he can face them with great sensitivity, brilliance and grace. He consistantly displays these characteristics along with his wit and wisdom under stress. He is THE ONE PERSON for our era who has the strength of character and ability to lead the USA and the world before it is too late.
Posted by: Elizabeth Hagenah | Jan 25, 2008 10:00:16 PM
I used to work for a campaign management company. They thought they were so smart. But they were just transparent, like the disguised polls you're talking about. Every candidate we worked for lost. Then I started working one-on-one with candidates - no clever polls or fact bending - and they won. Hey, honesty really can pay off. I'm voting for Edwards.
Posted by: Linda | Jan 27, 2008 10:45:52 AM
They were all trashed in that call.
It's got to be the GOP & Karl Rove.
Posted by: Carol | Feb 1, 2008 9:20:44 AM
Every single religion has had a spiritual leader make the exact same comments about the atrocities of man since the dawn of time. Some religious groups even promote hatred! Hillary has done just that throughout the majority of her campaign. Let's try focusing on the fact's. 2.) Although a woman as President could help the African nation's, the rest of the world leaders will ultimately define the U.S. as an infantile, dependent superpower (Ameri-who?). 3.) One word: "WaterGate". 4.) She stole the White House furniture! 5.) America needs a fresh set of eyes on our future. 6.) Right now, America requires a leader with the cunning of Ronald Reagan, the ambition on Foreign and Domestic policies as John F. Kennedy and the reserve of Gerald Ford as we go into the future; if we are to remain "A GREAT NATION". If only Barack Obama could run for president with Arnold Schwarzenegger on his ticket as his running mate they'd be a shoe-in against any Republican Adversary. The only draw back, it would most likely prep "Arnold" for a coup as a reformed Republican in the 2012 Presidential Election.
Posted by: A.J. | Mar 18, 2008 1:27:56 AM
Post a comment
