September 08, 2004
That Push-Poll, Candidate Profiles, And A Scuttled Debate
Catching Up On Other Campaign Items
There won't be much meat in this update, just a many links as we've been able to find which somehow speak of the current local election campaigns. But before we get to that, an update on the mystery push-poll we reported last week. According to Aimee Wilson, campaign manager for Nick Fish, she's also been hearing from people who have received these telephone calls.
"If, as you say, the Adams campaign denies that they're doing these calls, I certainly have no reason to think they would lie," she said. "But I'm also hard-pressed to think who else might be behind them."
Which does seem to be the continuing and lingering question everyone is asking about this.
But to start in on the links, last week's "City Matters" column took a look at endorsements or the lack thereof from members of City Council. It also checked-in with what former Mayoral candidate James Posey may or may not be up to when it comes to the remaining candidates for Mayor.
Yesterday's Portland Tribune profiled the Mayoral candidates, saying that "[t]he past of one of these men represents the city’s prologue to its future." Their profile of Tom Potter, in its headline, credits him with "ideas and naivete," while their profile of Jim Francesconi, in its headline, says that he's "impossible to pigeonhole."
Candidate profiles were in the air yesterday, as The Oregonian offered its own look not just at the Mayoral candidates but those for City Council as well. They also published a scorecard on random and somewhat idle questions.
Back in yesterday's Tribune, columnist Promise King attacked the attack ads and advises voters thusly: "The way out of that trap is to question every 30-second sound bite for accuracy."
Almost finally, there's a brief note on the Potter website saying he picked up the endorsement of the local chapter of the Green Party.
And a brief extra note, since some of our readers know about a plan we had but hadn't publicly announced. Originally, several days this week had been scheduled for Fish and his opponent Sam Adams to engage in a PORTLAND COMMUNIQUE debate, conducted on a private, non-public website and then posted in its entirety here. Unfortunately, some non-campaign matters arose that required Fish's more immediate attention, and so those plans have been cancelled.
As of today, there are no plans to reschedule, mainly because of the time and energy it takes to play go-between in order to negotiate with two political campaigns on such matters. If for some reason the plan is revived, we will of course pass the word along here.
Comments (25)
Jack Bog on 08 Sep 2004
Re: the push poll. Doesn't anyone have caller ID?
William on 08 Sep 2004
I was under the impression that many telemarketers, etc, have their number blocked. I would imagine that a nasty push poll wouldn't want to identify itself.
At the same time, I have the feeling that push polls backfire when they're done so far in advance; the truth has time to come to light. That's why I don't think the Sam Adams campaign is behind this. Even if they were going to play dirty, why would they play dirty in such a risky way?
Raj on 09 Sep 2004
Enough naivete. Look at those behind the dirty Francesconi tactics (Kaufman-Weiner) who have their fingerprints all over the Adams campaign. Who else would want to smear Fish?
Behind The Scenes on 09 Sep 2004
Hmmm - so, aside from the Fish campaign, who has actually gotten one of these push polls? This is getting curious. Push polls are not used with selective samples. To be effective they need to actually reach enough voters to effect the outcome of the election. If someone is really using push polls you will likely know several people personally who got them.
On the other hand, if this is rumour being planted by someone in the Fish campaign you will only get more second hand reports.
The One True b!X on 09 Sep 2004
Apparently, tomorrow's Oregonian is supposed to have something on... a poll out of the Sam Adams campaign. His opponent appears rather certain that it's the self-same poll that we've been discussing here, and that the Adams campaign disavowed, but I suppose we will all have to wait until tomorrow's paper to see if there's any clear indication.
doretta on 10 Sep 2004
The only blurb I saw in this morning's Oregonian about an Adams poll was about a real poll that reportedly surveyed 400 likely voters.
That's clearly not a push poll given the small sample size and the fact that they actually recorded the results.
What I want to know is what Nick Fish or his campaign said that led you to say they were fairly certain it was the poll we were discussing here.
I guess a campaign might ask really stupid questions smearing an opponent just to get the poll results to look more favorable. That would seem like a really stupid tactic though. Has anyone asked the Adams campaign exactly what questions were asked in that poll?
The One True b!X on 10 Sep 2004
Has anyone asked the Adams campaign exactly what questions were asked in that poll?
I'm sure someone has, just not me. Then again, I didn't know until last night that there happened to be a real poll of some sort, regardless of whether or not it is also the push-poll.
(And on that count, for what it's worth, push-poll questions are sometimes nested inside real polls, rather than being entirely separate entities.)
Behind the Scenes on 10 Sep 2004
(And on that count, for what it's worth, push-poll questions are sometimes nested inside real polls, rather than being entirely separate entities.)
This is confusing push-polling, which is a campaign technique, with push-questions, which are a legitimate polling device used by almost every campaign.
For instance, either of these two campaigns might poll the effect on voters of knowing (or of being reminded) that Sam Adams worked for Vera Katz. To do that they would ask "Would you be more or less likely to vote for Sam Adams if ..." The if part would vary depending on whether you wanted to know how it might help (the Adams campaign's interest) or hurt (the Fish campaign's). Adams might ask "if you knew Vera Katz has said Adams was instrumental in her success as mayor" while Fish would ask "if you knew Adams supported many of Vera Katz's biggest failures".
Here are the third or fourth hand versions of the questions allegedly asked:
if they "knew that he just recently moved to town and doesn't really care about Portland" or "that he is beholden to special interests and doesn't really care about people like you." In addition, the caller apparently insinuated that Fish has lied on his resume and placed false statements on his website.
These don't seem like particularly sinister questions if asked of only 400 voters to find out whether people care about how long Fish has lived here or has padded his resume. Of course Adams still has to prove the claims are true - but he isn't using the poll to imply they are, only to test whether anyone cares. Which is the difference between a push-poll and a push-questions.
There is no doubt that one of the favorite games of political insiders in Portland is doing whispering campaigns about their opponent's alleged negative campaign tactics. Its especially effectively used by front runners to innoculate themselves against any criticism.
The One True b!X on 10 Sep 2004
These don't seem like particularly sinister questions if asked of only 400 voters to find out whether people care about how long Fish has lived here or has padded his resume. Of course Adams still has to prove the claims are true - but he isn't using the poll to imply they are, only to test whether anyone cares. Which is the difference between a push-poll and a push-questions.
That's a difference without a distinction. If a poll of any kind makes implications of that sort (particularly the matter of lying on ones resume and/or website) is not merely seeing what voters think of it -- they are insinuating to voters that they are true facts.
Perhaps in the world of insider baseball and political operatives there is a distinction here. To me, there is not. Any poll that places unproven allegations into a poll is using a negative campaign tactic, not polling to see what people think.
Behind the Scenes on 10 Sep 2004
Perhaps in the world of insider baseball and political operatives
Isn't that the world you are operating in when spreading unsubstantiated rumours about "push-polls"?
there is a distinction here. To me, there is not.
I think most people can understand the distinction between a poll of 400 people to find out how they react to an argument and one that is designed to persuade voters.
Any poll that places unproven allegations into a poll is using a negative campaign tactic
Sort of like your question about Adams here? "What would you do if you knew that Sam Adams campaign was behind this push-poll?" Where is the proof?
Behind the Scenes on 10 Sep 2004
One other point. Candidates sometimes ask push-questions even about their own perceived negatives. If in fact there are arguable innaccuracies on Fish's website or he did pad his resume in some way, then these polling questions could come from his own campaign to find out what the impact would be and whether he needs to deal with them. I doubt that is the case here - but it tells you the difference between push-questions and push-polls.
The fact is that most negative campaign charges are themselves just a form of negative campaigning. Which is why they are often done as whispering campaigns as seems to be the case here.
The One True b!X on 10 Sep 2004
Isn't that the world you are operating in when spreading unsubstantiated rumours about "push-polls"?
Given that I don't believe in the distinction between "push polls" and "push questions" in a regular poll, there is no unsubstantiated rumor here. A poll existed that pushed these insinuations onto respondants. That's a given.
I think most people can understand the distinction between a poll of 400 people to find out how they react to an argument and one that is designed to persuade voters.
People may see a distinction because the insider baseball/political operative crowd tell them there is one. But when a survey specifically raises negatives against a candidate, it's inherently planting those negatives in the minds of respondants. Whether insiders use the term of art "push poll" to describe this is irrelevant to me, and to the effect raising those negatives has. Some may call it standard operating procedure, some may call it "opposition research" -- I call it what it is: Planting negatives in the minds of respondants.
While a massive survey intended solely to do this may be what insiders/operatives call a push poll, that in no way means that doing it in just a few questions in a "regular" poll to a fewer number of people doesn't have the same effect upon those fewer people.
Sort of like your question about Adams here? "What would you do if you knew that Sam Adams campaign was behind this push-poll?" Where is the proof?
I never asked that question. So far, I've posted about the Adams campaign flatly denying the push questions were theirs, and about Fish seeming fairly sure that they were. I have never asked anything resembling the question you quote here.
Behind The Scenes on 10 Sep 2004
Given that I don't believe in the distinction between "push polls" and "push questions" in a regular poll, there is no unsubstantiated rumor here. A poll existed that pushed these insinuations onto respondants. That's a given.
What is a given is that the Fish campaign is spreading this rumour whether true or not.
Aside from the Fish campaign all we have is you telling us that a few anonymous individuals told you that someone else told them that they had been asked questions something like the ones you have published. Most people call that a rumour - apparently they aren't in the online journalism business.
I voted for Sam Adams in the primary and likely will again this fall, but I have nothing against Nick Fish. I am not a political insider - but I do pay attention to how the media spins things to fit its agenda.
I never asked that question.
No you spun it differently.
But I answered the question you did ask. The Fish campaign itself would have an interest in polling the topics you list if the accusations were true.
The One True b!X on 10 Sep 2004
What is a given is that the Fish campaign is spreading this rumour whether true or not.
Well, it's a rumor to you because you don't find me a credible source of reporting that the push-question'd poll exists. That's fine, you don't have to. But I also don't have to reveal my sources to you just to get you to believe it. They are anonymous to you but not to me. Whether you choose to accept what I've reported about it is entirely your decision and isn't something I can control.
No you spun it differently.
I didn't spin it at all. The only things that I did, as I already said, was print the Adams campaign denial and Fish's dispute of that denial. Any number of people in the process have leapt in saying "Oh, it's Adams!" or "Oh, it's Fish!" -- I came down on neither side of that because I simply do not know either way.
The One True b!X on 10 Sep 2004
And believe me, I'd like to know either way. Because if it's Adams (whose campaign denies it), then I dislike the behavior and dislike what would be a flatly false denial. If it's Fish (whose campaign says that haven't polled at all), then I dislike the attempt to make it sound like it's Adams.
But as I said, I really do have no earthly idea.
Behind the Scenes on 10 Sep 2004
Well, it's a rumor to you because you don't find me a credible source of reporting that the push-question'd poll exists.
You don't have any first hand sources. Even if your report of what they said is accurate - and I assume you take notes - we don't know if their report of what they were told was accurate. Or that what they were told was asked in the poll was an accurate description of the actual questions. Its doubtful that either of them took notes. Its a rumour and your reports indicate the Fish campaign is encouraging it.
Because if it's Adams (whose campaign denies it), then I dislike the behavior
I am curious what it is you dislike about the behavior. All negative campaigning? On that score I agree with you - I can't imagine caring about Fish padding his resume or how long he has lived in Portland. But that can't be it - since you don't seem to have have a problem with the Fish campaign going after Adams.
You do realize that the only reason for the Adams campaign to ask a selective sample of people if they care about Fish padding his resume is if they have the evidence to make the charge stick in public as part of the campaign. Its not like a push-poll to thousands of voters where the whole point is to make charges without ever having to prove they are true or even be associated with them.
Frankly the fact that you see no distinction between the two puzzles me.
The One True b!X on 10 Sep 2004
I am curious what it is you dislike about the behavior. All negative campaigning? On that score I agree with you - I can't imagine caring about Fish padding his resume or how long he has lived in Portland. But that can't be it - since you don't seem to have have a problem with the Fish campaign going after Adams.
Well, see, now you're just lying. What did I just post? Let's see it again:
If it's Fish (whose campaign says that haven't polled at all), then I dislike the attempt to make it sound like it's Adams.
Obviously, I do have a problem with anything that might clearly be considered negative tactics from Fish to Adams. So maybe you'd like to try again with the above remark, because either you're just outright lying about my position, or you're not reading what I'm saying. Your pick.
You do realize that the only reason for the Adams campaign to ask a selective sample of people if they care about Fish padding his resume is if they have the evidence to make the charge stick in public as part of the campaign.
Two things here. One, even just within the above context, for the sake of argument, I'd still find it to be cowardly if nothing else. If you have a charge that you think can make, and you're willing to do so, then just do it. Don't poll to see if it will fly. I understand it's standard operating procedure to do it this way, but that doesn't mean people should accept it.
Two, my concern is with effect -- not intent, and not whatever it is that insiders call it. The effect of raising negatives of any kind, in a poll of any size, is to plant that negative in the minds of respondants, who will then likely pass it along. And that, in the world of effect, is a push.
Behind the Scenes on 10 Sep 2004
"If it's Fish (whose campaign says that haven't polled at all), then I dislike the attempt to make it sound like it's Adams."
Obviously, I do have a problem with anything that might clearly be considered negative tactics from Fish to Adams.
My point was that I thought it was absolutely clear that the Fish campaign is implying Adams is doing push-polling. It doesn't matter whether it is true or not, it is going negative and you seemed to be only concerned about that if it isn't true.
If you have a charge that you think can make, and you're willing to do so, then just do it.
Why would you spend money telling people things they don't care about? In a perfect world where they had unlimited resources and people's unlimited attention I suppose that would be a good idea. But personally I would prefer that campaigns address things I do care about rather than wasting my time with debating charges about things I don't.
Read this whole discussion - should we really vote based on this debate about candidate campaign tactics, rather than what these two candidates are going to do for us and the city if elected?
The One True b!X on 10 Sep 2004
My point was that I thought it was absolutely clear that the Fish campaign is implying Adams is doing push-polling. It doesn't matter whether it is true or not, it is going negative and you seemed to be only concerned about that if it isn't true.
There's a fair cop here. Barring evidence that the push questions are Adams' then yes, you're quite right, I should be more clear that any allegation that they are Adams' in and of itself is a negative smear of which I don't approve. I wasn't following what you were arguing.
Why would you spend money telling people things they don't care about?
Here we simply have a different worldview. I would rather candidates discuss what they believe is important, and let the voters decide whether they happen to agree. Deciding on talking points based upon what theoretically "plays well" to me is a perversion. From the inside, this is just the way things are done, and it seems almost self-evident. To those of us like myself who are cynics in the sense of bring frustrated optimists, I reserve the right to suggest that the "way things are done" might just possibly be crap.
Read this whole discussion - should we really vote based on this debate about candidate campaign tactics, rather than what these two candidates are going to do for us and the city if elected?
I never asserted campaign tactics were the be all end all of hwo to decide one's vote. But do I think they are relevant? Yes, I do.
Behind The Scenes on 11 Sep 2004
Barring evidence that the push questions are Adams' then yes, you're quite right,
Well, now I am confused. What difference does it make whether the push questions are Adams' or not? It doesn't matter any more than it matters whether Fish has padded his resume. Its still negative campaigning.
You know the Fish campaign has gone negative, you think the Adams campaign might be. And even if the Adams campaign is by your definition, it is with a very small group of people. While Fish is clearly trying to reach a larger audience with its negatives. Why the focus on Adams?
But do I think they are relevant? Yes, I do.
That's not surprising, journalists have always found the horse race aspects of politics easier to cover.
I would rather candidates discuss what they believe is important, and let the voters decide whether they happen to agree. Deciding on talking points based upon what theoretically "plays well" to me is a perversion.
I agree. But that is a critique that applies to every candidate and every poll they do, push-questions or not. So you can criticize Adams for doing polling to tailor his message. But that same criticism applies to virtually every other candidate - including Fish. Even those who can't afford their own polls, tailor their message to their audience.
I reserve the right to suggest that the "way things are done" might just possibly be crap.
I might suggest you start with anonymous source journalism.
The One True b!X on 11 Sep 2004
Well, now I am confused. What difference does it make whether the push questions are Adams' or not?
Because if it were clear and proven that they were from the Adams camp, stating that fact would simply be stating a fact. Without such evidence, claiming or insinuating that the questions are from Adams' camp is simply a smear. It wouldn't be a smear if (1) it were true and (2) the proof that it was true was clear.
(And just so everyone is clear, remember that we still don't know one way or the other where those questions came from. Also, lest anyone has fogotten as "Behind the Scenes" proceeds to paint a picture that I have some sort of anti-Adams bias, remember also that I endorsed him during the primary campaign.)
That's not surprising, journalists have always found the horse race aspects of politics easier to cover.
(1) Tactics reveal things about candidates, because they show what sorts of decisison they make.
(2) Nice selective editing. I said that they are relevant but not the be all end all of a voter's decision. Did you forget that part?
(3) If I were a tactics-only reporter, why would I bother reporting on the substance and content of candidate forums and discussions at all? Would I haul out to 97th and East Burnside to watch individual candidates take questions for 1 1/2 to 2 hours a piece and publish about it here if I were somehow obsessively focused on tactics?
So since we're asking questions of each other about focus: Why the focus on only half of what I'm saying while ignoring the other half?
But that is a critique that applies to every candidate and every poll they do, push-questions or not.
Only if the poll gets into specifics. If it's a straight-out "so, who are you going to vote for" poll, it tells the candidate nothing about what to talk about (although it could implicitly tell them what they are talking about isn't working).
I might suggest you start with anonymous source journalism.
Says the commenter with no name.
Behind the Scenes on 11 Sep 2004
Because if it were clear and proven that they were from the Adams camp, stating that fact would simply be stating a fact.
As would stating that Fish had padded his resume if that were true. As I pointed out, there isn't much point in asking a push-question about a fact which isn't true. So I am still unclear what your objection would be - assuming the factual accuracy of the statements about Fish. Are you opposed to negative attacks, only those that are untrue or only those that offend some innate sensibility?
If it's a straight-out "so, who are you going to vote for" poll, it tells the candidate nothing about what to talk about.
You don't have to be an insider to understand candidates don't do those kinds of polls unless its to convince donors they can win.
Why the focus on only half of what I'm saying while ignoring the other half?
I focus on the parts I find interesting. I think that is more than half.
Tactics reveal things about candidates, because they show what sorts of decisison they make.
As do the clothes they wear. I'm not sure either one reveals much about what they will do once elected or how well they will do it.
In this case, apparently the objection it to tailoring a message to the audience. But you know they are doing that just from their running for office. I'm not sure what it tells you about their decisions making that they use polling to determine how to tailor their message. Almost every candidate that can afford it does that too.
lest anyone has fogotten as "Behind the Scenes" proceeds to paint a picture that I have some sort of anti-Adams bias
The thought had occurred to me that you were a Fish supporter, but mostly I have assumed that you buy into conventional journalistic cliches. Negative campaigning is bad unless it is negative campaigning against negative campaining.
Presented with a claim that someone is "push-polling" some facts about Fish, you assumed the facts were false and that it was a sleazy campaign tactic. You then did the cliche media story about it.
Says the commenter with no name.
Just can call me "a high state department official" or "a western diplomat" depending on whether or not I want your readers to know what country I am from.
William on 11 Sep 2004
Raj, I'll admit that I haven't done my homework, but how do you know that Kaufman-Weiner "have their fingerprints all over the Adams campaign"? And either way, wouldn't you say that the push-polling done for the Francesconi camp backfired? So why would it work if done for the Adams camp? Is the Kaufman-Weiner team, or any local observer, too stupid to learn? Possibly so, but I would hope not. The lesson is that, yes, push-polls really can backfire when people have time to find out about them. Maybe that's why the Bush campaign did them at the last minute against McCain in 2000.
William on 11 Sep 2004
Behind the Scenes,
I'm not sure either one reveals much about what they will do once elected or how well they will do it.
In this case, apparently the objection it to tailoring a message to the audience. But you know they are doing that just from their running for office. I'm not sure what it tells you about their decisions making that they use polling to determine how to tailor their message.
So you're not sure that the relentlessly negative tactics of the Bush Campaign (to use a more black and white example than we have before us) reveal much about what Bush would do if elected? When a person displays the willingness to stoop to a very low level, that tells me plenty. If a person has polls conducted that merely entertain the possibility of using negative campaigning, that tells me something, too.
The distinction between "tailoring a message to the audience" and running a negative campaign is tremendous. But I suspect you already knew that, and perhaps that tells me something about you.
The One True b!X on 11 Sep 2004
As would stating that Fish had padded his resume if that were true.
Hey, if it's true, then use it openly and publicly, not hidden in a telephone survey. And let the chips and opinions fall where they may when it comes to both candidates.
Are you opposed to negative attacks, only those that are untrue or only those that offend some innate sensibility?
I don't have any inherent issue with mentioning facts that reflect poorly on an opponent, although in practice no one ever seems very capable of doing so without melodrama, or without distortion, or outside of using it as a distraction.
You don't have to be an insider to understand candidates don't do those kinds of polls unless its to convince donors they can win.
Well, we'll all be having that debate shortly as we get into the "clean money" proposal some more. For now: That there is a commonly-accepted and insider-consensus reason for such things doesn't mean they are how we should conduct the business of politics.
In this case, apparently the objection it to tailoring a message to the audience. But you know they are doing that just from their running for office.
What should be clear to people by now is that many of my objections stem from the lazy acceptance of political behavior that's manipulative. Message tailoring and testing is a perversion of the democratic process. I'm not sure why it's so problematic for you that I insist in my own little ways that we be better than that -- fully understanding that it may very well be little more than tilting at windmills to do so.
Presented with a claim that someone is "push-polling" some facts about Fish, you assumed the facts were false and that it was a sleazy campaign tactic.
I consider it sleazy to not have the balls to raise the allegations -- true or otherwise -- out in the open instead of hiding them or "testing" them in a poll.