September 29, 2004
Who Is Polling Negatives About Sam Adams?
Someone Apparently Commissioned The Infamous McGuire Research
Back in May, as the primary campaign was winding down, Oregonian columnist Steve Duin reported on a negative poll which asked respondents about Mayoral candidate Tom Potter. It got picked up by Willamette Week as well, and Duin himself filed a follow-up a week or so later.
There was, as we commented at the time, some cofnusion as to whether or not the poll in question was commissioned by the Jim Francesconi campaign itself -- something we don't think we've ever seen anyone report definitively.
(It was also, we should note, the first time watchers of local politics were faced with a debate over "push polling" and its related activities during this election cycle.)
It seems that our friends at McGuire Research may be at it again, only this time they've turned their attention to the City Council race between Sam Adams and Nick Fish, in a telephone survey conducted last week.
During the survey -- conducted last week -- respondents were asked if they were familiar with the two candidates, who they would vote for if the election were held today, and whether their support for that candidate was strong. So far, reports from respondents claim that the next series of questions presented a set of positive descriptions of Fish alongside a set of negative description of Adams.
Among these, according to respondents, were the characterizations that Fish "loves this City" and has "worked hard, tackling tough jobs," and the charges that Adams is running "away from his record" as Mayor Vera Katz's chief of staff and that during his tenure funding for the City's gang task force declined.
According to respondents, the survey also asked their opinion of various groups and individuals who may have made endorsements in the City Council race, including Willamette Week, the firefighters' union, Portland Business Alliance, Barbara Roberts, Vic Atiyeh, and Tom Potter.
As described to us by respondents, the poll appeared specifically geared to generate a negative impression of Adams and a positive one of Fish.
When the previous McGuire survey was outed in May, the obvious question for the Francesconi campaign was whether or not they had commissioned it (see the links at the start of this item for that open question). So the obvious question now is whether or not this new survey was commissioned by the Fish campaign.
"Our polling is done by Grove Insight," Aimee Wilson of the Fish campaign told us. "We have no plans to make public the results of any polling."
Which leaves the next obvious question: What party or parties in Portland stands to gain from a telephone survey clearly designed to push negatives about Adams? If it's not the Fish campaign itself, we would tend to suspect someone or some organization that has backed Fish in this race.
As of the posting of this item, McGuire Research has not yet responded to our inquiry as to who commissioned them to conduct this poll. Then again, as reported by Willamette Week in May, they "weren't talking" when asked about the primary poll smearing Potter. So we aren't holding our breath.
Comments (15)
Amanda on 30 Sep 2004
Interesting. Let's take as truth the Francesconi/Fish campaigns' claims they're not responsible. Logically, whoever paid for the push polls is a supporter of the favored candidate, and has the ability to finance an independent effort. So those giving big money to Jim/Nick on the campaign financing reports would seem to be the most likely sources ...unless whoever it is put all their cash into the push polling and none into the regular routes.
The One True b!X on 30 Sep 2004
Well, that is the question, isn't it.
JJ on 30 Sep 2004
It got hit with this last week. At the time, I transcibed the details...but they are on my home computer, not here at my work computer. I can post my record of the call later tonight if you wish.
The One True b!X on 30 Sep 2004
I can post my record of the call later tonight if you wish.
Yes.
a user on 01 Oct 2004
B!x, I think you deem something a push poll far too quickly.
I'm not sure either of these polls deserve the designation "push polls." The definition of a push poll is: "A push poll is where, using the guise of opinion polling, disinformation about a candidate or issue is planted in the minds of those being 'surveyed'. Push-polls are designed to shape, rather than measure, public opinion." ( Push poll defined )
It is standard practice for a poll to test out the effectiveness of particular phrases that might be planned to be used in a campaign. The Fish poll sounds like it trotted out a few of these. The rest of the content (e.g. feelings about various groups in Portland) is standard stuff.
Finally note that a poll of 500 people, at a cost of thousands or 10's of thousands of dollars, is an awfully inefficient way to push negatives about a candidate.
The One True b!X on 01 Oct 2004
Sigh. I didn't label this a push poll. I referred to push polls and related activities, because I have inherent philosophical objections to polling negatives at all, which I've already covered here.
In addition: A poll which asks only about positives for one candidate and only about negative for the opposing candidate is obviously attempting to give voters an opinion, not merely find out the voters' opinion.
The One True b!X on 01 Oct 2004
Or, at the very least, trying to skew the results of the poll itself.
a user on 04 Oct 2004
c'mon B!x. You write "What party or parties in Portland stands to gain from a telephone survey clearly designed to push negatives about Adams? If it's not the Fish campaign itself, we would tend to suspect someone or some organization that has backed Fish in this race."
Earlier in the story you write: "(It was also, we should note, the first time watchers of local politics were faced with a debate over "push polling" and its related activities during this election cycle.)"
Yet this story is not about push polling. no, it is about "pushing negatives". Right. I see the difference there.
A poll that is trying to test positive statements about candidate A and negative statements about candidate B is part of the standard campaign repetoire.
You may have "inherent philosophical objections" (why is inherent in that clause by the way? what is that supposed to mean?) but your next sentence is key: "In addition: A poll which asks only about positives for one candidate and only about negative for the opposing candidate is obviously attempting to give voters an opinion, not merely find out the voters' opinion."
So you do think this is a push poll.
Sorry, b!x, but your bias is showing here.
The One True b!X on 04 Oct 2004
Yes, you're right. I have a bias against how polls work. The "this is how polls are done" and "everyone does it" arguments don't wash with me. I thought we had already established that fairly openly.
Anne Dufay on 04 Oct 2004
I read B!x's "inherent" as meaning "gut-level" and, I get it.
This isn't really an argument about some fine semantical line, much as I enjoy those when appropriate.
This is about people's dislike of being manipulated, particularly when it's done with subterfuge.
Politicians hire market research firms to do these "polls." The pollsters never identify who paid for them, and use and rely on the mistaken presumption of the general public that "polls" are by definition unbiased and "scientific" measurement tools being conducted by some reputable organization that of course they can't remember the name of.
It's disingenuous to say that they say "something positive about candidate A", and "something negative about candidate B". No... they say something positive about the candidate paying for the "poll" and something negative about his/her rival.
There's a difference...
Because these "polls" never identify who got the pockets behind them I think they are more comparable to spam than anything else. They even attempt to "spoof" their "from" lines - yup, I'm an "independent pollster" and I got a bank account in Nigeria I want to talk to you about...
Maybe, to clarify the argument, we should come up with a new name for these puppies - how about “spam-polls”?
BTW - the argument that these polls are “politics as usual” and therefor somehow by definition ok is really, really funny.
Anne Dufay on 04 Oct 2004
hum, on reflection I retract my nominee "spam-polls." I think "poll-spam" sounds better...
It's got a lighter lilt on the tongue... and then there are all those fine echoes and alliterations - it takes but a second of silly-time to get from poll-spam to poll-spawn to devil-spawn --
hee.
The One True b!X on 04 Oct 2004
Unless by "bias" the mystery a user was referring to the race itself, in which case I suppose I must offer a reminder that my polling coverage began with a post about someone polling negatives about Nick Fish. So, no, that can't be the bias you were referring to, can it?
a user on 05 Oct 2004
anne,
you mistakenly assume that the poll results are being used to try to further influence the public. nothing could be further from the truth.
these polls are not being used to dupe an unsuspecting public. the only reason these polls have been publicized is that someone emailed b!x some comments about them.
these were intended to be strictly in house political intelligence for the campaigns and should be understood solely in that context.
The One True b!X on 05 Oct 2004
Which goes to my deeper issue with "standard operating procedure" for polls, beyond the question of what pushes and what doesn't.
The only reason one polls negatives is to see if they will play well. In my version of the more perfect world, candidates (or their supporters) who are the sort of people inclined to believe that going negative might be a good idea should simply have the balls to do so and let the chips fall where they may.
In some sense, there's a character issue involved, and I happen to believe voters should know whether or not the candidates (or their supporters) are people who support the idea of going negative.
Especially in this race, where both candidates (and presumably their supporters) talk a lot about transparency in government. Let's have some transparency in politics, too, then.
Thinking going negative is okay? Then just do it, and let voters see what kind of person you are.
Anne Dufay on 06 Oct 2004
a user - I'm sure that this market research was intended, as you say, to explore the possible "return" on making certain negative charges against an opposing candidate. And, I'm sure this is common practice, no doubt employed by candidates I support, as well as those I don't support.
That doesn't change the basic issue, for me -- the careful wiping off of all fingerprints from the scene…
Do the research, if that's the route you've decided to take, fine by me. But use the same standards of full disclosure you would later use on any ad the research might result in. “Hi, I’m Anne Dufay, I’m doing research for the re-elect Commissioner X campaign. Would you be willing to tell me what you think of a few charges we are considering making against Hopeful Candidate Y?”
This way, if a whisper, oops, research measure, balloons in that “Swift Boat kind of way” (I know, I know, you only call 400 people, none of whom are presumed to be internet junkies, or even back-fence gossips…) and it is baseless, or, just plain base, the initiator will be standing fair and square behind it.
It’s a small thing, for sure, but the way these “polls” are practiced is just one more corrosive little drip of acid out of the manipulative world of advertising. IMO