Push Polling Against John Roberts?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Bad Decisions, Supreme CourtI hate push polling. I hated it when Bush did it to McCain and I hate it even more when members of my own party could be doing it.
That’s why I was especially disheartened to hear news from The Volokh Conspiracy that a friend of his had a gotten phone call talking about John Roberts wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade.
If you’re unfamiliar with the term, let me (and Volokh) enlighten you:
A “Push Poll” is a telemarketing technique in which telephone calls are used to canvass vast numbers of potential voters, feeding them false and damaging “information” about a candidate under the guise of taking a poll to see how this “information” effects voter preferences. In fact, the intent is to “push” the voters away from one candidate and toward the opposing candidate. This is clearly political telemarketing, using innuendo and, in many cases, clearly false information to influence voters; there is no intent to conduct research. fake polling calls designed to use the perceived legitimacy of polling questions as a way of creating an impression about an event or person.
In other words, it seeds people with a false impression of the person being “polled” in order to have the voter think a certain way about them. It’s a very slimy, disgusting and wrong way to go about things. So how did Volokh find out about it?
My well-placed and reliable source received a call today from someone claiming to be a pollster from the apparently nonexistent “LST Research Center” who was conducting an opinion poll. The poll consisted of two questions. The first question was whether she was pro-life or pro-choice. When my well-placed and reliable source answered that she was pro-choice, the caller then asked for her views on the President’s decision to nominate someone who wanted the Supreme Court to overrule Roe v. Wade. My well-placed and reliable source then began arguing with the caller about the inaccuracy of the factual premise; the caller said that she was just reading from a script, didn’t really know the details, and then hung up.
Of course I can’t confirm this, but I trust Volokh.
Today is a sad day indeed.
This entry was posted on Saturday, August 6th, 2005 and is filed under Bad Decisions, Supreme Court. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 6th, 2005 at 9:16 am
Incidentally, push polling, and its use in FLorida, is one reason I will never vote for a Democrat again. I am sure Reps have used the tactic, but they never seem as effective at it. You couldn’t be more right about its sliminess…..
August 6th, 2005 at 2:33 pm
Well, let’s be fair Icepick. There are many more reports of it being employed by the Repubs against candidates of the Democratic persuasion because I believe the technique was invented by Lee Atwater, Bush Sr.’s closet campaign adviser. I’m not laying blame at the Republican’s footstep, but a Republican invented it and both Bush’s have used it. And trust me, it is VERY effective when used against Dems.
August 6th, 2005 at 4:08 pm
My main memory of it is Lawton Chiles using it to defeat Jeb Bush in the 1994 Florida Governor’s race. It was effective enough to keep Jeb Bush out of office.
After that came out I swore I would never vote for a Democrat again, and changed party affiliation. Every time I had ever voted for a Democrat I’ve ended up being disgusted with my vote. It only happens half the time when I vote Republican. (It never happens when I vote third party, because they never have a chance to win.)
And one final point: let’s remember that this time around it is the Dems doing it, for the simple reason that they want Bush to fail in every way possible.
August 6th, 2005 at 7:25 pm
Agreed. If some Dem-affiliated organization is doing this, the Dems should speak out. “Not In My Name” if you will. I’m a Dem and I’m speaking out against this nonsense.
However, please tell me how Lawton Chiles did it. The times I’ve heard about it, the pushing has come from the right and has been about race, abortion, guns, gays and god. As I’m sure you can guess, those tactics don’t really make me want to vote for Republicans either.
And besides, Bush’s use of it in the 2000 primaries was nearly unforgivable. I’m sure McCain still holds that in the back of his mind when he’s standing up defending Bush. How could he go after the fact that McCain and his wife adopted an Asian child and turn it around to push poll people with the idea that he fathered an illegitimate African American child? If I were in McCain’s position, it would take all my strength not to give Bush a nice gut punch for letting that happen.
August 6th, 2005 at 9:41 pm
I’m having a surprisingly hard time finding reports on Chiles push-polling, but here is one link
http://www.flains.org/fic/pubs/news/981029Ad.htm
and here is another that references the Chiles case 11 paragraphs in
http://www.sptimes.com/News/022600/State/GOP_is_cleared_in__pu.shtml
You’ll like the second one, as Reps get fingered. ;-)
I’ve been trying to find the report by the FLA state government on this topic, but have been unsuccessful so far. If I find it, I’ll post the link, but I’ll probably forget about it by morning.
As for the push poll concerning McCain’s daughter, that was a pretty slimy trick. And it’s crap like that why I don’t get involved with campaigns or parties, other than voting. (Although I did go to a Bush rally last October.)
I will say though, that the beatifying of John McCain, Savior of Democracy is sickening. He didn’t rise up through Arizona politics by being a Boy Scout. For all the Ken Lay/GWB talk we have heard, why hasn’t the news media made more of a point of McCain’s ties to Frank Keating? After all, McCain DID recieve more Keating campaign money than any of the other four members of the Keating Five. But no, McCain’s visit to the regulators was just for informational purposes, no pressure at all, nope. (I attribute it solely to McCain’s relative inexperience.) The only time taking money from big contributors is bad is when someone other than The Great Leader, The Mighty & Exalted John F. McCain, Righteous Defender of the Faith, accepts them. What a joke….
August 6th, 2005 at 10:40 pm
Okay, it looks like the two best articles on Lawton Chiles push polling in 1994 are in the Wash Post archives.
The first article:
The second article is entitled Chiles Admits Campaign Made ‘Scare Calls’ in ’94 Florida Gubernatorial Race WASH. POST, Nov. 10, 1995, at A4. I can’t find it searching in the archives.
I found out about these articles from this Florida State University Law Review article: THE POLITICS OF ETHICS AND ELECTIONS: CAN NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING BE REGULATED IN FLORIDA? by Cleveland Ferguson III. Sorry I can’t find free links.
August 7th, 2005 at 2:27 am
“It was effective enough to keep Jeb Bush out of office.”
You write that like it’s a _bad_ thing. Or did you enjoy the whole Terri Schiavo circus? (I’m from Florida, but I haven’t lived there for a long time).
August 7th, 2005 at 9:37 am
Micael Farris: Spare me the passive-aggressive bullsh*t. If you have nothing better than insults, please direct them elsewhere.
August 7th, 2005 at 11:12 am
Icepick, I’ll be direct as possible. “I will never vote for a Democrat again” is the statement of a fool, especially since the tactic that drove you away is used more by republicans against democrats. Tough talk doesn’t make foolish thought any wiser.
August 7th, 2005 at 11:45 am
Michael, and your “As long as it keeps the Republicans out of office I’m for it” statement is the height of considered reason?
As for not wanting to vote Democrat again, there were many reasons for it. Chiles push-polling was simply the final straw.
And apparently they don’t want me. The head of the Democratic party recently commented, for example, that no Republican ever held an honest job. Given their evident dislike, nay, hatred, of me, I see no reason to vote for them. That is a highly rational position.
Oh, and I wonder if you would ever vote Republican? Apparently not, as only Republicans enjoy making sport of braindead women, and you are above that sort of thing.
August 7th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
My attitude is not “good if it keeps republicans out of office” it’s “good if it kept Jeb Bush out of office”.
I have voted for republicans in the past and I’m certain I will again. My policy is to vote by candidate, not party. I could conceivably even be convinced to vote for Jeb, it’s just extremely unlikely.
August 7th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
Come on. I’ve denounced the statement here and I know Dean doesn’t speak for me. That doesn’t stop me from supporting what I believe in. I didn’t like Terry Macaullife either, but I still supported my party because I knew what I believed in. In other words, I think you’re being fairly reactionary and trying to find excuses. There are just as many instances on the other side of the aisle of people saying idiotic things.
And Michael, I think Icepick has demonstrated that she is hardly a fool. I’d think twice before throwing salvos like that out there.
August 7th, 2005 at 2:31 pm
She? I’ve finally done it! I can now be the lesbian I always dreamed of being!
As for people in the Republican party, or more precisely individual Republicans, making idiotic comments, yep, it happens all the time. However, I don’t recall any RNC Chair ever saying that ALL Democrats had serious character flaws. (I’m willing to concede it may have happened, but I know of no such time.) Basically, they can’t, for “Reagan Democrats” are essential to Republican electoral success.
And yes Justin, you have repudiated that statement. However, you aren’t Dean’s boss, nor are you a member of the Democratic Party’s leadership. (Sorry if I’m wrong on this.) And given that Dean is still around, I have no reason to believe that the leadership feels any differently.
As for being reactionary, well, I am a conservative: it’s what we do! Down with the French Revolution! Bring back the Bourbons!
Seriously, though, I’m not looking for excuses to not vote Democratic. I have no reason to vote for them. Even when I find myself agreeing with the Democrats on substance, it’s either areas where both parties have people I agree and disagree with (e.g. free trade), or areas where I may agree with the main thrust of the moment, but don’t like the rhetoric and don’t like the direction things are headed (e.g. the Terry Schiavo case).
But why would I vote for a Dem? On foreign policy, I pretty much side with the neo-cons. I consider the general thrust of Bush’s foreign policy the least bad option. (Not to say I don’t have issues with how it’s been implemented.) While there may be Dems like Lieberman or HRC who are hawks, that really is anathema to the Dem mainstream. And a good many Dems seem to want to cut and run at first opportunity. (Some Reps to, granted.)
Domestic policy? What IS Dem domestic policy? It seems to me that the only perscriptions offered are more laws, more government regulations, more money thrown at problems. Well, I’m really not for THAT. And in fact, given that this method has become the main perscription of the Republican Congress and President, I don’t really want to vote for them either.
Really, the Democratic Party hasn’t offered me anything to vote for, and if I were going to vote against the Reps, the Dems would have to convince me that they wouldn’t be complete anathema to me. They’re not willing to do that, so I don’t have to consider voting for them.
And Michael, I’m not really convinced by your protestation that you’d ever vote for a Republican. Your sneering condemnations sould more like something a DNC Chairman would say.
And for the record, I have voted against Jeb as many times as I voted for him. (Once each time.) The time I voted for him (1998) was more satisfying, because he finally took down those irritating “JEB!” billboards that had been up since 1994. And I voted for Jerry Brown back in the 1992 Primaries. So I used to be willing to vote Dem. The question the Dems should be asking, is why did I stop even considering that as an option?