Lieberman Push Polls?

Legacy blog posts Push "Polls"

While public polls have been few and far between in the Connecticut Democratic primary, reports of "push polling" have been bubbling up through the blogosphere.  Some of the most recent have been quite detailed and worthy of further discussion, if only because, from what I can tell, these do not deserve the "push poll" label.  Rather, the calls described appear to be internal campaign polls testing negative messages. 

I have seen two sets of reports.  The first round drew the usual over-the-top rhetorical blasts.  Calls received in Connecticut in late June were described as by supporters of Ned Lamont as "Lieberman push polling" (here, here and here), as well as "Lieberman’s Latest Dirty Trick," and "the sleaziest of campaign tactics" (by Kos himself).   

The most recent and interesting report comes from a correspondent of BranfordBoy on the blog My Left Nutmeg.  The respondent took detailed notes on all of the questions and concluded, "today, I received my first recognizable Push Poll."   The report is worth reading in full, because this call was almost certainly an internal campaign poll and not something that deserving of the label "push poll" (a point echoed — to their credit — by both My Left Nutmeg and the Connecticut Blog).

I have discussed push polling in more detail previously, but the defining characteristic of a true "push poll" is fraud.  It is not a poll at all — not an effort to measure either existing opinions or reactions to political argument — but rather an attempt to spread a rumor under the guise of a survey.  True "push polls," those that are aptly described as "the sleaziest of campaign tactics," typically involve untrue or outrageous attacks that the purveyors do not dare communicate openly.  The true "push poll" is usually just a question or two:  A question about vote preference, the scurrilous attack and then a quick goodbye.  Since the "push pollster" does not care about measuring or counting anything, they do not waste time on questions about other issues or demographics. 

In this case, the poll described by the BranfordBoy’s correspondent has all the hallmarks of an internal campaign poll, most likely conducted on behalf of the Lieberman campaign.  It asks some questions to identify likely primary voters, a job rating for Lieberman, favorable ratings for Bush, Dodd, Lamont and Lieberman, vote questions on the Gubernatorial and Senate primaries, a "certainty" follow-up regarding the Senate vote (that the pollster uses to identify soft or "persuadable" supporters of each candidate), a battery of five questions measuring whether various traits apply to Lieberman or Lamont, and a set of questions to gauge reactions to the recent campaing debate.   Finally, just before asking a series of demographic questions, the survey poses two negative arguments (or "messages") about Lamont.  As reported by the blog correspondent:

Do the following questions make you feel a little less, more much less comfortable with Ned Lamont:

He refuses to release his tax information. At this point, I told the pollster that the statement was incorrect, and that she was acting unethically by repeating it. She asked the question and I told her it made me feel much less comfortable with Joe Lieberman that people would be repeating such false information.

She went on to ask about how Ned Lamont’s claim that he would outlaw all earmarks made me feel. I repeated that this was false information and it made me much less comfortable with Joe Lieberman. I urged her to stop repeating false information.

Note two things about these questions.   First, they come at the end of the survey, after questions that measure current vote preference or perception of the candidates.  This is the standard format commonly used by campaign pollsters, including yours truly. 

Second, consider the content of the questions. I certainly do not want to get into an argument about how fair or appropriate these charges may be, but both questions involve arguments that Joe Lieberman made openly in the Lamont-Lieberman debate.  Lieberman challenged Lamont to release his tax returns, and when Lamont did not answer directly, Lieberman concluded, "he is saying he will not release his returns."  According to the Stamford Advocate, however, the next day Lamont "changed his mind" and "decided to release his 2005 tax return ‘upon filing.’"      

When asked by Lieberman during the debate whether he would support "earmarks that are good," Lamont replied: "I think we should outlaw these earmarks. I think they corrupt the political process. I think they are written by lobbyists and they’re wrong."

Although the first round of reports on calls labeled as "push polls" did not have the same question-by-question specificity as the report from the My Left Nutmeg correspondent, most mention questions describing Lamont’s wealth and background and claims that he voted with Republicans as a Greenwich Selectman.  Again, I will leave it to others to debate the accuracy of those claims, but they closely resemble arguments made by Lieberman in the debate an in his paid advertising

My point is that the "arguments" tested mirror the campaign rhetoric of the Lieberman campaign and appear designed to test reactions to that rhetoric.  As such, they deserve the same level of scrutiny as any charge or statement made in the political realm.  Blatantly untrue statements are unethical, whether part of a poll, a campaign mailer or a television ad.  But as one learns from following debates in the blogosphere, truth on such questions is often in the eye of the beholder.  Those on opposite sides of an issue have a way of reaching very different conclusions about the same set of objective "facts."   Such disagreements are often what politics is all about.  Negative rhetoric alone does not deserve to be labeled a "dirty trick," nor does the testing of such rhetoric constitute a "push poll."

Finally, a point of clarification:  I saw several comments in these reports speculating about a legal requirements for pollsters to identify themselves.  Federal does make it illegal to conduct fundraising or telemarketing under the guise of a survey, but as far as I know, no federal or state law requires survey researchers using live interviewers to identify themselves or their clients.  Automated calls appear to be an exception.  Also, most research firms consider it good practice to identify the name of the call center on request. 
The ethical code "Respondent Bill of Rights" of the Council for Marketing and Opinion Research (CMOR) — an organization that includes many of the large survey call centers — obligates its members to recommends that its members identify the research company’s name and the nature of the survey (but not the identity of the client) to respondents on request.

CORRECTION:  The "annonymous" commenter below is right, at least about Wisconsin.  Although I had checked on Friday, I was unaware of the Wisconsin law that obligates those who conduct surveys in that state on behalf of political campaigns to disclose who paid for the poll to the respondents on request.  I am also told that a similar law exists in Virginia, although I have not yet been able to locate the text of any such law. 

Further, as should be evident from the strike-thru corrections above, I misstated the nature of the CMOR Respondent Bill of Rights.  CMOR is not a standard setting organization (like AAPOR, MRA, ESOMAR or CASRO), and thus recommends, but does not require, that its members abide by the terms of the Respondent Bill of Rights.   

My apologies to all. 

Mark Blumenthal

Mark Blumenthal is political pollster with deep and varied experience across survey research, campaigns, and media. The original "Mystery Pollster" and co-creator of Pollster.com, he explains complex concepts to a multitude of audiences and how data informs politics and decision-making. A researcher and consultant who crafts effective questions and identifies innovative solutions to deliver results. An award winning political journalist who brings insights and crafts compelling narratives from chaotic data.