Swampland, TIME

Iowa Message-Testing: What They're Saying

Ben Smith at Politico is on this story like wet on water, he's even covered the angle that the firm doing the polling, Central Marketing, is connected an Edwards pollster:

I'm told, more directly, by a source familiar with the arrangements, that they've done calling for the Global Strategy Group, the firm of Edwards pollster Harrison Hickman which has a New York office -- but that doesn't mean they did this poll, by any means. And the negative message testing they did in New York concerned Freddy Ferrer, the main oppponent of Mike Bloomberg. Global was Ferrer's pollster; Penn Schoen & Berland was Bloomberg's, and either could have commissioned that poll. That pretty much covers it, no?

And he digs up a nugget about their having done some nasty work in the past.

Over at Pollster.com, my sometimes co-Caster Mark Blumenthal makes the case that this isn't message-testing after all: It's push-polling, and out and out dirty trick:

These are just not the sort of statements that I can imagine any of the campaigns wanting to "test" in this form at this stage of the campaign as potential fodder for television or direct mail advertising. Think about the ways the campaigns are criticizing each other now in speeches, online videos and debates. The statements in the calls make no reference to votes on Iraq, Iran, trade policy or double-talk in regards to Senator Clinton; nothing about hypocrisy, being too negative or "piling on" in regards to Senator Edwards.

These oddly constructed questions look mostly to me like a clumsy attempt to dress up as a "poll" the beyond-the-pale reference to Elizabeth Edwards' illness.

At very least, I find it utterly inconceivable that Harrison Hickman or the Edwards campaign had any connection to a five-question survey of this sort, and extremely implausible that it was part of any real poll conducted by anyone else.

So who would be doing this?

The bottom line is that I have no idea who is behind it, but we ought to consider another scenario as at least as plausible as the notion that this came from one of the Democratic campaigns. It is also possible that this was the work of some independent group with Republican ties that sees some value in gathering crude information about the Democratic race while fomenting ill-will and infighting in the Democratic ranks. If that was the goal, you need only read the comments under the posts of the blogger/respondents I linked to above to evidence of just that happening.

But again, we really have no idea. It could be anyone, and we'll probably never know.

As someone who's actually done message-testing polls, Mark has some other insights on how they work as well. (And, yes, people negative-message test their own candidates.)

Trent and Thad

Some of the most storied rivalries on Capitol Hill are between Senators of the same party who represent the same state. (New Jersey Democrats Frank Lautenberg and Bob Torricelli had a famous feud.) But few have ever gone on so long as that of former Ole Miss cheerleaders Trent Lott and Thad Cochran, who once even ran against each other for Senate Majority Leader. Now comes word from Roll Call that Cochran has decided to seek a sixth term--which probably means the GOP Whip will have to continue answering to the title "junior Senator."

As they might say in Mississippi: Hotty toddy, gosh almighty.

Iowa Pollsters Pushing or Pulling?

Is Barack Obama the victim of yet another internet rumor? This time, the allegation isn't that he's a Muslim, but that's he's engaging in the icky sport of "push polling." (Everybody now: "But what about the politics of hope?!?") A blogger on John Edward's wrote about receiving a call from from a pollster who asked leading questions about Edwards' and Clinton's negative aspects.

Then why do you think Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate and gives 3 choices. A) Is a weak general election candidate. B)Is too dependent on lobbyist money. C) Won't bring change.

Then why do do think John Edwards is a weak candidate with 2 choices A) a weak general election candidate because his positions are too liberal B) He should be home with his wife who has cancer.

The blogger concludes:

This is the lowest form of paid campaigning. there is only 1 candidate that hopes to benefit from this call. Obama.

I expect this from the Republicans in the general but for a so-called Democrat to do this the primary is unforgiveable.

Obama is showing his real character. He cannot be trusted and it will be a cold day in Hell before I ever caucus for him. He isn't fit to carry John Edwards shoes let alone be President.

And, over at MyDD, someone appears to have gotten the same call and has a more detailed write up, and points out that the call itself is best described as "message testing" rather than push polling (Ambinder explains the difference here), and says the pollster identified the organization as "Central Research":

I've gotten several "survey" calls that were basically voter ID calls, paid for by the Obama campaign. But they didn't come from Central Research, and the callers did not hesitate to say that Obama for America paid for the call.

Clearly, though, Obama is the candidate who benefits from this kind of message-testing in Iowa. If Richardson or Biden or Dodd paid for this kind of call, they would also test scripts against Obama.

Is some group that endorsed Obama planning to run ads against Hillary or Edwards? That would be convenient--he could continue to run his "positive" campaign while letting others drag the competition down.

Anyone else have more information on this Central Research firm or on who might be message-testing on Obama's behalf?

There's also a late-breaking theory that perhaps the calls were funded by Republicans doing message-testing against Hillary, and that maybe there have been other calls that name candidates other match-ups besides Hillary and Obama. But there are other, just as devious possibilities -- which Marc also mentions: it could be Hillary testing her own negatives (something candidates do frequently) or it could be Edwards testing his own negatives (as well as Hillary's). All three candidates deny having anything to do with the polls; and, for what it's worth, I don't think Edwards could afford this kind of campaign luxury.

I see that MSNBC has picked up this story, so one would hope that, if there's been a significant number of these calls, more people who have been called will turn up and tell their story. Chuck Todd just mentioned that it could be RNC or, perhaps, an independent group trying to stir up trouble.

I doubt if this is the last time we hear about such calls. That's a bit of an improvement over the pre-blogging era, when these calls happened but we didn't hear about them.

Re: Rudy: I'm Not Perfect

There are a few other things worth noting about this ad buy, which a media source says is about $300,000 between now and next Tuesday, roughly three-quarters of which will be spent on local television in Manchester and one-quarter on local television in Boston. It comes only a couple of days after top Giuliani strategists held a conference call in which they downplayed their candidate's need to do well in New Hampshire. And there are signs that it was a relatively sudden decision: I'm told the buy comes as something of a surprise to the other campaigns, which have sophisticated early-warning systems in the television ad buy world.

Bottom line: It is hard not to conclude that his strategists take Giuliani's lackluster poll numbers in the Granite State more seriously than they let on. After all, they have been investing other resources in New Hampshire well before this ad: Giuliani has held 55 events there since January, more than in any other state, and his campaign has also been spending on direct mail. Now, they step their up their game, leading with an expensive 60-second spot, which will be aired over the next three days (and get lots of free play on political cable), to be followed by a 30-second version of the ad, which we haven't seen yet.

UPDATE: Giuliani spokeswoman Maria Comella disputes the suggestion, being pushed by other campaigns, that this ad marks some kind of abrupt tactical change on the part of the Giuliani operation. She tells me: "This has been the date pretty much since we started thinking about launching our ad campaign."

Rudy: I'm Not Perfect

Having husbanded his cash as deep into the season as possible, Rudy Giuliani is hitting the airwaves in New Hampshire today with the first television ad of his campaign. Called "Tested", there are two rather remarkable things about the 60-second spot. First (and you might want to sit down for this), there are no images of 9/11 in the ad, only the most oblique reference by Giuliani to having been "tested" by crises. But he says this in the context of having become mayor when New York was in a sorry economic state; there's no mention of terrorism. Second, and this is more subtle in its presence than 9/11 is in its near total absence, there is a line in the script in which Giuliani obliquely acknowledges that he hasn't lived an Ozzie & Harriet personal life:

So, I believe I’ve been tested in a way in which the American people can look to me. They’re not going to find perfection, but they’re going to find somebody who has dealt with crisis almost on a regular basis and has had results. And in many cases exceptional results. Results people thought weren’t possible.

The "not going to find perfection" line is an attempt, I assume, to pre-empt stories about his personal life -- specifically his three marriages -- by obliquely acknowledging that he hasn't always been a saint as a husband. It's a pretty vague attempt. We'll see if it works. Here's the ad:

Underplayed Story of the Day

Could this be the first sign that Michael Mukasey, in his first week on the job as Attorney General, really does intend to bring a new openness to the Justice Department?:

The Justice Department said yesterday that it has reopened an internal investigation of the role played by its lawyers in the administration's warrantless surveillance program, marking a notable policy shift just days into the tenure of new Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey.

The investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility was abandoned in July 2006 after President Bush refused to give security clearances to the OPR lawyers conducting the investigation, according to documents and congressional testimony.

That rebuff represented an unusually direct White House intervention into the Justice Department's internal affairs and came under sharp criticism from congressional Democrats, who were eager to learn about the involvement of Justice Department lawyers in the National Security Agency's domestic spying program.

H. Marshall Jarrett, the OPR's chief counsel, wrote in a letter to several lawmakers yesterday that lawyers in his office "recently received the necessary security clearances and are now able to proceed with our investigation." He said the investigation will focus on "the role of Department of Justice attorneys in the authorization and oversight of warrantless electronic surveillance . . . and in complying with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."

Delicious

Only possible word for this. Judith Regan, Bernie Kerik, Rupert Murdoch...and Rudy Giuliani. This would be, ahem, HUGE in the New York Post if the Post weren't owned by RM. Can't wait to see how the Daily News plays it.

Oh, wait, here it is.

The Only Polls that Count...

Are on election day, or so I've heard. And the national polls are useless, at this point. And Iowa polls are notoriously unreliable, but this poll of the early states, Iowa and New Hampshire, but especially Iowa, from the relatively reputable CBS-NYTimes numbers crunchers is fascinating on two counts.

The Democratic race is a three-way dead heat in Iowa. We already knew that, but still...a three-way dead heat.

And Mike Huckabee is moving on the Republican side, within six points of Mitt Romney, which is potentially big news because most people had assumed that Romney was a lock, given the bazillions he has spent there.

Now this caveat: Iowans are perverse. They will insist on changing their minds several times, just to keep all of our attention focused on them, between now and the caucusing. It's sort of like roller derby, with lots of elbowing and slipstreaming and then someone or ones break loose from the pack and...crashes into the rail, or occasionally, wins.

In any case, there is no inevitability in Iowa. Time to start paying close attention. I've bought a new winter coat, which includes the better part of a sheep as lining, for the occasion. I"m ready to roll.

SwampCast: A Bold Prediction!

In this SwampCast, some thoughts on the field below the top of the ticket on the Republican side. Say hello to New Hampshire winner Ron Paul, everyone...


Re: How It's Done AND Hillary and the Press

WARNING: This is inside baseball/horseracey.

I think the planted questions story may be an example of the fragility of Clinton's "aggressive" media strategy. While I -- and maybe Iowans -- do care about planted questions, the practice of suggesting a question or two is not necessarily a crime. If Clinton does sink to Bush-style "screening," that's one thing, but these particular instances -- while testament to the degree to which the campaign prepares and wants control over events --- aren't a big deal. But the Clinton campaign made them into one.

Compare their defensiveness on this issue -- essentially: "You're right we did, but it's unacceptable, we'll never do it again" -- to how they handled another story about their manipulation of the media environment, when they had a negative story about the campaign killed. They choose not to comment at all on the record, but on background, staffers confirmed that the story was true, making the essential message: "You're right, we did it, what's your problem?"

And the story went away.

There are some key differences, of course. Pushing around the press is not necessarily something Iowans would react negatively to, whereas interfering with Iowans' beloved vetting process is a more sensitive issue. But imagine if Team Hillary had taken a similar approach to the "planted question" scandal as to the GQ incident, albeit with a softer touch (these are voters, who they care about, not the press, who they don't). Something like:

"You're right, a staffer did talk to a student before the event. We often encourage people to ask questions, especially first-time voters or people who have specific concerns. We may even discuss the content of the question if the voter wants to. We trust our staff not to dictate the content of those questions."

(I would guess this answer is actually even close to the truth of what happened and probably happens all the time. Campaign veterans have assured me that "cultivating" a question or two before a town hall is standard, though not universal, practice.)

If they had taken the less defensive approach, the emergence of a second "plant" -- which is actually a less cut-and-dried episode -- would not nearly have been so damning, or such news.

As it is, not only have they set the media on a lead-deadening scavenger hunt, but they've set themselves up for prosecution the next time a voter can make even a vague case that a staffer said something leading to him before an event. Then again, she's now also given the media an excuse to put Obama and Edwards under the same scrutiny, so maybe her campaign handled this perfectly.

Moving forward, it will be interesting to see if they continue to overreact, and thus create an overreaction in the press. If the team profiled in Crowley's story has a weakness, it's in its lack of a sense of proportion.

About Swampland

Ana Marie Cox

Ana Marie Cox, Washington Editor of Time.com, is the founding editor of Wonkette and the author of the novel Dog Days. Read more


Joe Klein

Joe Klein is TIME's political columnist and author of six books, most recently Politics Lost. Read more


Karen Tumulty

Karen Tumulty has been Time's National Political Correspondent since 2001, and has also covered the White House and Congress for the magazine. Read more


Jay Carney

Jay Carney is Time's Washington bureau chief. He has covered both the Clinton and Bush 43 White Houses, as well as Congress. Read more


 RSS Feed

AddThis Feed Button

Daily Email

Get Swampland in your inbox and never miss a day:
 
Delivered by   FeedBurner


White House Photo Blog

Get an intimate look at the Bush administration and race for 2008 through the eyes of TIME's White House photographers.
White House Photo Blog


advertisement

Swampland Archives

November 2007
Choose a day to view events.

<< Previous Months

        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30