Consultant Power

So Joe Biden's pollster, Celinda Lake, did some push polling about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, then leaked it to The Washington Post which produced this story:

Conventional wisdom dictates that Democratic voters are thrilled with their choices for president, bursting at the seams to rally behind Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) or whoever gets the party's nod next year.

A recent survey by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, however, showed Clinton and Obama trailing former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) in the 31 Democratic-held House districts regarded as most imperiled in 2008, and even potentially serving as a drag on those lawmakers' reelection chances. [...]

"Some people say [your Democratic incumbent] is a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton and will support her liberal agenda of big government and higher taxes if she becomes president," the poll stated, before asking respondents whether they would still vote for their incumbent or choose a Republican candidate.

Whether the question named Clinton or Obama, the Democratic incumbent's lead shrank to an average of six points: 47 percent to 41 percent with Clinton leading the ticket, 44 percent to 38 percent with Obama as the nominee.

But now here's the catch: the Post writers don't identify Lake as Biden's pollster, or even characterize the poll as the push-poll it was. This prompts some of the usual media criticism from Atrios, which is spot-on, but also limited in perspective.

After all, Washington Post aside, why did Lake do this? Surely she didn't do it because she thinks she's going to put Joe Biden in the White House. Surely she knows she'll lose, and she'll continue to make a living as a public opinion consultant for Democratic candidates and progressive non-profit groups. Thus, she must realize that her future depends, in large part, on obtaining good will from progressive circles. Under the circumstances, her willingness to engage in dirty pool against the front-runners is remarkable. You have tons of reports of unions who favor John Edwards on the merits but who don't want to alienate Hillary Clinton by saying so publicly. But then you have -- frequently -- pollsters and other sorts of consultants who don't seem to fear the wrath of elected officials at all.

It tells you a lot about the actual structure of power in Washington. Above a certain level, the consultants aren't afraid of anyone.

Comments

Why should the consultants be afraid? The Democrats show their stupidity by repeatedly employing idiots like Bob Shrum.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | September 23, 2007 3:01 PM

This is not a push poll - this is a message-testing poll. A push poll is something that targets a certain subset of the voting public as an attempt to influence their individual votes. This was a legitimate poll that tested a one of many potential negative messages against a couple of possible nominees.

You're right that they should make the Biden connection though, and it would be interesting to see how Biden performs compared to either of those two, with the same message used against him. My bet would be "quite a bit worse."

Posted by Anonymous | September 23, 2007 3:11 PM

This is not a push poll - this is a message-testing poll. A push poll is something that targets a certain subset of the voting public as an attempt to influence their individual votes

Uh, no it's not. Push-polls have as wide an audience as possible.

And this isn't message-testing for Joe Biden. What, Biden is going to go out trashing Hillary and Obama as big-spending liberals? Huh?

It's a push poll

Posted by mopper | September 23, 2007 3:16 PM

Thus, she must realize that her future depends, in large part, on obtaining good will from progressive circles.

Why? I doubt Mark Penn will starve if he never gets another political account. He'll still have the corporate work. I assume Celinda Lake is the same.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 23, 2007 3:21 PM

Look, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Maybe you should check out wikipedia to save me the time of explaining all the ways that this wasn't a push poll.

Posted by Anonymous | September 23, 2007 3:22 PM

Am I the only one who thinks it's ridiculous that we have Republican or Democratic pollsters at all? Everything they do is effectively a push-poll. It's great if you're interested in political strategy, but useless if you care about public opinion.

Posted by Jinchi | September 23, 2007 3:25 PM

Am I the only one who thinks it's ridiculous that we have Republican or Democratic pollsters at all? Everything they do is effectively a push-poll. It's great if you're interested in political strategy, but useless if you care about public opinion.

Posted by Jinchi | September 23, 2007 3:26 PM

This is not a push poll - this is a message-testing poll.

Exactly right. It's unbelievable that people who are supposed as attuned to politics as Duncan Black and Matthew don't know what a push poll is.

Posted by Al | September 23, 2007 3:33 PM

On another level, why is Matthew upset about his? Obviously, he doesn't want Hillary to get the nomination. So why is he mad that Lake is putting out information that portrays Hillary negatively to Democratic primary voters?

Posted by Al | September 23, 2007 3:36 PM

I really don't get what you're trying to imply at the end. Lake is not working in Biden's best interests, but her own? That's for Biden to decide, and for those in the future that think about hiring her based partly how she accomplished for Biden what he wanted her to do.

Posted by artappraiser | September 23, 2007 3:43 PM

That Austrian bodybuilder fellow was reelected governor because people split their votes in centrist districts.

I have little idea what happens next November but my best guess is a lot of people in centrist districts voting for Giuliani for president and Democrats for Congress.

Posted by Linus | September 23, 2007 3:43 PM

Nu? It's not a push-poll, but it certainly can function like one -- i.e. it can get people who might not otherwise be currently equating "Democrat" with "big spending, evil liberal" to do so.

Look, I'm actually of the opinion that Democrats need to do some push polling ... but to the extent that this poll may be a de facto push poll, it's pushing in the wrong direction. Democrats need to be push-polling people to associate liberalism with good things and to force people to think of the consequences of liberal vs. conservative policies -- and when people are thinking big-P Pragmatically, they'll be as liberal as, well, the Pragmatists!

But even if this poll is not a push-poll per se, it still is the sort of thing that is pushing people in the wrong direction ... it's sending the wrong message ... that (some) Democrats are big-spending liberal stereotypes.

And people wonder why some of us liberal types think Joe Biden ain't much better than Holy Joe Lieberman? It's things like this! This might not be a push poll, but it still reenforces certain memes about liberalism that we just ought not to be reenforcing. And in the end, Joe Biden and his friends should realize that in tarring (other) Democrats as evil tax-and-spend liberals, he's tarrring all Democrats in that way, including himself!

Posted by DAS | September 23, 2007 4:02 PM

Yeah, I certainly don't agree with the choice to put this poll in the field, publicize it, or generally with the idea that Joe Biden should be running for President. And you're right, the exact same wording could and would be used against him if he were to secure the nomination, and he'd almost certainly perform much worse than either Clinton or Obama.

Posted by Anonymous | September 23, 2007 4:12 PM

Seriously, Al and anonymous are right. A push poll is something different and much more sleazy. This poll wasn't designed to change people's votes but to produce a desired result. There's a big difference, and when the time comes when Republicans once again use actual push polls, it would be good for us if the term still meant something.

Posted by mitch | September 23, 2007 4:16 PM

The point is that the author of the Post piece named the pollster, but didnt't identify her as he (the same author) did earlier this year as biden's hired gun.
That info, known by the author, makes his article a waste of time.

Posted by the point | September 23, 2007 4:50 PM

I can't believe people are saying that this isn't a push poll because they didn't INTEND for it to be a push poll. That's bunk. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and tries to smear candidates by association it's a fracking push-polling duck. Quack quack.

The thing I wonder about is what the Congress critters in these districts think of the fact that Biden and his polling consultants are making their re-election harder by push-polling against their constituents. That's just a stupid move - the GOPers are going to be doing enough push polling against Democrats for everyone, the Dems don't need to fund push polls against themselves.

Posted by NonyNony | September 23, 2007 4:55 PM

OK, it's not quite a push poll. Call it a pull poll if that makes you happy.

Posted by Dave Latchaw | September 23, 2007 5:03 PM

I have little idea what happens next November but my best guess is a lot of people in centrist districts voting for Giuliani for president and Democrats for Congress.

I have a very good idea of what happens in November: the Democrats win all the states that won last time and pick up Ohio as well. Any serious observer has to believe this is what will probably happen. So let's stop the hand-wringing about electability and vote for the candidate we think we'll make the best president.

The point of the poll was to claim Hillary hurts Congressional races. That's more an issue because the Democrats will need as large a majority as possible to get things like health care through.

The "Hillary hurts Democrats in Congressional races" meme is not new. Mudcat Sauders pushed it over at Swampland recently:

"The national press, for some reason or another, has not gotten around to talking about the "collateral damage" that the polarizing effect of Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket would inflict on other races all over America. It's whispered all over the Capitol but not shouted out anywhere. How would you like to be a Democratic member of the House or Senate in a red state and have to deal with Hillary at the top of the ticket? Hell, we will not only lose the White House in 2008, but could lose the House and Senate as well. What scares me is I believe in my heart that if Mark doesn't run, no other Democrat could beat Tom Davis in Virginia with Hillary at the top. This is still Virginia.

"So here's my early line. With Hillary at the top: Mark wins by 5-8. With Obama at the top, Mark wins by 7-10. With Edwards at the top: Mark wins by 15-plus."

Posted by Exile on Ericsson St. | September 23, 2007 5:06 PM

i can't believe people spending even a moment on the "it's not a push poll" thing. who f'ing cares?!?! it's a terrible poll not designed to gauge public sentiment but rather to convey a negative message and guarantee a certain, inaccurate, result. who cares what you call it?

it would be like arguing whether the banner at the top of the page was royal blue or cobalt blue. it's blue.

Posted by this guy | September 23, 2007 5:14 PM

Some of us care whether things people say are true or not.

Posted by Anonymous | September 23, 2007 5:22 PM

Of course it's a push poll; if you don't get that, you're an idiot.

Posted by Mike | September 23, 2007 5:23 PM

It's whispered all over the Capitol but not shouted out anywhere.

If it's discussed in the Capitol but nowhere else, that is, by definition, an issue that only really "exists" in the Beltway, and not in actually congressional districts where real, live elections take place.

Posted by Tyro | September 23, 2007 5:25 PM

Mike,

So I guess that makes Atrios an idiot too, eh?

Posted by Anonymous | September 23, 2007 5:36 PM

Some of us care whether things people say are true or not.

yeah, i'm one of them. but this isn't an argument about truth. it's about which is the most accurate term to describe something that we all understand. that's quibbling over language.

an untruth would be to say that the poll proves anything.

Posted by this guy | September 23, 2007 5:46 PM

The "Hillary hurts Democrats in Congressional races" meme is not new. Mudcat Sauders pushed it over at Swampland recently:

You mean the same Mudcat Saunders who "is an advisor in the '08 Presidential campaign of John Edwards"? He wouldn't be biased in any way.

Posted by Anonymous | September 23, 2007 5:57 PM

You mean the same Mudcat Saunders who "is an advisor in the '08 Presidential campaign of John Edwards"? He wouldn't be biased in any way.

That was my point, but I forgot to mention that Mudcat was on the Edwards payroll in my comment.

Posted by Exile on Ericsson St. | September 23, 2007 6:00 PM

Why language matters:

If we turn into this into the boy who cried "push poll!" then no one will care when an actual push poll happens.

Posted by Anonymous | September 23, 2007 6:00 PM

Could we just call it a "bogus poll cooked up by a pollster who works for a rival candidate" and leave it at that?

I know, I know if look up the wiki entry for "bogus poll cooked up by a pollster who works for a rival candidate", I'll find that it doesn't fit the definition perfectly.

Posted by TomT | September 23, 2007 6:03 PM

Got it.

And I'm completely with you on your point, and would go even farther to say that even were electability a concern, we should still vote for who would make the best President. (It's not like we're good at guessing who is electable anyway.)

Posted by Anonymous | September 23, 2007 6:07 PM

To move beyond the semantics, it really is provoking that a supposedly Democratic operative would pull this stunt openly. Ms. Lake is attached to a candidate with no chance of victory, and she decides to lay a glove not only on Clinton and Obama, but also 31 Democratic incumbents in the House. That just seems breathtakingly suicidal.

Posted by southpaw | September 23, 2007 6:19 PM

Al is simplyu a scummy slug so why ever bother to read the sluggish? Anny is just a moron. Hi, Anny Moron.

Posted by Jennifer | September 23, 2007 6:21 PM

"Why language matters:

If we turn into this into the boy who cried "push poll!" then no one will care when an actual push poll happens.

As Anonymous suggests earlier, Let us consult the oracle that is Wikipedia:
"A push poll is a political campaign technique in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. Push polls are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning. The term is also sometimes used to refer to legitimate polls which test political messages, some of which may be negative. Push polling has been condemned by the American Association of Political Consultants.
".......

Well, Anonymous, either someone raced to Wiki to add that language (I'm quite serious when I say that's not at all inconceivable) or language often evolves new meaning to encompass a changing, well,..., meaning. I too, think language matters. But if we get too bogged down in the details and hyperbole (i.e., Move On's Times ad UTTERLY DESTROYED THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, WE'LL NEVER WIN A RACE AGAIN) then we can get a bit self-defeating.

I'm not trying to be mean or snotty, but I don't think this week's definition of push poll is the end-all and be-all of this campaign season.

Posted by Rihilism | September 23, 2007 6:24 PM

I wonder what the results would have been if the question was worded "Some people say [the Republican incumbent/challenger] is a strong supporter of Rudolph Giuliani and will support his agenda of privatizing social security and continuing the war in Iraq"???

Posted by james | September 23, 2007 6:31 PM

"Some people say the Republicans want you to die in agony in a fire, and the Democrats want you to die naked and alone in the cold . . . have you given any thought to voting for Bloomberg?"

Posted by southpaw | September 23, 2007 6:41 PM

You're right that wikipedia does say that. But then, it is wikipedia. :-)

This is how sourcewatch defines it:

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.

Here is CBS explaining even more clearly what a push poll is:

Fundamentally, what people label a push poll isn't a poll at all. A push poll is political telemarketing masquerading as a poll. No one is really collecting information. No one will analyze the data. You can tell a push poll because it is very short, even too short. (It has to be very short to reach tens of thousands of potential voters, one by one). It will not include any demographic questions. The "interviewer" will sometimes ask to speak to a specific voter by name. And, of course, a push poll will contain negative information - sometimes truthful, sometimes not - about the opponent.

Here's how the National Council on Public Polls defines a push poll:

...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' affects 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.

Now, look. I don't think the definition of a push poll is the biggest issue at stake here. I just think it is important that people know what is and isn't a push poll, so that push polls can accurately be discussed.

What Lake did here is an example of a different but also serious problem with polling, that I would say more closely corresponds to publication bias, although that term doesn't quite encapsulate the problem either. Basically they conducted a poll that they thought would show a particular thing, and in fact it did. If it hadn't they just wouldn't have pushed it, and, who knows, they might have tried several other negative messages that didn't have any noticeable effect.

I would also say the poll just doesn't show anything interesting - is it a surprise that negatively-framed statements lower support?

Posted by Anonymous | September 23, 2007 6:55 PM

"Some people say the Republicans want you to die in agony in a fire, and the Democrats want you to die naked and alone in the cold . . . have you given any thought to voting for Bloomberg?"

Where's you get that quote? Is it from a David Broder column?

Posted by Exile on Ericsson St. | September 23, 2007 6:57 PM

Actually "Some people say the Republicans want you as slaves and the Democrats want you as indentured servants"

Posted by Nour | September 23, 2007 7:17 PM

Read this, by an actual Democratic pollster, to find out what a push poll is and isn't. This isn't.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/so_what_is_a_push_poll.php

Posted by Peter | September 23, 2007 7:28 PM

Only idiots quibble about words and their meanings. rather than selecting the words that have the most emotional impact.

If you don't understand that, take up an interest in editing, but please get the fuck out of politics. Trying to sound smart and glorifying yourself should come after making a point.

Posted by Soullite | September 23, 2007 7:46 PM

I'm not interested in a flame war, if that's what you're trying to provoke. I do find it interesting that you accuse someone posting anonymously of trying to glorify him or herself.

Posted by Anonymous | September 23, 2007 8:20 PM

It may not be a push poll, but if you look at a couple of poll questions, it says "PUSH HARD!"

The real concern is not that Clinton drags down
other Democratic candidates, but her electability, period.

The lastest batch of SUSA polls (Ohio, Missouri and Iowa) says Edwards is far and away the strongest candidate.

I'm curious why the Biden campaign measure Edwards' impact on Democratic candidates.

Posted by mikeel | September 23, 2007 8:26 PM

Why do you people take this shit so personally?

Posted by Rich | September 23, 2007 8:30 PM

Here's the deal on that poll and understand that I come on here and other web sites and trash Democratic politicians and consultants all the time. I also know a thing or two about polls:

1) Its definitely NOT a push poll. A push poll is a phone sweep that masquerades as a poll. The difference is a push poll calls thousands and thousands of people trying to spread a single negative message. A push poll doesn't ask any or many other questions other than the negative one it is trying to spread around. This poll probably called 1000 people or less and asked a full set of questions, including introductory screens, preliminary favorabilities, possibly several other issue-based questions, then batteries of messages, probably negative and positive, followed by a complete set of demographic questions. Push polls only have one question. They aren't real polls.

2) It is a "propaganda" poll but not any more so than most polls that see the light of day. Unless a poll is conducted by an academic or (maybe) a media organization, then somebody paid for that poll out of their pocket (more or less) and you can be certain that only the results that the person or organization who paid for the poll wants to get out, get out. But by this definition, every candidate-funded poll is a propaganda poll, even the completely legitimate ones.

3) Don't get freaked out by the tough negative questions and leap to a bunch of false conclusions. Legitimate polls ask tough questions on both sides, including against their own candidate. The negatives are designed to be worded as a worst case scenario of what your opponent would say about you. Believe me, Republicans aren't known for their restraint when attacking their opponents, so you can pretty well assume that the worst thing you can think of is what they are testing and planning to use against you. Democratic pollsters routinely -- as in ALL the time -- test very toughly worded messages against their own candidates. It doesn't mean they are trying to defeat their own clients or have any nefarious motives. The fact that Celinda Lake or anybody else is testing tough negatives doesn't mean anything. It doesn't even tell you whose side they were on.

4) All that said, you can certainly question their interpretation of the meaning of what they tested. Those kind of results, where you retest the vote after messages, are among the most artificial and questionable that you ever see in most candidate polls. But you see stuff like that all the time and its not entirely meaningless, just difficult to interpret or project with any confidence.

Posted by Junius Brutus | September 23, 2007 8:43 PM

Isn't there an old rule to the effect of "Never attribute to malice that which may be explained by stupidity"?

This woman may be just stupid.

Then, on the other hand, she may just need the money and be too tired to put out on the street corner.

Posted by David Lloyd-Jones | September 23, 2007 10:18 PM

Isn't there an old rule to the effect of "Never attribute to malice that which may be explained by stupidity"?

This woman may be just stupid.

Then, on the other hand, she may just need the money and be too tired to put out on the street corner.

Which sorta reminds me, isn't Joe Biden the guy who put Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court?

Posted by David Lloyd-Jones | September 23, 2007 10:19 PM

"Celinda Lake"? Sounds like she focus-grouped her name. An hour drama series about the life and loves of a sassy DC political consultant, part of the CW network's new fall lineup, in the old Veronica Mars slot.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 23, 2007 10:42 PM

"Celinda Lake"? Sounds like she focus-grouped her name. An hour drama series about the life and loves of a sassy DC political consultant, part of the CW network's new fall lineup, in the old Veronica Mars slot.

Maybe...but it sounds more like the title of one of those late night Cinemax series to me. Insert you own push poll joke here.

Posted by TomT | September 23, 2007 11:03 PM

mikeel,

I'm guessing from the context that they mean to push to get a specific answer, rather than something noncommittal. ("Not sure? Would you say that you are leaning more to the Democrat or the Republican?" etc.) I didn't see the actual poll though so I couldn't say for sure.

Also, after reading the actual article, I think what this shows more than anything is Cilizza and Murray's willingness to swallow total bullshit at face value. I hope these guys aren't paid well.

Posted by Anonymous | September 23, 2007 11:44 PM

Could Biden Bash democrats that aren't him any more this campaign season? Every debate he works up a sweat at how horrible the people standing next to him are because they're not following his exact "plan" on Iraq, he bashes them repeatedly on Wolf Blitzer and Chris Matthew's shows (the only ones I've seen him on) on the same subject then does this knowing full well that him polling at 5% for the past 6 months is not going to change after this push polling but just put more bad media out there for Democrats overall.

Posted by Fred F. | September 23, 2007 11:47 PM

Brooksfoe said, "Celinda Lake"? Sounds like she focus-grouped her name. An hour drama series about the life and loves of a sassy DC political consultant, part of the CW network's new fall lineup, in the old Veronica Mars slot."

TomT said, "Maybe...but it sounds more like the title of one of those late night Cinemax series to me. Insert you own push poll joke here."

LOL. If you boys had ever met Celinda Lake, you'd know how hilarious that is...

Posted by Junius Brutus | September 23, 2007 11:51 PM

...and this is why political blogs continue to turn off women.

Posted by Anonymous | September 23, 2007 11:54 PM

I assumed it was the recent infestation of HRC fanboys on the political blogs that turned off progressive women and men.

Posted by antonymous | September 24, 2007 12:47 AM

Anonymous:

Let me also add that Celinda Lake is a totally dependable progressive and a feminist. The idea that that she would be backstabbing Hillary is ludicrous.

She' also tough and smart and a little good old boy banter wouldn't stop her for a second.

Posted by Junius Brutus | September 24, 2007 1:07 AM

It's a hybrid. The poll itself, if done with a routine-sized sample (up to, say, N=1200), would be mere message testing. If done with as large a sample as possible, it would be a push poll. I haven't looked at the sample size, but I assume that they're no greater than 1200 or else there would not be any debate above. So I'll assume that the poll *itself* is a "message-testing poll" in *form*.

If it were a message testing poll, one would expect to see its findings become the basis of political advertisements. Here, though, the game seems to be to use the results of the message testing poll *itself* to slam its targets, hence the damaging leak. That means that the poll is indeed being used to influence votes: not because people hear damaging information from the pollster directly (as in a traditional push poll), but by hearing the reportage on the (obviously foreseeably negative) results in the media. Therefore, in *function*, it is a push poll.

The counterargument could be that the negative information comes from the narrowing gap in these competitive districts rather than from the information that Hillary and Obama are tax-crazy big government liberals. But I'm not convinced by that argument, because the narrow gap is *itself* a direct (and obviously foreseeable) function of the loaded language in the poll. On balance, I'd call it more a push poll than a message-testing poll. If it hadn't been obvious that it would come out tarring them both, and hadn't been leaked, I'd come down the other way.

Posted by Danby | September 24, 2007 2:17 AM

Danby:

Candidates test message all the time without making ads. I read that Lake is working for Biden. If that's true, Biden probably isn't making any ads yet or those ads are still in the can waiting until its worth it for Biden to spend the money on tv (which, in reality, will be never) Many polls are done simply to guide a candidiate's earned media communications and produce a press hit, like this one probably was.

It absolutely was not a push poll. I can't stress that enough. It's not even a close call. There is no way this was a push poll.

BTW: reputable pollsters, like Celinda Lake, never do push polls. Never. Its not something that they are even tempted to do. Its just not part of the business. Reputable pollsters are pretty damn busy most of the time doing real research. They have no reason to compromise their integrity by doing a push poll. Push polls take zero expertise. If anyone does a push poll its going to be either just an individual operative or a shady phone bank, not a well known pollster.

Posted by Junius Brutus | September 24, 2007 8:47 AM

Junius,

You really believe Biden is testing a plan to run attack ads in a Democratic primary which attempt to portray his opponents as liberal, tax-raising, government expanders?

That strikes me as unlikely. In what state's Democratic primary would that be an effective strategy?

Posted by southpaw | September 24, 2007 8:59 AM

As an aside, isn't it at least possible that Celinda Lake is no longer Biden's ally here. Mightn't she be working for another account?

Posted by southpaw | September 24, 2007 9:02 AM

Southpaw: I know very little about the contents of the poll or who it was done for.

But I really believe that if Biden is going to have any chance (which he doesn't because he is a cartoon of a caricature of a preening blowhard) he is going to have to discredit the frontrunners and convince people that he is a viable alternative who is electable. That means showing that the frontrunners are not electable, which means simulating how they would do against a Republican, which means simulating the kind of garbage that Republicans throw at Democrats.

People shouldn't get all hung up on the negativity of the messages. That's what negative message testing is like in all polls. Whether they're working for Biden or not, there is a legitimate value to assessing how viable Clinton or Obama really are.

Posted by Junius Brutus | September 24, 2007 9:15 AM

You really believe Biden is testing a plan to run attack ads in a Democratic primary which attempt to portray his opponents as liberal, tax-raising, government expanders?

That's not the point. The point is to get idiots like Murray and Cillizza to run a piece about how Obama and Hillary hurt the party.

Mission accomplished.

Posted by Exile on Ericsson St. | September 24, 2007 9:23 AM

...and this is why political blogs continue to turn off women.

Cos there wouldn't be jokes like this if she were a man named Lance Manyon.

Posted by Exile on Ericsson St. | September 24, 2007 9:26 AM

Well, guys, the idea that the poll was testing a message rather than attempting to, in and of itself, promote a point of view is sort of bound up with whether Biden might even consider using such a message. I concede that we do know very little about the poll.

But, provided that Lake still works for Biden, it seems to me that you have to concede that either (a) Lake is testing the idea that Biden should adopt the message strategies of a Republican candidate or (b) the poll was not conducted primarily for research purposes.

If it's option (b), then all the outrage over calling it a push poll seems a little contrived.

Posted by southpaw | September 24, 2007 9:44 AM

Southpaw:

Like I said, Lake wouldn't be testing "the idea that Biden should adopt the message strategies of a Republican candidate". They could just be testing the frontrunners' viability against Republicans, which means seeing how well Clinton and Obama can stand up against Republican attacks.

Posted by Junius Brutus | September 24, 2007 9:48 AM

How about calling this propaganda disguised as a poll. Then, we have Cilizza peddling this as "news" while not telling us that Lake works for Biden.

Sounds like another Rove-y trick to me.

Posted by boilerman10 | September 24, 2007 9:53 AM

let's be clear: a poll is bought and paid for by a candidate for two reasons. First, to determine how and why one candidate is preferred by voters (message-making and sharpening) -- and only the best pollers get this business as it is expensive and largely privately held. The second reason is to distribute a message to the public and this poll in question hit a home run (lots of press with the right message for the candidate that paid for it). Like most things regarding politics, voter (and media-news consumer) beware. Read the fine print on the poll and the actual questions asked.

Posted by mike c | September 24, 2007 9:58 AM

"How about calling this propaganda disguised as a poll."

Fair enough, as long as you recognize that the ONLY reason candidates EVER publicly release the results of their polls is for propaganda purposes. So this poll is nothing out of the ordinary.

Posted by Junius Brutus | September 24, 2007 10:03 AM

We should also recognize the legitimate value of testing Clinton and Obama's viability in a general election because there are real questions about that. Sure they're beating Dodd and Richardson and Kucinich and Gravel but how viable are they really?

Do we want to nominate Clinton if it turns out that she is uniquely vulnerable to Republican attacks? Likewise with Obama?

Personally, the bloom is off the rose with me and Clinton. She has really let me down in the last several years. I haven't seen much about Obama that really impresses me either. Of course, I'd take either one over Biden in a heartbeat.

But if Clinton or Obama would have to struggle against Republicans maybe we should go with Edwards if he does better. It's a legitimate question.

Better yet, I'm still holding out slim hope that Gore gets in the race.

Posted by Junius Brutus | September 24, 2007 10:15 AM

I don't want to belabor this, but I think you'd agree that what Lake did,

testing "how well Clinton and Obama can stand up against Republican attacks", and then loudly publicizing their alleged weakness along with the substance of the attacks (liberal, high taxes, big government) . . .

. . . actually differs very little from adopting the message strategies of a Republican candidate.

It may be that Biden doesn't need to take further action--that the damage is already done as a result of the leak. But that doesn't make this good faith research, and it doesn't redound to the credit of the pollster.

Posted by southpaw | September 24, 2007 10:54 AM

the question was worded to 'push' opinion to a desired result, which could then be used to push the idea in the media that obaba and hrc are unelectable in the red states and will be a drag on close congressional races. no, it was not meant to push the opinions of individual recipients enogh to make a difference in an election. so what? it is still sleazy, disreputable and dishonest. if biden wants to make the above points, he should do so, instead of hiding behind a phony poll in a phony news story

Posted by isaac | September 24, 2007 12:40 PM

I actually learned something from the stuff contributed here by Junius Brutus. He seems like he knows what he's talking about. Thanks.

Posted by mq | September 24, 2007 2:00 PM