-
Website
http://capitolfax.com/ -
Original page
http://capitolfax.com/2007/11/13/schock-roundup-and-seals-poll/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
wordslinger
96 comments · 42 points
-
Rich Miller
147 comments · 56 points
-
LoopLady
16 comments · 6 points
-
theoriginallynns
16 comments · 2 points
-
dupage dan
28 comments · 2 points
-
-
Popular Threads
No surprise about Seals. Kirk's re-election won't be a surprise either.
I would say an income of 132K in Peoria is very much "upper class". Hard to say how much equity he has, and that will determine if he's rich.
Income of 1% doesn't seem like much on that asset base.
A Democratic landslide is the only thing likely to topple Mark Kirk.
Kirk probably deserves to be defeated based upon his support for the Iraq War/Bush adminstration policies. Objectively he doesn't seem moderate/centrist to me, but he is a moderate compared to the right wing of the
Republican Party. Kirk is not a real John Porter centrist.
If I were Seals, I'd push KIrk into rejecting the Bush adminstration desire to contimue occupying Iraq indefinitely and try to make the election a referendum on the Iraq debacle,the greatest strategic blunder in the history of American foreign policy.
It's just as legitimate to say that Seals had his shot (and it WAS a Democratic landslide year) and couldn't deliver, so why isn't it Footlik's turn?
BTW, Kirk is rated almost precisely in the center of the House. If he's not a moderate, no one is.
Finally, the war is not going to be the big deal in 2008 that it was in 2006- see the Team America post re same. Even the national Dems are hedging their bets and working on pumping up their domestic creds.
furthermore, i'd question whether anyone over there understands what is a push poll. it's a rather baseless charge, drawn apparently from ignorance. not one single attribute of a push poll is present, at least not from what we know -- nor does anyone actually accuse the poll of having elements of push polling present. it's obvious that this does not constitute a push poll (if you understand what the term means and how it is used).
finally, the questions about a head-to-head matchup against kirk is just bizarre. one assumes, if this poll has any integrity at all, that it is a poll of democrats or people who say they will vote in the democratic primary. after all, *that's* what the poll is about (the democratic primary). why on earth would you ask a head-to-head matchup question of partisan voters? the results would be tremendously skewed.
i get the feeling that team america is just looking for angles (and making them up, to boot!) to attack the seals campaign...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll
While the Seals poll appears to have been conducted by a reputable pollster and clearly the Seals camp is taking credit for it, the types of questions and statements made to the respondents make it sound a lot like negative campaigning under the guise of a legitimate poll to me. The Seals camp also did not release other common polling data such as the margin of error, as far as I know.
Whereas many push polls are used to simply spread propaganda, they can also be used to pump up a candidate's poll results by "poisoning the well" by the clever use of slanted questions, to achieve the desired result.
If the Seals camp wants to refute that, they can release the questions and results. Their move.
Well, actually, it's Footlik's move.
You don't know much history, do you?
If that's the accepted definition of "push poll", I'll be happy to accept Rich's correction, as an audience of 404 voters are not going to make or break the election as far as propaganda. But, it may still well amount to negative campaigning (as opposed to testing negative issues) in my opinion, depending on the phraseology of the questions. Any bets on whether Seals will release them?
The media is often way too quick to judge a poll as a negative "push" when in fact they're just questions designed to test an upcoming negative message.
The only exception would be if a legislator interceded on behalf of legislation that specifically benefitted his or her particular business and not others in the same field.
My concerns about him are not surrounding his income/assets, however. In the end, this just reinforces my concerns about his maturity and ability to represent the common voter. It's the sum of the parts which add up to equal a young man who is not prepared to serve in Congress.
rich's "opinion" is correct. you are not. here's an old answer i posted elsewhere:
the asking of a negative question is not the definition of a push poll. it's not even close. we have an accepted definition of pushing polling:
push polls are defined by three primary characteristics:
1. instead of a sample, push polls seek to contact a very large universe of the electorate, thus the push poll is a form of telemarketing masquerading as a poll. more akin to telemarketing techniques than survey research techniques.
2. push polls occur within the context of an imminently approaching election. they seek to influence not merely the respondent's answer, but the conversation and the election itself. Push-polls are designed to shape, rather than measure, public opinion.
3. push polls are short (20-60 seconds long), very pointed, and will not include any demographic questions.
people like yourself, people not really acquainted with the needs and demands of a political campaign, may not wish to understand that the term is also sometimes used inaccurately to refer to legitimate polls which test political messages, some of which may be negative.
cbs has a more detailed explanation:
only people who don't understand campaigns, polling and standard tactics would argue that this is a push poll...
"In the end, this just reinforces my concerns about his maturity and ability to represent the common voter."
This is said with a straight face.
In the wonderboy's world up is down and down is up.
From the "common voter" perspective, there is no better test of maturity than your ability to make a million by age 26.
Also, did he even mention Kirk in his polls? Of course not, because he’s not winning or even close. If he was he would’ve mentioned that.
Lastly, since Footlik had a big fundraiser just YESTERDAY, this whole thing isn’t even indicative of the true race. I just don’t see how Seals can claim such a win when his facts aren’t even right.
Really? I could think of many things that I find more important. My statement had nothing to do with his ABILITY to make the money, however. It had everything to do with his view that being a millionaire does not make one rich. That, my friend, is severely out of touch with the common voter. Severely.
Make the money--great. Think that you are an average Joe when you are a millionaire--absurdly demented as to the definition of the average Joe. Perhaps you are trying to spin my comments, but I actually said that I have no issue with his ability to make the money or be wealthy. Please take the time to read again.
And I said all of that with a straight face.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Defense Department on Tuesday informed lawmakers about a possible sale to Taiwan of Patriot missile system upgrades valued at $939 million and supplied by U.S. defense contractor Raytheon Co.
The comparison if a Patriot Missle Defense System to Pershing Nuclear Missles may be the single most ridiculous thing I've read in this whole crazy episode. If I were one of the other guys, I'd be hoping you work for Schock!
C'mon!
The average Joe will understand.
Errr...that's what an early poll does. Test your weaknesses and your opponents. That's how polling works for a campaign. You put the generic test up front and then probe what is likely to be both campaigns weaknesses to determine how to determine your strategy.
If you haven't developed a poll for a campaign maybe this all seems strange, but it's standard practice and the sample size is typical. There's nothing out of the ordinary or unexpected.
Footlik has barely been doing any advertising and so his 6% showing isn't unusual. Actually, the story is different than everyone seems to understand--that Jay has low name recognition is to be expected--that primary voters know Dan well enough for him to break 50% is very telling and essentially it's an incumbent versus a challenger in this race for the primary. I can guarantee John Laesch isn't over 50% in his District with primary voters.
Really, an insult? Twice today I have heard some over-emotional individual claim that Iraq is the biggest blunder in history. These kinds of claims make me angry because it displays such a utter ignorance of American history.
Where do I begin? Here is just a few dozen...
Sacking of Washington because of wrong usage of ships for naval blockade.
Invasions of Upper and Lower Canada by the US.
Biggest battle occurred two weeks after war ended.
Treaty of Ghent showed that war ended with no winner.
The American Civil War
Bull Run
Pickett's Charge
Little Big Horn
US ignor's Japanese threats prior to Pearl Harbor.
The Italian Campaign in WWII, instead of invading France as desired by US military.
Iwo Jima - 26,000 casualties, and Okinawa - 51,000 casualties 30 days before Hiroshima ended WWII.
Truman ignors China's threat to fight in Korea.
Longest retreat of US military in history, 15000 casualties.
Vietnam
Operation Eagle's Claw
Iraq? PLEASE open a freaking history book!
The Civil War was an enormous strategic error by the Confederacy, not the North, for instance.
Ignoring the Japanese threat cost us dearly in the short term, but we won and democraticzed Japan.
Truman was worried sick about China. McArthur used faulty, skewed, ideological based intelligence to say otherwise.
Little Big Horn was the last big Indian "win."
Etc.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
The Indian Casinos are a bigger "win" and they keep on winning.
Bad luck, I just finished "The forgotten war" an excellent read.
Actually, Mac had no data at all. Eighth Army had a lot that did imply a Chinese intervention. Mac just ignored it but it wasn't what he wanted to hear.
Read No Drums, One Bugle to see a former Marine, later State legis. leader dump on Mac big time.
Also, regarding Vietnam, I think the reason it was such a strategic blunder was that the country's strategic importance was so vastly overinflated. It just wasn't that "important" in the big picture, other than to show the Soviets to what lengths we would go to stop them from expanding. Which had its usefulness, of course.
http://www.pjstar.com/php/index.php?/news/
peoria_schock_admits_mistake_for_nuclear
_weapons_proposal/
I don't pretend to be a historian or a foreign polciy expert.Can't recall the specific source of my quote from papers I wrote last year when taking courses on terrorism and international relations. .
There is in fact a general consensus among the foreign policy establishment and other objective analysts outside the Bush adminstration- not wild-eyed liberals - that the Iraq War has become,in fact, the greatest strategic disaster in the history of American foreign policy. All you have to do is discard your ideological blinders, pick up a book about the Iraq war, and read it. Or maybe ask Colin Powell.
Here's a represntative quote from a retired general:
"The Iraq invasion was the greatest strategic disaster in Ameican history."
Lt.General William Odem, Retired
Viet Nam Veteran, June 2005
Why would Seals poll head to head against Kirk in a poll for a Democratic primary?
Go ahead and advocate for your guy, but do so with facts. You've seen all of the bad poll analysis and untruths debunked on this post already, why add to them?
Huh?