Pushing Back on Push 'Polls'

Let's put an end to the insidious practice of "push polling!" If organizations want to conduct political telemarketing, then call it what it is--- push calling, calls designed to 'push' potential voters toward or away from a particular candidate. It's the opposite of legitimate polling, which is carefully designed to collect useful information. The difference is in the flow of information. Push calls are designed to influence your impression of a candidate based on the information they provide to you; surveys and polls want to elicit information from you.

Please, could those engaged in the practice of push calls quit including questions in an attempt to disguise the call as a legitimate poll? The addition of a question or set of questions to these calls is deceptive. In the end, push calls do serious harm to the survey and polling industry by aggravating the pool of potential respondents to the point they will no longer participate in legitimate surveys.

Many of us in the research industry have pointed out that while there is nothing new about push calls, what is new is that the practice is becoming far more widespread with the use of automated dialing combined with interactive voice recognition (IVR) systems. Use of IVR alone does not constitute a push call---several survey and polling organizations now use IVR systems for legitimate surveys. However, for the recipient there are a couple of quick ways to tell if the call you receive is a true push call. These calls tend to be quite short, provide slanted information about a candidate or group of candidates, and do not include any demographic questions. One additional feature of push calls: They often are delivered to large numbers of recipients, far greater than the number who would normally be called for a poll or survey.

In Iowa, things are already notching up with the announcement by Americans for Legal Immigration PAC reported today by ABC's Jake Tapper, that they will begin push calls tonight---ABC has the call here. So, rather than trying to hide behind the cloak of legitimate polling, we now see that advocate organizations are willing to issue a press release about their push call campaigns.

As we begin 2008 and what is clearly going to be a hotly contested campaign season, I urge recipients of these calls to recognize that these are NOT polls but rather a thinly disguised attempt to manipulate your opinion. And I urge those engaged in the practice to cease operating under the pretext of a political poll---deliver your message if you must, but don't damn the survey and polling industry along the way.

Comments

[WildDog]

I'm sure my response to polls is part of the known results but I answer no polls from anyone on anything.

Tell me where you stand and I'll let you know with my ballot but I won't tell you in advance what I want to hear so you can say what I told you I wanted to hear.

[StaroftheSea]

This is what I find amazing about all the attention to Iowa. Listen to political pundits and they go on and on about how involved Iowans are in the process. Then when pressed we learn that only 7% of the registered voters turn out to caucus. So let's say one of the top three gets 35% of the votes, and they win since the rest divy up the rest. That means that 2.5% of the registered voters in a small Midwest state have a great deal of influence deciding the two major party candidates. Doesn't that strike anyone else as strange????

[AnotherIADem]

I got one (push poll call) on Wednesday night. They start off like a legit poll: Are you a registred Democrat? Will you attend your caucus? Who is your first choice? How certain/uncertain is your choice? Then the fun begins. "I'm going to read you a statement and then ask you some questions". The first statement was something about how John Edwards accepted some kind of campaign money (blah, blah, blah, blah,) and would this make me more or less likely to support him? (I answered, truthfully, that it had no influence whatsoever). 2nd question: Did I know that Barack Obama voted present and therefore avoided revealing his true position..blah, blah, blah, blah, blah (they did not give the denominator--ie, the hundred-something present votes were out of a couple thousand votes total). I said, NO, it did not influence me because it was a blatently false and misleading statement.
Then I messed with the poor pollster (what else could I do?). Who commissioned this poll? She didn't know-- it was being conducted by an "independent polling firm". OH, OK, so what is the NAME of this independent polling firm?? She didn't know. I tried to ask another question, but she had to end the call. I suggested she take a good hard look at her paycheck to find out who was paying her for this nonsense, and hung up.
Now, does it take a genius to figure that if they give you negative info about Edwards, and negative info about Obama, that the source must be someone who is fronting for another candidate? And who else among the candidates has the $$$ and the balls (but necessary lack of scrupples) to do such a thing? Do they really think this crap will make ANYONE want to vote for HRC?????
I am counting the hours to Jan 3, can't wait to be counted for Obama.

[BetterDeadthanRedState]

Here's a great idea so it will never see the light of day. How about a national primary where you can feel free to vote for Ralph Nader if you want. Then there could be a run-off between the two candidates that got the most vote. This would eliminate the unequal influence of Iowa, New Hampshire, and the Supreme Court—you know, the Supreme Court that wouldn't allow a recount (the remedy for inequality) based on the 14th amendment because people would be deprived equality if their votes were counted.

[elementixx]

To paraphrase Nancy Reagan, "Just Hang Up."

[Sciguy]

I live in Kentucky, and we just had an election in November. My phone rang off the hook - and I'm on every Do Not Call list that I can get on. No matter! Kentucky exempts political calls from the telemarketing law. These were automated calls, with recorded voices telling me that I should vote for this candidate or that one. I quit answering my phone, since slamming the receiver down on a recording is not particularly satisfying.

I tried to find out how to get a measure on the ballot to specifically prevent automated calls - no luck! In Kentucky, it makes no difference if you have a million signatures - you can't put that type of measure on the ballot. Bugger off, taxpayers! I wrote a letter to the local editor, but naturally, my reps (whom I named in the letter) have not called or indicated that they are against this nonsense.

I have no idea if we had push polls this time, since I quit paying attention to the ringing phone. It would take actual effort and money for a candidate here to use push polls, since they (so far) require live humans on both ends of the call. However, we have had push poll calls in the past, and I admit it - I have fun with them. The ones I've received were so blatantly slanted that I made sure that whatever the calls were fer, I was agin it. It had no effect on real polls, since these are not real polls. However, I hope I gave a few candidates a small kick in the pants for annoying me!

[shimane]

Push polls, robo calls, political call, they are all should be banned, but they won't.

A new non-partisan, non-profit is fighting back and has started the National Political Do Not Contact Registry, based on the success of the do not call list.

Politicians exempted themselves from the federal list.

Shaun Dakin
CEO
www.StopPoliticalCalls.org

[JulieSA]

With caller id, who nowadays answers the phone if it's someone they don't know? I certainly don't.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I'm kind of against political entities calling
people at all. They have this thing called 'the internet', where they could be plying their
wares, put their questions in black-and-white,
not disrupt dinner etc., and probably get a
better idea of peoople's opinion on a given
issue. Also, at least as far as immigration
is concerned, there's been years' worth of
deliberate negligence on that, they don't
need a poll to fix it, they need reform
and probably new staff etc. But, whatever...

[hopeless277]

One question: why does Iowa get to decide?