Bachmann's campaign newsletter
--posted by Tony Garcia on 1/06/2006
Michele Bachmann's campaign just sent out an e-mail with the results of the poll that the blogosphere was abuzz about a few weeks ago.
Republican State Senator and pro-family advocate Michele Bachmann is strongly favored among Sixth Congressional District caucus delegates a new poll reveals. The survey, conducted by ConnectCallUSA.com on behalf of the Bachmann campaign, shows nearly 30% favoring the two-term State Senator with a third remaining undecided.This would not normally be anything major to report at this point. Then I added the results displayed in the chart. There were as follows:
Uh, I did not claim to be a math expert, but that is missing a segment that would constitute a majority...there is 32% missing. This creates the false illusion that Bachmann is far in the lead.
Michele Bachmann 29%
Jim Knoblach 17%
Phil Krinkie 10%
Jay Esmay 4%
Wouldn't Say 8%
This strikes me wrong. I have to deduct a point for this.
The other thing is that I remember being called for this poll. I asked the person who this was being conducted on behalf of and they would only say "Connect Call USA", I even asked a second time, "Who is your company doing this on behalf of?" They again said only "Connect Call USA". I don't know if this is legal or not (some people say it is not legal), but this also strikes me as poor form. I do not think it would be fair to penalize Bachmann for this on the first occassion. Now that the word is out about this I will deduct heavily next time.
I hope the campaign straightens itself out and runs on Bachmann...no mirrors, no smokescreens...just run as Bachmann. Win as Bachmann or lose as Bachmann but just run as Bachmann. There is no need to manipulate your followers like this.
What the e-mail should have said instead is "32% are undecided. While we have the lead amongst those who have decided we have our work cut out to reach out to the undecided delegates."
That would have been what a confident candidate would have done, imho.
5 Comments:
Good points.
Actually, if they were doing the poll on behalf of someone I believe it is more honest to say who is paying them to do the poll. Since they decided not to disclose that information I lied.
The e-mail did NOT mention the undecideds. That is the problem. That too would have been more honest.
I'm not ignoring your points. Don't let your arrogance confuse you...that someone disagreeing actually means they are ignoring you. Your points are not so good or well stated that they would have 100% success at convincing others.
I flatly disagree with your first point. It may damage a bit the credibility of the poll either way. If someone asks "who paid for this" and they do not get an answer the polled person is likely to do one of three things, Give false answers, Refuse to engage in the poll, Or Continue forward. That already gives a flawed result.
Additionally, by refusing to answer who paid for the poll the company is providing a false sense of independence...that also should be called out.
I stand corrected...the undecideds were mentioned in the text. My issue is still with the chart that does NOT mention the undecideds which is creating a false visual picture of the polling results. I think the fact that they included the 'refused to answer' in the chart shows the intentional omission of the undecideds. Cover up? No. Misleading ...definitely. While you might find it necessary to defend it I think it is fair to point it out.
I find it difficult to support someone that would manipulate data like to their own supporters. I feel a little less able to trust any information from her.
You're kind of dense.
You're first stellar point: "blah, blah, blah...tainted the results"
I answered that. Go back an find the answers, I refuse to repeat myself to you when I already answered.
You're other incredible point completely missed my complaint...the CHART was misleading. And the misleading nature of the e-mail (big giant chart with distorted implications) leads to less trust of what the candidate says.
And for the record, I also responded to your point about the text of the e-mail...which I miswrote. "I stand corrected...the undecideds were mentioned in the text. My issue is still with the chart that does NOT mention the undecideds..."
So do us all a favor and admit for the sake of disclosure that you are a lapdog for the Bachmann campaign AND a partisan hack which renders you incapable of seeing anything wrong with the party.
Hack.
The chart was misleading. Period.
Post a Comment
<< Home