/* ------------------- begin IP Block script ------------------- Block IP address script Points to php script on blog.racetotheright.com IP addresses are within the script ---------- */ /* -------------------- end IP Block script ------------------- */

Friday, January 06, 2006

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:

Michele Bachmann 29%
Jim Knoblach 17%
Phil Krinkie 10%
Jay Esmay 4%
Wouldn't Say 8%
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.

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.

9 Comments:

Blogger lloydletta said...

Good points.

January 07, 2006  
Blogger Brent Metzler said...

Don't you think that since they were doing an impartial poll they would not want to say they were doing it on behalf of Michele Bachmann's campaign? Wouldn't that have tainted the results? I find it quite reasonable to not disclose who you are polling for to make sure that you get as accurate results as possible.

Furthermore, as you mentioned, the email sad that about 33% were still undecided. It is not like the campaign is trying to hide anything. Then there was a graph right below that paragraph showing who the delegates that already have voiced support for a candidate said they would support. I'm not really seeing anything covered up here, it's all clear in the email.

January 07, 2006  
Blogger Tony said...

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.

January 07, 2006  
Blogger Brent Metzler said...

Tony, I tried to be polite and non-confrontational in my reply. But it appears that you have chosen to ignore my points.

My first point was that if you want a completely impartial poll, you can't say who you are polling for. That would corrupt the pollers abililty to get impartial answers. It has nothing to do with honesty.

Second, the email CLEARLY mentioned the undecideds. You refered to it in your original post, and then in your reply to me you deny that the email mentioned the undecideds. In case you don't have the email anymore, let me quote it for you. Nearly 30% of 6th District Republican delegates favor Bachmann with a third remaining undecided in the poll conducted on behalf of the Bachmann campaign. If anyone does not believe that I quoted that directly from the email, they can click on the link to confirm.

January 07, 2006  
Blogger Tony said...

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.

January 07, 2006  
Blogger Brent Metzler said...

There is a difference between ignoring and disagreeing. You ignored my reply because you disagreed with it. It would have been better to address the points I brought up in my reply then just type something that contradicted what you had even written in your original post.

To finish this debate, I ask you, what is the difference between "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." and "Nearly 30% of 6th District Republican delegates favor Bachmann with a third remaining undecided in the poll conducted on behalf of the Bachmann campaign. Clearly aligned with key concerns of delegates - national security and Right-to-Life - Bachmann outpaced her nearest opponent by nearly double and garnered three times the support as the third place opponent."

I'm really sorry that Michele Bachmann's campaign did not let you write their emails. But what you would have written and what the email said is not contradictory. It is just expressed in different ways. I would have probably written it in a different way also. But just because someone doesn't say something the way you would is no reason to oppose them.

January 07, 2006  
Blogger Tony said...

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.

January 07, 2006  
Blogger Brent Metzler said...

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.

I've told people before, and I'll post it here publically. I believe that Krinkie will get the endorsement. That said, I don't even live in the 6th district, and am not part of the endorsement process.

I just don't attack people just because I don't like them. I've said several times now that I don't see any of these so-called problems with the email that you claim to see.

You would have written the email differently. Fair enough, I accept that. But there is nothing wrong with how Bachmann's email was written, and it didn't lack anything that you claim you would have added. Concede that formatting differences is no reason to oppose her email and I will be happy.

January 07, 2006  
Blogger Tony said...

The chart was misleading. Period.

January 07, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home