Yesterday Richard Moore's campaign manager, Jay Reiff, sent out an e-mail to supporters touting the results of a new poll by the Benenson Strategy Group. According to the poll Perdue leads Moore 34% to 30%. The mass email and polling memo make note that Moore actually leads Perdue 48% to 33% among voters "who know both candidates."
Reiff did not feel the need to mention in his e-mail that Benenson is the campaign's paid pollster. And as WUNC's Laura Leslie pointed out last night, "although Benensen is one of the better internal pollsters out there, no one gets rich by delivering strictly dismal data. Knowing how to find a silver lining in the numbers is, well, worth a lot of silver."
Reiff also used part of the e-mail to take some thinly veiled shots at the accuracy of polling companies, including PPP, that have delivered less favorable numbers for Moore's chances.
For instance he said "How was the poll conducted? Many public polls are automated, computer-generated polls done on the cheap. Our pollster uses live callers to make sure we’re interviewing actual voters."
It has been written numerous times on this blog how bogus this line of attack against IVR surveys is. But I will repeat it, there is absolutely no evidence that IVR surveys are less accurate than live-interview surveys and we will put our track record up against anybody.
In fact the Moore campaign has been happy to tout our numbers when the results were more favorable to them.
Reiff also devoted a significant chunk of his e-mail to criticizing Civitas' methodology. We don't agree with the way they do their polls for primaries either because they don't survey exclusively likely primary voters, but Reiff's criticism is ironic considering just two weeks ago he sent out an e-mail to supporters hailing the results of a Civitas poll as a sign that the race is 'wide open.'
I'm pretty sure Jay Reiff wouldn't be taking shots at our methodology if his candidate was doing a little better.
You can say what you want about us, but whenever we do a poll on the gubernatorial race we tell you exactly what we asked and give you full crosstabs. I would challenge the Moore campaign to do the same thing before sending out selective poll numbers and criticizing the way we do business.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Yeh, nice try there.
No campaign released their internal polling data completely. Some, like Moore, release selections to bolster their campaigns, but no campaigns have EVER released their full poll or crosstabs. It would be political suicide.
Those puppies cost tens of thousands of dollars to do. Why would they give that valuable info away?
And, although you do have a point that no study has conclusively proven IVR polling to be less reliable than traditional polling, in my opinion and that of most political professionals, a live poll is always the better way to go if you have the money to spend.
Of course I don't really expect Richard Moore to release full results and crosstabs from his internal polls.
I just think it's laughable for his campaign to put out releases criticizing the methodology of Democratic polling companies who are much more transparent about their results and methodology than his is.
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 感情挽回, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信
Post a Comment