Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
Well, the worst-kept secret in the political races, is now officially revealed.
It was done throughout the 2004 and 2008 campaigns, John Edwards' pollster said during Edwards' trial under oath. Polls were cherry-picked to create a rosier image of a losing candidate, not to present the truth about how the race was really going.
And now, with their 2012 candidate losing in unbiased polls that reflect actual proportions of Dem and GOP voters, is there any chance that Democrat pollsters in 2012 (which includes most of the mainstream media) are doing the same thing, yet again?
Naw. The mainstream media would never do a thing like that.
Would they?
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/10/a-pollster-under-oath-137100.html
A pollster under oath
By JOSH GERSTEIN |
10/2/12 2:24 AM EDT
When a pollster or strategist for a struggling political campaign presents what seems like a sugar-coated view of his candidate's chances, do you ever think: I wish I could give that adviser some truth serum, or maybe put him under oath?
Well, truth serum may be pushing it, but the put-him-under-oath part has actually happened. And when a pollster is required to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, under penalty of perjury, what emerges is quite a bit different than what you hear in the waning days of a presidential campaign.
In May, the pollster for Al Gore's presidential bid in 2000 and John Edwards's in 2004 and 2008, Harrison Hickman, took the stand in the federal criminal case against Edwards over alleged campaign finance violations stemming from payments to support Edwards's mistress.
Under oath, Hickman admitted that in the final weeks of Edwards's 2008 bid, Hickman cherry-picked public polls to make the candidate seem viable, promoted surveys that Hickman considered unreliable, and sent e-mails to campaign aides, Edwards supporters and reporters which argued that the former senator was still in the hunt —even though Hickman had already told Edwards privately that he had no real chance of winning the Democratic nomination.
"They were pounding on me for positive information. You know, where is some good news we can share with people? We were monitoring all these polls and I was sending the ones that were most favorable because [campaign aides] wanted to share them with reporters," Hickman testified on May 14 at the trial in Greensboro, N.C. "We were not finding very much good news and I was trying to give them what I could find."
Hickman testified that when circulating the polls, he didn't much care if they were accurate. "I didn't necessarily take any of these as for—as you would say, for the truth of the matter. I took them more as something that could be used as propaganda for the campaign," the veteran pollster said.
It was done throughout the 2004 and 2008 campaigns, John Edwards' pollster said during Edwards' trial under oath. Polls were cherry-picked to create a rosier image of a losing candidate, not to present the truth about how the race was really going.
And now, with their 2012 candidate losing in unbiased polls that reflect actual proportions of Dem and GOP voters, is there any chance that Democrat pollsters in 2012 (which includes most of the mainstream media) are doing the same thing, yet again?
Naw. The mainstream media would never do a thing like that.
Would they?
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/10/a-pollster-under-oath-137100.html
A pollster under oath
By JOSH GERSTEIN |
10/2/12 2:24 AM EDT
When a pollster or strategist for a struggling political campaign presents what seems like a sugar-coated view of his candidate's chances, do you ever think: I wish I could give that adviser some truth serum, or maybe put him under oath?
Well, truth serum may be pushing it, but the put-him-under-oath part has actually happened. And when a pollster is required to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, under penalty of perjury, what emerges is quite a bit different than what you hear in the waning days of a presidential campaign.
In May, the pollster for Al Gore's presidential bid in 2000 and John Edwards's in 2004 and 2008, Harrison Hickman, took the stand in the federal criminal case against Edwards over alleged campaign finance violations stemming from payments to support Edwards's mistress.
Under oath, Hickman admitted that in the final weeks of Edwards's 2008 bid, Hickman cherry-picked public polls to make the candidate seem viable, promoted surveys that Hickman considered unreliable, and sent e-mails to campaign aides, Edwards supporters and reporters which argued that the former senator was still in the hunt —even though Hickman had already told Edwards privately that he had no real chance of winning the Democratic nomination.
"They were pounding on me for positive information. You know, where is some good news we can share with people? We were monitoring all these polls and I was sending the ones that were most favorable because [campaign aides] wanted to share them with reporters," Hickman testified on May 14 at the trial in Greensboro, N.C. "We were not finding very much good news and I was trying to give them what I could find."
Hickman testified that when circulating the polls, he didn't much care if they were accurate. "I didn't necessarily take any of these as for—as you would say, for the truth of the matter. I took them more as something that could be used as propaganda for the campaign," the veteran pollster said.
