UPDATE: Quick clarification. I had previously asked my source about the notion that Romney is behind the poll. He said it was “nonsense”. I should clarify that this is his opinion. From my conversations I gather that he does not know exactly who is behind the survey but thinks that a Romney motive is “ridiculous”. Again, he is understandably tight lipped on all this.
Jonathan Martin has his updates here but it appears we’re the only one with a major source
I’ve communicated to my source at Western Wats on numerous occasions now. (see here and here )
He is a senior executive at the company. He is very tight lipped about the whole thing but notes the following:
- He said the notion that Romney did this himself is “nonsense”
- The call could have been made at anyone of their locations (they have call centers in Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas)
- They employ over 1500 people across the country and have dozens of projects happening at any given moment
- They claim that they do not do push polling… rather their focus has been message testing. They do this for political campaigns and Fortune 500 companies to gauge the reaction to certain facts and pieces of information.
- They don’t write the scripts. They don’t analyze the data. They have no stake in the end results.
- In many cases they have no idea who the end client is. (this way they don’t taint the data one way or the other)
- He indicated that he would love nothing more than a political entity to force their hand on this and reveal the client. But his hands are tied.
- He believes that if the script is ever made available that the reaction will be “Is this all? that’s not a big deal.”
November 17th, 2007 at 10:29 am
He believes that if the script is ever made available that the reaction will be “Is this all? that’s not a big deal.â€
There’s nothing like the unknown to allow the unfettered imagination run wild.
November 17th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Speaking of Machiavellian stunts, how’s this from the Dem side (courtesy of Robert Novak):
Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party’s presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed.
This word-of-mouth among Democrats makes Obama look vulnerable and Clinton look prudent. It comes during a dip for the front-running Clinton after she refused to take a stand on New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s now discarded plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens.
Experienced Democratic political operatives believe Clinton wants to avoid a repetition of 2004, when attacks on each other by presidential candidates Howard Dean and Richard Gephardt were mutually destructive and facilitated John Kerry’s nomination.
November 17th, 2007 at 10:39 am
We already know a lot of the script because some who were called revealed it. And it is a big deal.
This morning on MSNBC, Pat Buchanan (who knows a little something about dirty tricks) must have read my musings because he completely agreed. He (and I) said: 1) no way its McCain; 2) whoever’s behind it has deep pockets because it was an expensive endeavor; and 3) this benefits – Romney! Pat said it gives Romney “cover” on the mormon issue and makes him appear to be a victim.
November 17th, 2007 at 10:54 am
#2. Striking display of Clintonian benevolence, ay? What a scream.
November 17th, 2007 at 10:57 am
The last bullet in Justin’s write-up is interesting. Makes you kind of wonder if a lot of the flack yesterday resulted from a few of the call recipients’ own interpretation of the intent of the calls and subsequent reaction. It would be interesting the see the actual call script.
November 17th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Like I said in the other thread – I think the most likely candidates (excuse the pun) are Giuliani or Huckabee. The reason is that These calls are being made in IA (and other places) – which McCain has virtually written off. It does not make any sense that McCain would spend any of his little remaining resources on a state he has no hope of winning.
November 17th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Kansas- Brownback!
November 17th, 2007 at 11:46 am
He believes that if the script is ever made available that the reaction will be “Is this all? that’s not a big deal.â€
Isn’t that what Bob Woodward said during Plamegate?
November 17th, 2007 at 11:52 am
I don’t know, but Nixon said it during Watergate. Of course he edited out all the bad stuff. Ah, the good ole days.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
ACT, the calls were made to both IA and NH. The effect of this is national attention. Those 2 things mean if it *were* a candidate, they don’t have to do it in the race only where it’s most relevant. And why would they call attention to themselves like that? They’d use both states for cover, and/or include McCain for cover and/or hire a UT firm for cover.
However, what are the odds this is from an opposing candidate? Slim to none. They aren’t that stupid. It’s very likely it’s from a wealthy supporter of a candidate, or an Evangelical group, which have been doing anti-Mormon activity all year, and it will only escalate.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Of course you are the only source. They are Romney donors. It is an anti-Romney project. You are a Romneybot.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
I see the RomNots are hyperventilating to blame the victim and lead the trail away from the prospective perpetrators. Let’s face it…there is nothing intelligent to be said about this until something solid comes out. So far, very little has. When it does, the guilty need to be hanged from the highest tree.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
I posted this elsewhere. I think there is some merit.
Whodunnit? A Michigan based 527 — I name names!
—————————
Everyone by now has heard about the Anti-Mormon push poll calls in IA and NH. But what we haven’t considered is why did the calls occur on 11/14 and suddenly stopped.
Consider this: According to campaign finance laws a 527 is free to advertise (which would include push polling) up to 60 days before the election. Which state’s primary election is likely going to occur 60+ days from the date these calls occurred? Let’s see, Michigan is going to hold a primary on 1/15. Hmmmmmm…………..
So the perpetrator has ties to Michigan and magically stopped these calls right before the 60 day deadline to avoid potential legal trouble. Also, let’s assume that this Michigan 527 is friendly with McCain since these calls put McCain in such a good light. Using these criteria, the circle of suspects become:
–Gary Glenn of the American Families Association in Michigan.
–Jerry Zandstra, leader of the Pro-Life Federation of Michigan and former member of Sam Brownback’s national steering committee (who is now supporting John McCain).
Now, both of these guys have supported Brownback and now are supporting McCain. Interesting, no? And guess who had an extra 300,000 to spend to fund this dialing operation? Yep, Brownback had some extra cash leftover from his presidential run. Bingo. Brownback has ties to these guys in Michigan, he is also supporting McCain, he has the motivation to slander Romney, and he had the money to fund this operation. McCain also can invoke plausible deniability. Pretty slick isn’t?
Please note, although no boardcode and smiley buttons are shown, they are still useable
November 17th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
*ignore the last line–copy and paste error.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
At this point, Michigan does not have a primary date – other than the 2/5 fallback. So your date logic does not work.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
I’m fairly certain this came from a pro-McCain group. From the interview with the Western Watts employee, they didn’t think it was a big deal. Judging by the length of the poll, it was a “serious†though obviously misguided poll. They were trying to figure out what issues would promote McCain the best and destroy Mitt the best. If this was JUST meant as a push poll, it wouldn’t have been so long. Why spend all that money on a long poll, when you could just ask 2 questions. It was research.
The most obvious suspect should be Rick Reed and Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America. They’re already doing ads McCain doesn’t approve of, the foundation is built of McCain supporters, Rick Reed did the swift boat ads, Rick Reed worked as McCain’s ad man, and to put it bluntly, more than a couple of times, McCain supporters have stooped to making religion an issue.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
But why in Iowa and not in Michigan? McCain has zero chance in Iowa, and a fairly good shot in MI. If it was a pro-McCain person/group/campaign/etc., why would they not look for what would hurt Romney in a chance where McCain had a realistic chance?
November 17th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
ACT, I already answered your #17 in the first paragraph of #10. It even started with your name.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
**in a place where McCain had a realistic chance?
November 17th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Quick background on how I got this interview.
1) I called Western Wats
2) I randomly guessed someone’s first name
3) That person told me who I should speak to
4) I dialed the person back and won his confidence.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
[...] UPDATE: Race 4 2008 has a post it says is based on talks with a source at Western Wats which says they can’t say who did it but it’s really no big deal. The company denies it does push polling but rather does valid research. READ DETAILS HERE. [...]
November 17th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
“why in Iowa and not in Michigan?”
Good question; Here’s my view.
1) Iowa and New Hampshire are the most involved in the race right now, thus would produce the best data
2) Even if McCain can’t win Iowa or New Hampshire, he still needs a good showing in each to be considered in later states
3) Campaigns tend to drink their own Kool-Aid, so try and tell a McCain supporter that he has no chance in Iowa and New Hampshire
I disagree with Metro about wanting national attention, I believe they actually wanted data.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
bjalder26, ridiculous. They loaded the calling list with key people sure to make this public.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
ACT Blog Says:
November 17th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
At this point, Michigan does not have a primary date – other than the 2/5 fallback. So your date logic does not work.
—-
At the time of the call the 1/15 date was still a real possibility. You make and stop the calls 60+ before the election to avoid legal prosecution, which tells me these guys are based in Michigan.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
But the calls haven’t stopped and they are clearly not for research. One question is “Do you know McCain served in Vietnam and is a war hero?” You have to go to Myammar to find someone who doesn’t know that. Also, there are reports today that McCain is considering pulling out of IA entirely, so the argument that he might be trying to make a respectable showing fails. And Reed has denied having any involvement and called whoever is behind it a bunch of “dumbasses.”
As for Brownback, he is planning to run for governor of Kansas and any funds he has left over can be used for that campaign.
But I really wish someone would explain Romney blaming McCain-Feigngold. It just doesn’t make any sense.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Fletcher, do you have a source on Reed denying it? I believe you, I just would like to read it.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Nevermind, I found it. We can cross them off the list.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
“Of course we have nothing to do with them,†said Rick Reed, a Republican consultant and head of the pro-McCain Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America, in an-email. “First of all, I consider Mitt a friend. Secondly, neither I nor FSPA would engage in anything negative in a primary.â€
Reed, whose group is airing ads in South Carolina in support of the Arizona senator, predicted the calls would backfire. “Incredibly stupid, whoever it was,†he observed.
November 17th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Chris LaCivita, who worked with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in the 2004 presidential race, said he’d be surprised if any of the campaigns were officially behind the mudslinging
“I can’t imagine a presidential campaign sanctioning that type of effort,†LaCivita said. “If they were, then they are the biggest bunch of dumbasses and they have no business being involved at this level of politics.â€
November 17th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Theories abound. The fact that the company contracted to make the calls, Western Wats, is based in Utah and includes some Romney donors on its payroll has spurred some conspiracy-minded observers to wonder if the former Massachusetts governor himself was involved in a dirty trick.
“That’s preposterous,†shot back Romney spokesman Kevin Madden. Asked if they were involved at all, Madden flatly said “no.â€
November 17th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
For now, though, Romney’s campaign is hoping that they can get to the bottom of the calls.
They’re directing those in New Hampshire (where there are strict laws requiring such callers to identify who they’re working on behalf of) who received the calls to the state attorney general’s office, which launched an investigation on Friday.
“We’re getting as much information as possible,†said Madden, the Romney spokesman. “Phone calls leave fingerprints.â€
November 17th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Is the rumor true that more than one company is involved? That the script reported in the media is not exactly the same as the one Western Wats used? How weird is that? What the heck is going on?
November 17th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
One other thing Pat Buchanan said is that when the perps are identified there will be resignations and firings and whatever campaign is tied to them will disavow knowledge. He laughed when he said this because this is how it goes.
Does anyone have a link for the NH statute covering these types of calls? None of the links I tried worked.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Western Wats says the calls were benign. Those who received the calls said they were malicious.
Could we have two different companies making calls? You have a heavily Mormon company making benign calls and another company doing the attacks, so when the media starts looking they focus on the Mormon friendly company. That my friend is an ingenious attack. You do the attack and then you blame the Mormons! Talk about feeding the bigots!
November 17th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Here’s some quotes from pollster.
“The true “push poll” is usually just a question or two: A question about vote preference, the scurrilous attack and then a quick goodbye. Since the “push pollster” does not care about measuring or counting anything, they do not waste time on questions about other issues or demographics.â€
Again with feeling: This particular set of calls sounds more like an ethically questionable “message testing” survey than a classic “push poll.”
“Consider that in a 20-minute interview, a pollster can typically ask 60 to 80 questions.â€
Considering the length of the interview, the fact that only a small number of questions were ant-Mormon or pro-McCain, and considering that a lengthy poll would cost a lot more and reach many fewer people, I think they were seriously trying to collect data.
Who would want to test pro-McCain messages besides a pro-McCain group?
Pollster, thinks a pollster would know better than to ask such questions, unless they were trying to stir up a controversy, so they reach the opposite conclusion, but the interview with a Western Watts employee leads me to believe that they were seriously trying to collect data, and didn’t think it would be controversial.
Honestly, it you look at some of the comments made here, people don’t seem to think this stuff is very controversial unless it’s directly tied to a campaign. I mean, McCain’s own mother said some controversial stuff, but it didn’t make a big splash, because McCain contradicted her right away.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Feltcher, this should help you.
http://www.sos.nh.gov/statutes.htm
NH Law law defines push-polling:
(a) Calling voters on behalf of, in support of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office by telephone; and
(b) Asking questions relative to opposing candidates for public office which state, imply, or convey information about the candidates character, status, or political stance or record; and
(c) Conducting such calling in a manner which is likely to be construed by the voter to be a survey or poll to gather statistical data for entities or organizations which are acting independent of any particular political party, candidate, or interest group.
NH Also says:
664:16-a Identification Required. I. Any person who engages in push-polling, as defined in RSA 664:2, XVII, shall inform any person contacted that the telephone call is being made on behalf of, in support of, or in opposition to a particular candidate for public office, identify that candidate by name, and provide a telephone number from where the push-polling is conducted.
November 17th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
I think I was wrong about the number of pro-McCain & anti-Romney questions. It may have been the meat of the questioning.
It started out like a lot of telephone polls do these days. They wanted to know if I was a caucus goer, and whether I was a regular voter and all that usual stuff. And then it progressed into questions about Mitt Romney, and specifically about the Mormon Church.
The first one, I guess, was innocent enough. It asked a question whether I would be more or less likely to vote for Mitt Romney because he’s Mormon. Well, I guess that’s a fair question, but not necessarily a pertinent question. And then it went on to talk about the philosophy of the Mormon Church. Would I be more or less likely to vote for Mitt Romney based on some of the tenants of the Mormon Church?
[snip]
This telephone interview went on for about 20 minutes. The last half of it were questions directed, they were in a more positive light and they were directed toward John McCain. They asked a question, what if I knew that McCain had some 330-some carrier landings and was a Navy pilot would that make me more or less likely to vote for him. If I knew that John McCain were a prisoner of war in Vietnam would it make me more or less likely to vote for him. Then there was a whole series of questions about John McCain that were very favorable questions about John McCain. It would have led one to believe that John McCain were behind the poll, but that would have been too obvious.
You can listen to a guy who got “polled” here:
http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/files/Watts.mp3
November 17th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
I’m not as sure now, this may have been a “modern push poll”. Long to try and hide the fact that it is a push poll.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
I am calling it right now:
It’s Gary Glenn, Jerry Zandstra, funded by Sam Brownback leftover money from his campaign. They employed two companies. One is Western Wats with a relatively benign call script, and with another call script being pushed by another company.
November 17th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Thanks for the info bjalder26. I plan to do some research on the NH statute because I believe it is unconstitutionally vague (for example, what does character mean?).
November 17th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
[...] negativity, push polls, race42008.com, Sam Stein, western wats In a race42008.com post titled Western Wats Speaks Some More … , the intrepid Justin Hart attempts to diffuse the push-poll scandal [...]
November 18th, 2007 at 3:10 am
Justin
Just found this at CNN:
I received a call like this Thursday night in South Carolina. It was more specifically John McCain positive, Mitt Romney negative. It was done by the Research Data Design Group.
Posted By Gary C, Boiling Springs, SC : November 18, 2007 12:46 am