I really didn't think this contest warranted a thread, but then I picked up the phone tonight and found myself ensnared in a push poll! I haven't gotten a call like that since, sheesh, some mayoral race where Fasi was running (he was the target of the negative push poll, but he won that particular year anyway).
It went something like this: "Who are you voting for in this race?"
"If you knew that Dalton Tanonaka is a really smart guy who's done lots of cool things and has a journalism degree and is really good looking too, would that make you more likely to vote for him?"
"If you knew that Neil Abercrombie was a rude, smelly, Satan-worshiping, puppy-kicking, butt-ugly troll, would that make you less likely to vote for him?"
It was so transparent, and I was bored, so I gave her the exact opposite response she was trained to expect. She was all, "Are you sure? Him? After you learned the truth about Abercrombie's evil ways?" Of course, the pollster wouldn't identify who was sponsoring the poll (not unusual) or even the name of their company (which was a red flag - it sure as hell wasn't Ward Research or SMS!).
A pretty piss poor strategy, in my opinion. Whether or not you like Abercrombie, there's more than enough actual substance with which to draw an adequate contrast without getting sneaky. If the race was between two unknowns, that's one thing, but there's actual stuff out there (Abercrombie's vote on the Iraq defense appropriation the most divisive) to work with, to compare records.
Unless, of course, you don't have a record.
It went something like this: "Who are you voting for in this race?"
"If you knew that Dalton Tanonaka is a really smart guy who's done lots of cool things and has a journalism degree and is really good looking too, would that make you more likely to vote for him?"
"If you knew that Neil Abercrombie was a rude, smelly, Satan-worshiping, puppy-kicking, butt-ugly troll, would that make you less likely to vote for him?"
It was so transparent, and I was bored, so I gave her the exact opposite response she was trained to expect. She was all, "Are you sure? Him? After you learned the truth about Abercrombie's evil ways?" Of course, the pollster wouldn't identify who was sponsoring the poll (not unusual) or even the name of their company (which was a red flag - it sure as hell wasn't Ward Research or SMS!).
A pretty piss poor strategy, in my opinion. Whether or not you like Abercrombie, there's more than enough actual substance with which to draw an adequate contrast without getting sneaky. If the race was between two unknowns, that's one thing, but there's actual stuff out there (Abercrombie's vote on the Iraq defense appropriation the most divisive) to work with, to compare records.
Unless, of course, you don't have a record.
Comment