This past week, a push poll targeting Senate challenger Saqib Ali went out through District 39. That is a sign of rising heat in one of MoCo’s most contentious primaries.
One source described the phone poll as beginning with general questions about several politicians, including Martin O’Malley and Ike Leggett, and then becoming more specific with references to Senator Nancy King and Delegates Ali (who is challenging her) and Kirill Reznik and Charles Barkley. The pollster then asked the resident whether he supported Ali or King. The pollster followed by conveying positive information about King and negative information about Ali and asked if that affected the resident’s voting intentions. Two of the questions asked whether the caller knew that 20-25% of Ali’s money came from Robin Ficker and that Ali cast the deciding vote in favor of slots.
Both statements are factually inaccurate. Ali voted against the slots amendment during the special session and while he voted for the slots implementing bill, it passed by a large margin in the House. And while Ficker supports Ali, the State Board of Elections campaign finance database does not show any contributions from Ficker to Ali.
Another constituent wrote the following angry email to District 39 politicians slamming the poll:From: [Name and Email Withheld]
Reasonable people can disagree about the definition of a push poll. We believe this one qualifies because 1) there is no legitimate reason to contact four people in the same household, and 2) it includes false information about Ali.
Date: Thu, May 27, 2010 at 8:15 PM
Subject: Give me a break.
To: [Withheld]
Hi, my name is [Name Withheld]. I live in your district. Currently, in my home are 4 registered democrats, and each of us received phone calls from ER Surveys yesterday. I have several complaints.
First, the last phone call came at 9:54 p.m. My husband and I were in bed, and did not appreciate being disturbed. I had already taken the survey at 8:00 pm. At that time, I had agreed to take the survey as I like to do my part, and understand the importance of polling. Throughout the survey, I was extremely honest, thoughtful and respectful though by the end of the questioning I felt disrespected because of the exceedingly evident bias towards Nancy King.
The slant of the polling became obvious after just a few questions, as all the questions relevant to Mrs. King seemed to follow the general format: “How important to you is it that Nancy King is responsible for (insert something extremely positive that Nancy King was responsible for here.)”
Meanwhile, I was curious if there would be any questions pertaining to Saqib Ali. The pollster informed me that Mr. Ali would be included, but that the questions would appear in a slightly different format. Several minutes later, after answering several more questions about Nancy King, the pollster finally moved on to the “slightly different” questions concerning Saqib Ali. The general format followed: “How important to you is it that Saqib Ali is responsible for (insert something extremely negative that Saqib Ali was responsible for here.)”
I’m no statistician, but I couldn’t help feeling the questions were prompting specific answers. I felt that I had been manipulated into supporting Nancy King through my answers to questions that were blatantly slanted towards her, while simultaneously being denied the chance to provide positive support for Saqib Ali. I resent that, and I suddenly felt as though I might as well have been on the phone with Rush Limbaugh.
This is not how I want my thoughts projected as our party moves towards November. In addition, all three of my children (well educated, politically active, and loyal to the democratic party) were so disgusted with the poll they refused to take it. There is nothing sadder to me. The success of our party, the democratic party, lies in its ability to attract politically active, saavy, and young individuals, and that ability is compromised if such people are discouraged from participating by cheap polling tricks.
Statistical prompting is a serious no-no, and frankly I’m particularly upset that the bias of the questions was so poorly concealed. It’s one thing when my children, well educated in political science and statistical design, can detect such bias, but it’s another when it’s so obvious even to me. And as far as I’m concerned, no polling place should be calling a family household past 8:00 pm. You ought to be more considerate of young families who may have sleeping children, in addition to those like myself who are tucked in by 9:00 p.m.
Thank you for your time, and cheers to looking forward to your future respect towards mine.
One informant compares this poll to a poll done in the District 20 Senate race in 2006. In that poll, leading questions were asked in favor of Senator Ida Ruben and against challenger Jamie Raskin. The similarities with the current poll point a long finger in the direction of Senate President Mike “Big Daddy” Miller, who supported Ruben in 2006 and supports King now. But let’s emphasize that our sources – including our spies in Annapolis – deny responsibility. We cannot assign blame for the poll to King, Big Daddy or any other particular individual without more evidence.
What is clear is that at least a few people want to keep Saqib Ali out of the Senate VERY badly.
Update: Ali’s campaign is now accusing King of engaging in “Karl Rove-style politics” and spreading lies about his record.
Update 2: Senator King told us she had nothing to do with the poll.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Push Poll Targets Saqib Ali (Two Updates)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I have not contributed to Senator Ali, although I am tempted to do so. It would not surprise me that Senator Miller would try to influence a Montgomery County election because it will be his big push after the elections to try and make Montgomery County assume large teacher pension costs now paid by the state. I am sure that Senator Ali will put his constituents first over any special or outside interest. Robin Ficker
As the Dems move toward their primary in September, many negative as well as positive comments are expected both within and outside the Democratic Party. But we must be conscious of our acts, and be aware of our surroundings as we move toward this most important primary, we must get our facts correct. The causes of the people must take precedent over all of the special interests, if we must build a unified Party. We must keep the Karl Rove political tactics away from the Party. In fact, the Dems'progressives will put every political statement under their microscopes so as to deter would-be politricks.
Art Weah Doe
This serves as a reminder to always inquire about the source of "facts" especially "facts" presented in the guise of any poll. I for one distrust people who call me up to "poll" me having found that 99.99 percent of the time these people are telephone marketing people. If someone wants my vote, let that person or one of his or her reps contact me and ask me politely and directly for it. Maybe I am old school. I don't know. This campaign has nothing whatsoever to do with Robin Flicker, or Senator Miller, or casinos, or Karl Rove.
Nancy King may or may not know who is behind this "push poll".
Regardless, one has but to survey the landscape here to clearly discern which of the two candidates is more qualified, more likely to work enthusiastically, tirelessly, and wholeheartedly, and more conscientiously dedicated to genuinely serving the people of the 39th District. It is also obvious which has better vision, is more innovative, and thinks more outside the traditional "accomplish nothing politics as usual" box.
Nancy King was actually offended that Saqib Ali dared to challenge her for her seat (see the many interviews she gave to The Gazette where she expresses outright contempt for Saqib and literal outrage at his hubris for daring to challenge her, as if she had some sort of special "locked in" contract. The truth, in my opinion, is she has never deserved that seat. Certainly, I see nothing that she has done that demonstrates competences or even ambition and plenty that she has done that evidences a lackadaisical indifference to the electorate, an imperious and angry temperament,just plain poor leadership skills, and downright laziness.
It is time the seat is held by someone who truly does deserve it. Please consider voting for Saqib Ali for Senator if you are a registered Democrat in District 39. He is without question the candidate of choice. I have no doubt that he will deliver and that he will deliver for us honorably, faithfully, diligently, consistently, and over and over and over again.
It appears to me to be simple enough to ascertain who commissioned the poll. I smell a rat, and I intend to find out who it is.
In the meantime, I think it's highly unprofessional to throw around terms like "Rovian" without positive confirmation.
Tom Steele
Montgomery Village MD
I am curious to know what the simple way is that Tom Steele sees to find out who commissioned the poll. Is there some legal registry or requirement that those commissioning such a poll report their identities in the State of Maryland to some independent third party? Short of that, do we know the identities of any of the individuals actually conducting this poll? Are they leaving a return telephone number that we can check to see whose name it is registered in -- and who is in fact paying the bill? Wouldn't we need s subpoena? Would a judge grant a subpoena? What kind of legal bass is there for that? Is there any law requiring that this sort of information be freely available to the electorate at large upon general inquiry? Or is this like the balloting that Senator King favored as Senator where committee roll call votes were conducted in secret behind closed doors and note even her constituents were told whether she had voted for or against specific proposal? I am curious to know just how much "transparency" is currently required under the laws of the State of Maryland when it comes to conducting these sorts of polls and to whom and how those conducting such polls must answer and report back -- and how much that authority is required to under Maryland State Law and the Freedom of Information Act to make instantly available to the electorate at large upon simple request. If anyone has a definitive answer based on expertise in the subect matter, please do let us know. Just how simple is this. I too smell a rat. A VERY BIG RAT. A King rat to be exact -- but last I check the smell test is not probative. At least not without sufficient corrobative evidence -- not even in the "court" of public opinion. Where it is going to count the most in this instance.
Clearly, all that aside, one only need quickly size up the candidates to instantly grasp and see which is by far the superior choice. Nancy King has spent the better part of the past year in denial, chastising Saqib Ali for having the "chutzpah" to run for "her" seat, steadfastly refusing legitimate calls for honest debate from Saqib Ali, refusing to his challenge seriously or see him as bona fide potential candidate (while still telling "The Gazzette" and every other County and State leader that she could possibly get to listen that Saqib was the problem because apparently he didn't seem to know his place -- all the while, Saqib Ali has been out, canvassing his district, knocking cold on door after door, engaging constituents, asking them what their concerns are, asking what he can do to better serve them, listening to his constituency, taking notes. I have personally seen Saqib Ali do this and I must tell you the experience is quite breathtaking; people say "you are the very first elected official who ever came here". "No one ever came before." Saqib's small unpaid volunteer staff spend countless hours locating people who have been "lost" from the voting registration records in the hopes of being sure that everyone is registered to vote.
Saqib Ali and those who work as volunteers on his behalf do not pussy foot around. They show you the respect of calling you and asking you for your vote. That is because Saqib Ali first and foremost cares about the people that he represents; he understand that his district is comprised of people first and then of the physical environs.
The assertion that it comes from "casino money" is preposterous. Saqib Ali is even for getting tough on taxing alcoholic coolers and other beverages such as high alcohol content sugar flavored "beers" -- which are being consumed at an alarming rate by underaged teenage girls while adolescent alcoholism rates in Montgomery County sore (along with early teenage pregnancy rates). Nancy King is on record as being opposed to taxing these "beers" (which are in fact not beer at all) as liquors -- which they ought to be and in fact voted along with Representative Miler to keep these sugary high content alcoholic drinks classified as "beers" so that they could be sold at 7/11 and the like, a move the alcohol industry wanted which is great for profits, lousy for driver safety, lousy for young teenagers especially young girls, and which is a bit of a disaster for me every Saturday morning when I go out alongside the road and find all these empty and half-empty "wine cooler" and other high sugar content high alcohol content "beer" bottles spread all over alongside Father Hurley Boulevard.
Saqib Ali could have taken the easy postion; he could have voted for the "beer" reclassification and put the interests of big alcohol ahead of young teenage girls. But he did not. That is because Saqib Ali is a man of character - Saqib Ali cares about the people he represents. He cares about principals. That is principals, not principles. Saqib strongly favors taxing those wine coolers as liquor. He thinks that big alcohol should pay their fair share. He also thinks the alcohol principles (the people who own these companies) should not be given unfettered license to screw with the principals of young girls. If more young women actually understood that those wine coolers were not "beer" but were in fact very high content alcoholic drnks, would they be as quick to buy them? Perhaps. But perhaps not. And in any case, as a matter of public policy, the State ought not be in the business of pushing these sweet sugary alcoholic drinks off onto young girls. And then blaming the girls for getting drunk, getting pregnant, etc. Nancy King, on the other hand, sees nothing whatsoever wrong with the current status quo tax policies and/or the cycle of blaming the victim. Nor does she even seem to grasp the role the laws she supports play in giving rise to a culture that encourages more of "the bads" -- and does nothing to build towarads new "reinforcers", new incentives, toward real postivie progressive change.
For everyone's sake, please do give Saqib Ali serious consideration and please -- whatever you decide please be sure that you are registered to vote and that you do get out and vote for the primary by Thurs September 15th. If you need the early voting schedule, please check http://montgomerycountymd.gov/eletmpl.asp?url=/content/elections/index.asp,
Apologies for going on forever. Thank you for your patience.
Another amazing thing, when you contact Saqib Ali -- be it via email, voice, or post -- you will be pleasantly surprised to discover that that you are answered almost instantaneously. Sometimes Saqib Ali himself is answering and sometimes it is one of his tireless faithful assistant (often Merry) who is never more than a stone's throw away from Saqib so it might as well be Saqib himself answering. You can take comfort in knowing that you are in fact very much in direct communication with the person who is representing you at this point -- and the speed and efficiency with which Saqib and his staff respond is unrivaled. On the other hand, I have sent Nancy King more than two dozen messages by several means (post, email, and phone) over the past 8 months and thus far she has not once even bothered to acknowledge receipt of one of my messages -- let alone responded to what I had to say. Anecdotal comparisons between my experiences here with numerous others who are communicating with both Senator King and Represntative Ali suggest that my experience is the norm and not the least bit unique -- and further underscores my basic point. NANCY KING DOES NOT CARE ONE IOTA ABOUT THE PEOPLE SHE REPRESENTS.
Even if you contact Saqib by his somewhat "notorious" Facebook page. Some people seen to attack him simply because he is a "real" person -- and yes, he has a real Facebook page. And many times, comments which are attempts at Facebook style humor (some of which are admittedly lame, but human all the same) are taken completely out of proportion. I don't know about you but I find it comforting and reassuring to know that the guy I am voting for is more than just a face on a poster -- that he is a real live flesh and blood human being and he has a somewhat wacked sense of humor (just like me).
In conclusion, I hope that Tom Steele and others who know how to shine a bright light on the source of this push poll will succeed in outing the RAT very soon.
I also hope that everyone in District 39 will take a look at the race going on between these two Democratic contenders in the primary for the nomination to run on the Democratic ticket for the Senate 39th District. Please do not dismiss Saqib Ali simply because Nancy King belittles him because he has the strength of character to challenge her. Saqib is the better choice. He will be a far superior Senator. The reason that he has amassed something like four times the amount of money to run than Senator King has is that Saqib Ali -- unlike Senator King -- is hard-working and has not wasted a minute here. He has canvassed actively and almost religiously and most sincerely with an eye towards understandng where his constituents are at. He has asked for our votes and our contributions and that is how he has raised the funds he has. A few dollars at a time.
Tom Boone -
No one has said anything about "casino money", or anything else. Again, it is highly unprofessional to make spurious accusations without positive confirmation. I'm disappointed that such a charge can be made without proof, and then (quickly) capitalized upon despite the lack of proof.
I continue to hope that this election can be held in the Democratic tradition, and not devolve into name calling and political opportunism; claims of "Rovian tactics" have no place in this primary, especially when the source has not been determined.
It would indeed be unfortunate if either candidate commissioned this survey, and even more unsettling if influences outside of District 39 were seeking to tip this election by using the survey to introduce a wedge issue where none exists.
I intend to go as far as I can to determine the source of this survey. In the meantime, let's stick to the issues at hand.
Tom Steele
Yes, Tom Steele, you are correct. No one has said anything about "casino money". But when these questions are presented in this order, there is an insinuation that money has something to do with a deciding vote (and an underlying insinuation about Robin Flicker's contribution, whatever the sources of her money might be) - insinuation which has nothing whatsoever to do with truth (especially since both statements are simply false on their face). Which is a practice, rightly or wrongly, generally associated with Karl Rove's book of tactics.
Let us please stick to the truth.
Now if you will be so kind as to share with us the simple method of determining who is responsible for commissioning and conducting the push poll? And the identities of the people making these calls?
Many thanks.
What is Ali's position on the Islamic Center at ground zero?
Post a Comment