Sad....Dirty tricks against Edwards...

[CoffeeCat]

Being in Iowa, I'm asked to participate in phone polls a few times
a week, due to the caucuses.

Tonight I answered the phone and was asked to participate
in a quick poll conducted by "National Research." I was asked if
I would attend the caucuses. I answered 'yes'. I was asked who I would
support. I said I was leaning toward Edwards. The pollster wanted to know
if I was firm in my choice or if I could possibly change my mind. I said
I could change my mind.

Then I was asked this:

"What is your greatest concern about Edwards...That he is perceived as being
too liberal and could not win the general election, or that he and his wife
Elizabeth continued campaigning after she was diagnosed with cancer?

I said, "I'm not in the least bit concerned about those things."

The woman said, "Ok thank you for your time."

I find this really sad and underhanded. Someone is trying to instill doubt
about Edward by exploiting Elizabeth's diagnosis of cancer. If anything, I have
more respect for Edwards and his wife--for staying strong and keeping focused.

I'm still undecided about my final choice, but one thing is for certain whoever
commissioned this poll is a weak, amoral, and heartless opportunist who doesn't
deserve to breath the same air as John and Elizabeth Edwards.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Push polling.

Evil shit no matter who does it.

[iamjoy]

2. That Is Called A Push Poll

sound eerily like eight years ago when South Carolina Republican primary voters were asked if it would bother them if they found out that a presidential candidate had a black love child or if they were worried the years as a POW had made him mentally unbalanced.

[me b zola]

57. Right, and it wasn't the Dems behind that it was "the chosen" repub--bush*

It is sick to see the nastiest of republican tactics--and policies--contaminate the Democratic Party.

[rwheeler31]

3. Man she is sick,and they deal with it in the brave and honest way.

These sleezballs hate us.

[hlthe2b]

4. Ugly business....

But to fellow Dems ready to tar & feather one suspect candidate or another as having been behind this, I'd remind you that the Repugs have reason to do this, even at the primary stage--maybe especially at the primary stage in order to ensure they run against their preferred opponent.

[CoffeeCat]

7. Yes....

I agree that it's either a Republican who doesn't want to run against Edwards because
they someone else to be the Dem nominee;

Or it's a Democrat playing dirty tricks.

Since I'm leaning toward Edwards, my sense is that Edwards is gaining ground--possibly
doing well in Iowa.

Why waste time trying to disparage someone who isn't a threat?

I know this poll was terrible. However, the silver lining is that someone is
Edwards must be gaining support.

His speech was amazing at the Jefferson/Jackson Day Dinner. Possibly he gained
ground--while other candidates are fizzling--and this is an attempt to knock that
down.

It's pretty pathetic. It's also pretty foolish. Almost everyone has known
someone with cancer. People empathize with cancer survivors and those who
have the courage to wage this battle. This "push poll" will probably
backfire--reminding everyone that Edwards is strong in the face of adversity.

You gotta wonder what brain-trust makes these really stupid decisions?

[AnneD]

48. This is a page for the GOP hand book...

to win an election-pick your opposition.

Mark my words....

Obama, while good, has too little experience and will not carry many areas of the country (the deep South)

Clinton will unite everyone......in the conservative movement. Heck they are already running against her and trying to use her to unit the fractured conservative coalition now. It will be worse once she IS the DEM candidate.

Edwards is the candidate they don't want to face. He's relatively clean and he punches back. And let's face it-they don't/can't smear Elizabeth like they would like to.

They want to strangle his campaign in it's infancy-like the did with Muskie.

[Catchawave]

5. There's a diary about this at MyDD:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/11/13/154227/81


Bless your hearts in Iowa, the phones must be ringing off the hook ! I don't like this kind of campaigning at all.

[originalpckelly]

10. The entry on the diary says "Central Research"

I'm very curious, they have different names, but there is an odd similarity.

[CoffeeCat]

13. You know what...it could have been Central Research...

My kids were jumping on the bed when I answered the phone
and I was struggling to listen to the first 15 seconds of the
call. This is when the caller (a woman) identified herself
as a pollster from the company. It very well could have been
Central Research.

[Renew Deal]

6. Edwards must be really taking off if they're push polling against him.

Who would be doing it??? Hillary or Obama? It's possible that Edwards is doing it since it's so mild, but I doubt it.

[Mutineer]

11. Do you even have to ask? n/t

[Glimmer of Hope]

8. That is so sleazy.

[originalpckelly]

9. Save the number if you have a caller ID. Look into contacting the Federal Elections Commission...

I think this is at least unethical, and it may be illegal. I'm curious as to who is backing "National Research" and I'm looking into it myself. But please save that number.

[AlCzervik]

12. give us the phone number so we can look it up--please? Maybe a pm, i love oppo research.

[CoffeeCat]

14. Ok, I * 69'd the number....

...and I was given a number.

I looked up the number on a reverse-phone-number search, and it says
the number is a residential phone in Naperville, Illinois!

That's really odd.

[AlCzervik]

15. no kidding? Wow thats a really dumb way to push poll.

[CoffeeCat]

18. I apologize...wrong number!

I am so sorry for the chaos here, but I just asked my husband
if we received any phone calls and he said we got a telemarketing
call from someone asking us about contact lenses!

The Naperville number is not the push poll #! I'm so sorry.

I don't have caller ID, either--so I don't have the #.

Again, my apologies for the error.

[AlCzervik]

19. no worries.

:)

[originalpckelly]

23. Hey that's cool. I'm trying to go by what I've found so far...

and I have found one lead, possibly, to a Central Research, Inc.

I'm going to keep looking, because I'm not certain if this is tied to what you're talking about, that could be a completely unrelated company, the way I found it was through the Iowa Secretary of State's business name database.

I've done a lot of investigations, and I have turned up a lot of bad leads sometimes, so I'm going to wait before I say more.

[originalpckelly]

16. Are you absolutely certain it was "National Research" and not "Central Research"?

I say this because in this MyDD diary, another Iowan says they were contacted by "Central Research" which is somehow tied to Republicans, they might be pulling dirty tricks again.

[CoffeeCat]

20. I posted above, that during the first...

...15 seconds or so of the call, I struggled to hear because my
two young girls were screaming and jumping on the bed. It could
very well have been Central Research.

The wording of the question that I was asked about Edwards was identical
to the person on MyDD diary.

[originalpckelly]

24. Dayum, this is really interesting...I saw that other post too...

I'm working on this for you, it seems it might be Republican stuff. I wonder if this isn't an attempt to mold our primaries to give the Republicans a good candidate to run against?

[rurallib]

17. I got the same call. They had a shot about Hillary first

Then asked the same Edwards question. As you did I said neither of those things mattered and they hung up.
I always try to find out where they are calling from, the name of the company and if they could tell me who they are working for. They did tell me they were calling from Columbus Ohio.

[CoffeeCat]

22. Do you have caller ID...

...or can you *69 them?

At the end, I asked who was conducting this poll. I asked if a candidate
commissioned the poll and she said, "We're a bipartisan organization." I remember
thinking...what in the heck does that mean?

It sounded like she was reading off of a script. The organization must do "polling"
for both Dems and Reps.

[rurallib]

33. no caller ID

[Poiuyt]

78. Bipartisan organization? They're into weird sex????

[originalpckelly]

26. I'd like to ask you some questions...

1. When did you get the call?
2. Do you have caller id, and if so what is the number of the company?
3. Was the name of the pollster's company "National" or "Central" Research?

I'm going to look for business records in Ohio to see if I can't find this company there and maybe find some links on its owners to whatever campaign may be doing this.

[kelligesq]

42. therefore ,it must be Obama's campaign paying for the push poll.

.

[L. Coyote]

21. I've been getting Edwards SPAM lately, designed to make one oppose Edwards.

They mixed an Edwards message with credit card stuff! Strange stuff.

[originalpckelly]

27. I'm curious about this, could you explain more?

I'm assuming this is direct mail right?
What does it say?
Who is it from, is that information even given?
When did you receive it?

[L. Coyote]

62. Received: from 66.78.8.191 (HELO mx191.about2light.info)

TO: [e-mail] via 206.190.38.134; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 05:29:24 -0800
X-YahooFilteredBulk: 66.78.8.191
X-Originating-IP: <66.78.8.191>
Return-Path: <1-340469-yahoo.com?[e-mail]>
Authentication-Results: mta325.mail.mud.yahoo.com from=about2light.info; domainkeys=pass (ok)
Received: from 66.78.8.191 (HELO mx191.about2light.info) (66.78.8.191) by mta325.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; Mon, 12 Nov 2007 05:29:23 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple; d=about2light.info; h=from:to:subject:content-type:date:message-id; q=dns/txt; s=s512; bh=j8pR6aKQmhUNb9eX6w1V/plca8Y=; b=MlaxSBBQXlx7M2GbelocBJK+Gu6WCuEJesTpN0o0s9pdK+760WZTFfOTRhnzPnv290NJNcH4flM0e2bzmDseKA==;
Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=simple; s=s512; d=about2light.info; b=G9+wT/88Fqtoc7PI8sMT9pMkEwnC7F9ca//AGt4HO9x+fuvMBcp63PP31P4TtU8H+dpnS2uElNfIZFpA9GkPtA==;
Received: from mx191.about2light.info <66.78.8.191> by about2light.info <66.78.8.191>; Sun, 2 Dec 2007 00:39:37 EST
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Next President" <[e-mail]>
Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by about2light.info.
To: [e-mail]
Subject: xxxxyzzzz We want you to decide will Edwards win the 2008 election?
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-=c576a06651e49519d7d33f617f699650";
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 00:39:37 EST
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Mailer: 3.4.0-51
Content-Length: 1595

You decide will Edwards win the 2008 election Click Here



To no longer receive Advertisements from us Click here to unsubscribe, or write: BMM 2207 Concord Pike, #651 Wilmington, DE 19803

<1;6gUgf708bNJfL00P70h;340469>

=============================
The originating IP is:
OrgName: Virtual Development INC
OrgID: VDI
Address: 1373 Broad St
City: Clifton
StateProv: NJ
PostalCode: 07011
Country: US

NetRange: 66.78.0.0 - 66.78.63.255

[originalpckelly]

75. This is internet stuff, it's more traceable...

but I'm checking out what the survey was like, to see what you mean.

[originalpckelly]

76. Yeah, my guess is that it's not political at all.

I deduce that they are sucking people there with polls about various candidates. This domain name has been registered to eSolutions Media since 2005. Get what I mean? It's just a spam company, not a political company.

These are other domain names (web addresses) that they have registered:

hostnames sharing ip with a-records:
e-researchgroup.com
fantasyfreebies.net
freebiecentral.net
freeproductvouchers.com

domains sharing nameservers:
buildbettercredit.net
chargecards.com
esmcs.net
esmpa.net
esolutionsmedia.net
everything4babies.net
infothatworks.net
myperfectvacation.net
startlosingweight.net
winkmail.net

None of them sound political except "e-researchgroup.com" and that sounds like another spam address.

Here is their website as obtained from the lists above:
http://esolutionsmedia.net/

[Divine Discontent]

25. thanks for taking the time to tell us..

you should email the Edwards campaign this text of yours.

it is VILE what some groups do to try and get the answers they want...

[originalpckelly]

28. I think I may possibly have a lead for you, it was under National Research:

1. Another poster in this thread has indicated a similar call, but was able to obtain the origin of the call from the pollster on the phone: Columbus, Ohio.

2. I went to the Ohio Secretary of State's website, and just like most other Secretaries of State in other states, she has a database of registered businesses.

3. In that business name database, I searched for "National Research" and received 22 hits, but it appears that there is actually only one hit that is currently active: "National Research, Inc."

4. National Research, Inc. is registered to a man by the name of David M. McCurdy in Grandview Heights, Ohio.

5. Grandview Heights is located directly next to Columbus, Ohio.

6. Columbus, Ohio is the location of the company that made the telephone polling calls, we know that because the other poster managed to get that out of the person calling them on the phone.

7. I'm going to leap and assume this is the same company.


In addition to the above, I did some digging on David M. McCurdy:
1. I looked him up in the Federal Elections Commission database. It appears he was in there, as there is a donation that has the location of "Columbus, Ohio".

2. He is listed in that donation as working for "Kimball Midwest" as a "Manager".

3. The donation was to Deborah Pryce (a Republican!) and was made in 2006.

Interestingly enough, the former name of "National Research, Inc." was "Kimball Research, Inc."

Starting to get the picture here?

This is push poll, done by a company whose registered agent is a Republican donor and is in management at a Kimball Midwest, a company that has an oddly similar name to the original name of National Research, Inc.

I'm so fucking calling Hillary Clinton's and John Edward's campaigns tomorrow and telling them about this.

This is fucking BIG I TELLS YA! Get the message out!

[MalloyLiberal]

29. Please do call the campaigns, esp Edwards, its uncalled for

[originalpckelly]

30. There is yet another "National Research, Inc." that I found through google...

only it appears to be based out of New Jersey. Before I call anyone, or draw anymore conclusions, I'm going to check into this business, and see if the two aren't related somehow.

[PollThis]

52. You are on the ball. Good find. nt

[Jelybe903]

31. I heard this comment from a loyal Rush L. listener recently

Edwards is the only canidate still walking the high road. His comments on oponents are based on their own public service records...
How amazing that they would actually use a right wing bias ideology against a member of their own party...Edwards has never flipped or flopped on positions or ideals...He is not a seasoned politician but he has no problem letting you know exactly where he stands...He has common sense and goals in common with average working Americans....TOO LIBERAL...yeah let the right wing run!

[Nutmegger]

32. That is absolutely DISGUSTING!

:puke:

Thank you for reporting it here.

[MiniMe]

34. I'm sure that if you had answered any other Dem candidate,

that they would have had the same type of questions prepared for them. IOW, I don't think this is just an Edwards thing, that is just what your answer was to question 1.

[Catchawave]

35. "Morning Joe" is discussing this now !

They all agree it's disgusting politics and hope they find who hired this company.

[Beaverhausen]

36. this is fucked up

I really hope they find out who is behind it.

[Clintonista2]

37. This is one of the most sickening things I have heard this primary

[tammywammy]

38. I hope they find out who's doing this

It's disgusting.

[hedgehog]

39. Someone is paying for this. We need to find out who. nt

[Blackhatjack]

44. Of course you are right to follow the $. It is a 'push poll' --best $ can buy. n/t

[hedgehog]

47. Whoever is paying for this needs to get a good slap down.

Although I suspect it'll turn out to be some kind of pseudo independent organization that can't be tied back to anyone in particular.

[Fierce]

40. Whenever I'm phone-polled,

I say, "I'll answer if you'll tell me who this is for." Sometimes they'll say they won't until after I answer, and that's cool. If they won't tell you -- or say they will and then don't -- then you know you've got trouble.

[earth mom]

41. This tells me beyond a doubt that Edwards is a HUGE threat.

Well too damn bad Hillary & Obama!

[HowHasItComeToThis]

43. PATHETIC

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[Froward69]

45. REC #11 This tells me

Just how bad the rethugs want Hillary as the nominee. I have similar info from Biden supporters. and My friend in Iowa who is a Hillary fan says they were cordial to her about her choice. and encouraged her to Caucus for hillary. I contacted her (yet again) in reference to The Biden post.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=404x3654

[Scriptor Ignotus]

46. that's terrible

i hope to dear lord Obama's staff had nothing to do with that.

[saracat]

49. Sounds like a Mark Penn strategy to me!

[PollThis]

51. Bingo.........nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

50. Edwards has my vote since Gore decided not too run! I really like Edwards.

Go Hillary! :sarcasm: Thanks for nothing Corporate Owned Whore Media! :banghead:

[illinoisprogressive]

53. someone is trying to start a fight between edwards and obama and supporters.

[Snotcicles]

54. Thanks for posting this you have inspired me to send his campaign another

Fifty bucks. And now that he gets matching funds that counts as one hundred bucks.
I can't really afford it but I look at it as an investment in our future, so I guess I can't afford not to.

[creeksneakers2]

55. Edwards is by far the likeliest culprit. Look who benefits

First, the messages about Hillary. They include the item - Hillary takes lobbyist money. A central Edwards issue against Hillary. That benefits Edwards.

Second, nothing about Obama. That makes it look like the calls are coming from Obama. That benefits Edwards.

Third, and most obvious, is the shocking questions about Edwards. Everybody who receives these calls is outraged by the Elizabeth's cancer question and very angry at either Hillary or Obama, whichever one the person who answers blames, and who will be blamed on the Internet ruckus. That benefits Edwards.

There is no way Obama or Hillary are dumb enough to provoke that kind of outrage against themselves by making an issue of Edwards' wife's cancer. The reactions Edwards would wish to produce are the ones that are dominating the net. Most harsh posts are directed toward Obama.

Fourth: Politico, Taylor Marsh and left wing talk shows are tracking down the pollster to somebody who has been affiliated with the Edwards campaign.

Fifth: Edwards is desperate and lying all the time now. He's the only Democrat in the race who is enough of a scumbag to pull something like this.

ON THE OTHER HAND:

It could also be a GOP trick to make Democrats hate each other.

[Beaverhausen]

56. That is totally ridiculous

Edwards is not desperate. The top three candidates are in a virutal tie in Iowa. No way he would do this.

[creeksneakers2]

58. Edwards has to win Iowa or he's out. n/t

[Beaverhausen]

59. so explain this

I have read several accounts by different people who have gotten these calls- one just posted in GD-P.

When the person called identifies themselves as an Edwards supporter, why then would they still be asked those leading questions if this was indeed being paid for by the Edwards campaign? It makes no sense.

And he will win in Iowa.

[creeksneakers2]

60. I explained it above

Nobody is going to be persuaded by the "too liberal" question to vote against Edwards. Other blogs have learned the the people being called were pulled from a list of active Democrats. Active Democrats are highly unlikely to vote against a candidate for being too liberal. Conservative maybe.

Nobody is going to vote against Edwards based on his wife's cancer. Everybody on the net who has reported receiving one of the calls said they were outraged by the question. Its obvious somebody being asked that question would react that way. Any professional pol would surely know this. Asking about Edwards rules Edwards out as the source of the call in the recipient's mind. The anger about the cancer question will be turned toward Clinton or Obama, whichever the caller decides to blame. Edwards wins either way.

This is more than hypothetical. The reactions I describe are the ones people who received the calls had. They benefit Edwards.

[Mythsaje]

63. Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Any more convoluted and we'll be talking about iocaine powder and convicts in Australia.

:eyes:

[creeksneakers2]

65. I gave the simplest and most obvious explanation n/t

[Beaverhausen]

74. Why would the Edwards campaign waste time on people who already support him?

I have heard some pretzel logic in my day, but this takes the cake.

[creeksneakers2]

79. They only ask Edwards supporters the Hillary questions

They slug Hillary and test for reaction.

See post #70 below. They aren't all that interested in Edwards supporters.

[Faryn Balyncd]

61. HUGE: Why is a Republican polling firm push polling Democrats in Iowa?

This seems to be the source of the polling:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2281157

[Froward69]

64. Hillary hillary hillary all the time.

She is whom the rethugs want as their opponent.

[NNN0LHI]

66. That could very well be true

The child molesting, toilet toe tapping, diaper wearing Republican freaks are very likely to also be into sadomasochism.

She will whip their asses real good next year if that is what they desire.

Don

[Froward69]

67. I really do not think

She has the bal' um "intestinal fortitude" to truly defend herself against their (rethug) attacks. as her campaign is telling her fans to ignore debate, and she won't answer a question straight. thus she is not strengthening her armor. (now whilst the attacks are mild in comparison) therefore she will be unprepared when the battle with real weapons occurs. (sorry just the truth)

[NNN0LHI]

68. (sorry just the truth)

I trust my truth more.

Don

[Froward69]

69. we shall see

when she is nominated and we loose the GE. I will not ever let any known supporter (of hers) forget the mistake.

[NNN0LHI]

71. Going to run around and find all of them and rub it in their faces eh?

Wow!

Industrious.

Don

[Froward69]

72. I am just tired of us Dems shooting ourselves in the foot

nominating bozos. the repugs seem to be able to get away with it...

[progressoid]

70. Ha! They hung up on me!

Almost the same scenario for me. Except after I said I was leaning toward Edwards, the questioner asked if I had a second choice.

When I replied, "not yet", she hung up!

[originalpckelly]

77. Did you find out who the call was supposed to be from? (In other words what company or campaign?)

Did you get to find that out, or did they hang up on you first?

[progressoid]

80. I believe she said "NPO"

I've gotten a few push polls in the past but never one so blatant and rude.
I think I'm going to stop answering phone polls.

[KittyWampus]

73. What were the other questions? This has already been reported here. There were other

questions. What were they?