Hello! May I ask you a few completely neutral questions about the primary?
As many of us know, push-polling has a long and sordid history. For those of you who don’t know the term, a push-poll is a phony poll that is not intended to gain objective data about voter opinion, but is instead deviously meant to “push” voter opinion through the use of slanted questions. You think you are getting polled, but actually you are getting rolled. But what happens if you call someone who knows how to see through a bluff?
Evidently, some push-polling is now occurring in Nevada, but at least one of those calls did not go as planned. Nolan Dalla is a writer for the World Series of Poker. This primary season, Dalla has placed his chips (ha ha) on Bernie, and he was not too pleased with being push-polled. It doesn’t seem to have been a pleasant experience for the push-poller either.
The whole account may be read here:
I Just Got Push-Polled by Hillary Clinton's Nevada Campaign
And if you want just a taste of the conversation as recounted by Dalla, here’s a nice excerpt:
INTERVIEWER: “Hmmm, okay. So, what if I were to tell you The Washington Post said that Bernie Sanders’ campaign promises would cost more than $20 trillion and would raise everyone’s taxes — would you now be “more likely’ or ‘less likely” to vote for Sanders, or has your opinion remained unchanged?”
ME: “That’s not accurate at all. I read that editorial last week. I could tear that completely to shreds. How much time DO YOU HAVE? Let me to set the record straight and explain to you how The Post post misrepresented several of Sanders policy positions.”
INTERVIEWER: “Ummmmm. Uhhhhhhh. So, would you now be “more likely’ or ‘less likely” to vote for Sanders, or has your opinion remained unchanged?”
ME: “My position remains unchanged, because the premise of the question isn’t just misleading. It’s wrong. Do you understand that?”
INTERVIEWER: “Uhhh, what if I were to tell you The New York Times expressed serious reservations about Bernie Sanders being able to work with Congress and described him as ‘divisive’ — would you now be “more likely’ or ‘less likely” to vote for Sanders, or has your opinion remained unchanged?”
ME: “You mean Sanders would be more divisive than Hillary Clinton? Huh? Seriously? Has the esteemed New York Times been paying attention to politics in this country for the past 25 years since the Clintons dynasty emerged as national political figures?
You gotta know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em….
