NY-Sen: There's more to Maloney profile than the "n" word

It seems nobody recognized the bit (4.00 / 4)

about the poll, amidst all the hubbub yesterday.

---

by: devtob @ Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 13:06:55 PM CDT

The point of this diary... (0.00 / 0)

... seems to be to try to front-page the N-word controversy while appearing to be more interested in a poll that is two months old, while also diverting attention from more damaging and more recent independent polls showing Gillibrand still trailing Maloney.

---

by: Hudson @ Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 14:09:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The point of this diary is (4.00 / 6)

that Maloney/Trippi kept secret a damaging poll result, and therefore deceived the press and all of us, too.

Again.

---

by: devtob @ Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 14:32:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My Thoughts On the "N-Word" Gaffe (4.00 / 6)

I don't think Maloney is a racist, and I don't think she'd ever use that word to describe an African American. She was clearly quoting someone who had said that advocating English-only education is the equivalent of calling an African American an N-word.

What I do have a problem with, however, is that she thought that analogy was appropriate enough to merit repeating, and that she lacked the sense to simply say "N-word" instead of actually saying the word.  

---

by: Rufus T. Firefly @ Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 13:41:52 PM CDT

Agreed (4.00 / 3)

and she repeated it without verifying if what she was repeating had any merit or not. She thought it was a good hit on her opponent so she let it fly and suffered the consequences for it.

The Maloney road show clearly consists of the Not Ready for Prime Players. Including Maloney herself.

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 14:04:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It was dumb on Maloney's part. (0.00 / 0)

While I don't agree with the Gillibrand team's response (that the n-word should never be used -- umm, not in discussions of Mark Twain, or in Hip-hop?) -- this was sloppy on Maloney's part. There was nothing to be gained by telling the story in that way, except tainting herself; the facts of Gillibrand's pandering to English Firsters don't need inflammatory embellishing.

That said, I doubt this incident will have much effect on the outcome of the campaign, one way or another, unless Maloney makes the same mistake twice.

---

by: Hudson @ Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 14:04:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The N-word shouldn't be used... (4.00 / 3)

Period. While some rappers might think it's cool to refer to themselves by that name, it is a word that has a long, hate-filled history that should not be repeated.

That said, I will stand by what I said in a comment over at Daily Kos. I don't find it a huge issue. Was it dumb? Yes. Sloppy? Sure. But making it a race issue is absurd.

I have a lot of questions about Maloney, but I don't see her as a racist. I found it to be a poor choice of words, but nothing more.


Support our troops, not the war.

---

by: robert.harding @ Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 14:28:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We agree on one thing, then (4.00 / 1)

Maloney was dumb and sloppy, in telling a reporter an n-word story that she hoped would amplify her all-negative, all-the-time campaign message.

---

by: devtob @ Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 14:39:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But here's the problem (4.00 / 1)

She likened it to calling Puerto Ricans the N word...which doesn't make any sense at all.

Analogy FAIL.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 14:14:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

four words: "she lacked the sense" - say it all! n/t (4.00 / 4)

---

by: janed @ Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 14:06:27 PM CDT

Polls (0.00 / 0)

It's interesting how Gillibrand partisans are so focused on debunking Maloney' internal poll, which is one of the oldest ones out there.

Her camp should be more worried about the many more recent (and totally independent) polls all showing Maloney ahead of Gillibrand, despite KG rolling out one establishment endorsement after another.

I suspect this focus on the so-called "push poll" is a strategy to distract from the more worrisome polls by Siena, Rasmussen, Marist et al. that they don't want people to talk about.

---

by: Hudson @ Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 14:07:20 PM CDT

Hudson, give it up. (0.00 / 0)

I'm not going to further belabor the point about polling this far out being a measure of name recognition, except to say that's why the Schoen poll produced a 2 to 1 lead for Gillibrand when Schumer and Obama came into the equation.

I will however say that your desperation to spin anything and everything against Gillibrand is simply sad. I have no doubt that if another poll came out tomorrow that had Gillibrand leading Maloney by double digits, you'd find some way to spin it as being false while still treating all the other polls as holy writ.  

---

by: Adama D. Brown @ Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 14:30:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Guys, chill. (0.00 / 0)

Well, Adama, thank you for sharing with everyone reading this comment thread your thoughts on what Hudson might do or say in the future.  That's constructive.

A couple of things:

1) Devtob, I think you're misusing the term "push-polling".  A true push-poll claims to be for data collection, but is in fact intended to push the would-be survey respondents directly toward one candidate, not for purposes of the poll result (a true push-poll's results aren't analyzed, as it's actually just a "dirty trick" masquerading as a survey).  A true push-poll, as a result, usually surveys a huuuuuuge number of "respondents" -- the large sample size wouldn't really increase accuracy, it's just because they really do just want to call lots of people to bad-mouth the opposition.  The Maloney poll you're calling a push-poll seems like it was just a message-testing poll -- albeit one that, to your point, was pretty slanted toward Maloney and against Gillibrand.

2) Come on, we're all political junkies, and we all know that selective release of internal polling numbers is a totally standard (if unfortunate) campaign tactic.  Robert is right (in his comments in this thread), releasing internal poll numbers is just hot air.

Look, if folks want to pick sides in this primary, that's totally cool.  But there's no way we need to be hitting each other below the belt on TAP over it.

---

by: Andrew @ Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 15:47:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK, this was a different kind of push poll, (0.00 / 0)

designed to somehow get a result that shows Maloney twice as popular as Gillibrand.

What is "below the belt" about bringing that part of the article to TAP?

---

by: devtob @ Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 16:59:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Below the belt? (4.00 / 2)

If somebody insists on perpetually trying to spin all news, whether it's useful or not, then they should expect to be called on it. Period. This isn't Crossfire, this is serious political discussion. This place is supposed to be about the substance.  

---

by: Adama D. Brown @ Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 23:04:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Understood. (0.00 / 0)

I'm totally with you there, Adama.  I just think we should remember where the lines are is all.  For example, push-polling is a serious accusation to make of Maloney's camp, and per the below from the wiki (if we trust the wiki), I really think that throwing that word around is, well, innacurate spin:

A push poll is a political campaign technique in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. In a push poll, large numbers of respondents are contacted, and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda and rumor mongering, masquerading as a poll... The term is also sometimes used inaccurately to refer to legitimate polls which test political messages, some of which may be negative. Push polling has been condemned by the American Association of Political Consultants, and is illegal in New Hampshire.

This is important because true push-polling is something most mainstream political consultants (Trippi among them, I'm sure) probably wouldn't do.  Calling Maloney's poll a push-poll is harsh to the point of malicious spin.

I agree with you 100%, people should totally be free to call shenanigans on a slanted poll.  I just think we should be above calling each other names, suspecting each others' motives and throwing bad words like push-polling around unless we really mean them.

---

by: Andrew @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:03:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is far from the first time "push poll" has been used in this context. (0.00 / 0)

While I know the definition you're referring to, I've also heard the phrase used going back years to refer to a biased poll that "pushes" the results in the direction that the pollster wants.  

---

by: Adama D. Brown @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 19:00:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Internal Polls... (4.00 / 2)

Are a lot of hot air, in my view. Their sole purpose, it seems, is to try and get a candidate momentum in preparation for the announcement of their candidacy. There are a lot of flaws with internal polls. Maloney's wasn't any different.

You can refer to all the independent polls if you want, but those "leads" that Maloney has are razor-thin. You act as if they are big leads, but some of them are within the margin of error. Every independent poll I have seen to date has Maloney up by only a few points. At this stage, given Maloney's origin (New York City) and her experience, that's nothing to brag about.

I have talked about all the polls that show Gillibrand "trailing" in the past. All of those same polls show Gillibrand's job approval ratings on the rise. I said it long ago, but it should be repeated: The more New Yorkers get to know her, the more you will see New Yorkers support her.  

Support our troops, not the war.

---

by: robert.harding @ Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 14:32:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's interesting how Maloney is trumping a six week old poll (4.00 / 4)

by Doug Schoen no less...I worked for Schoen two years ago when he was polling the Titus/Gibson Nevada Gubernatorial primary for Gibson...they got a result that showed Gibson one point up on Titus with high undecideds and when forced to choose, the undecideds broke for Titus in big numbers.

so of course our next meeting with a conference call with Gibson campaign officials in Nevada was what to do to make the poll results look for favorable for Gibson...and in the event that's not possible, what to do to destroy his opponent and make Gibson look like the only one who is electable.

It's why I never trust internal polls and more so, I never trust Doug Schoen.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 14:36:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Gillibrand's camp shouldn't be (4.00 / 3)

worried about anything. Maloney is clearly not ready for prime time.

---

by: Andrew C. White @ Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 16:51:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Carolyn "N-Word" Maloney (4.00 / 3)

Actually, I think the point of this diary is that Carolyn Maloney is no where near ready for prime time.  It's something a lot of people are beginning to notice.  

Liz Benjamin wrote about it today and she ain't exactly writing about month-old polling:

You don't seem scared by Gillibrand's two-to-one cash advantage, and your staff brushed off the N-word as a minor flap that won't keep you from announcing your candidacy next week.

Still, it couldn't have come at a worse time - hours before former President Bill Clinton appeared at your fund-raiser at the St. Regis Hotel in midtown. You want to talk issues; we want to talk N-word.

Sure, everyone slips up - Bill Clinton is no stranger to verbal blunders. But you're not him, and you can't afford another one. Not when everyone's watching.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

Liz is right.  Maloney better cross her t's and dot her i's.  Oh, and she should come up with a stand on the Farm Bill that benefits upstate farmers PRONTO.

As much as I like the idea of primaries for open seats and as imperfect as Gillibrand is, I hate the thought of a bruising primary even more--where all candidates emerge weakened and beatable by a strong republican/indie candidate.  I don't think I'm wrong when I say that Carolyn Maloney is endangering the senate seat for the democrats.

---

by: HudsonDan @ Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 14:35:36 PM CDT